Wetland compensation plan : LNG Canada Export Terminal · 2015-01-08 · LNG Canada Export Terminal...

The copyright of this document is vested in LNG Canada Development Inc. All rights reserved.

Wetland Compensation Plan

LNG Canada Export Terminal

November 2014



Authorship

November 2014

Project No. 1231-10458i

AUTHORSHIP

Nicole Tennant, B.Sc., Dip.Tech, RPBio......................................................................... Author

Matthew Ramsay, M.Sc., P.Ag....................................................................................Reviewer



Authorship

November 2014

Project No. 1231-10458ii



Executive Summary

November 2014

Project No. 1231-10458iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

LNG Canada Development Inc. (LNG Canada) is proposing to develop a liquefied natural gas (LNG)

production and export terminal, referred to as the LNG Canada Export Terminal (the Project), to be

located in the District of Kitimat, British Columbia (BC).

The Project is subject to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act 2012 substitution requirements. The Project footprint is

approximately 429 ha, including project facilities, temporary workforce accomodation, access roads,

and an area of potential tree clearing that may be required for safety setback. Site preparation within

the footprint will result in an unavoidable loss of approximately 84 ha of wetlands.

Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service guidance indicates that the Federal Policy on

Wetland Conservation (1991; the Policy) applies to the Project due to the potential effects on wetland

functions and because federal decisions would be required before the Project could proceed (e.g.,

issuance of federal authorizations and permits). The Policy includes the goal of no net loss of

wetland functions within specific circumstances, such as:

wetlands that are ecologically or socioeconomically important to a region, which include

provincially red- and blue-listed wetlands and estuarine wetland communities, and

where wetland functions coincide with areas of federal jurisdiction such as habitat for

species listed under the Species At Risk Act, and migratory birds considered under the

Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Of the 84 ha of wetland affected within the Project footprint, 40 ha are provincially red- or blue-listed

or estuarine (or both) and, therefore, are subject to the no net loss goal of the Policy. Approximately

8 ha of estuarine habitat supporting wildlife functions will be offset within the Fisheries Habitat

Offsetting Plan for this Project. To avoid counting the loss of wetland twice, the 8 ha was subtracted

from the area required in this wetland compensation plan. The net area of wetlands requiring

compensation is 32 ha. These wetlands support hydrological, biochemical, and habitat ecological

functions. A 2:1 ratio (wetland functions replaced: wetland functions lost) will be applied, totaling 64

ha of compensatory wetlands and associated functions.



Executive Summary

November 2014

Project No. 1231-10458iv

To offset the loss of wetland functions, LNG Canada provides this wetland compensation plan,

which includes the following components:

In-lieu fees to an environmental non-governmental organization with an established

record of successfully delivering wetland offsets in western Canada (ENGO wetland

compensation delivery agent) to deliver land securement and the restoration,

enhancement and/or creation of 64 ha of high-quality wetlands through a legally-binding

agreement with LNG Canada, and,

The ENGO wetland compensation delivery agent will develop a wetland monitoring

program as part of their off-site wetland compensation program in accordance with this

compensation plan and agreements with LNG Canada

Local opportunities to implement wetland compensation will continue to be sought based on input

from potentially affected Aboriginal groups, local environmental groups, and Environment

Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service.

Overall, the proposed compensation plan is expected to result in no net loss of wetland functions

within the applicable terms of the Policy.



Acronyms and Abbreviations

November 2014

Project No. 1231-10458v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIR................................................................................. Application Information Requirements

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

CWHvm1 ..............................................Coastal Western Hemlock very wet maritime subzone

ha..................................................................................................................................hectares

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

LNG Canada............................................................................ LNG Canada Development Inc.

LSA................................................................................................................... local study area

Project ........................................................................................ LNG Canada Export Terminal

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

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

The Policy.......................................................Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (1991)



Acronyms and Abbreviations

November 2014

Project No. 1231-10458vi



Table of Contents

November 2014

Project No. 1231-10458vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 11

Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 11.1

Policy Context ................................................................................................................ 11.2

Methods ......................................................................................................................... 41.3

Wetland Resources................................................................................................................ 72

Wetland Extent............................................................................................................... 72.1

Wetland Function ........................................................................................................... 82.2

Wetlands Subject to the Policy .................................................................................... 102.3

Framework for Wetland Compensation............................................................................. 133

Mitigation Hierarchy ..................................................................................................... 133.1

Assessing Wetland Functions...................................................................................... 133.2

Wetland Compensation Location, Type, and Amount ................................................. 143.3

Wetland Compensation Plan for the Project..................................................................... 174

Wetland Compensation Criteria and Process.............................................................. 174.1

Wetland Balance .......................................................................................................... 184.2

Monitoring Program...................................................................................................... 194.3

Summary...................................................................................................................... 194.4

Closure.................................................................................................................................. 215

References............................................................................................................................ 236

Literature Cited............................................................................................................. 236.1

Figures .................................................................................................................................. 257

List of Tables

Table 2.1-1: Wetland Loss within the Project Footprint Compared to the LSA .............................. 7

Table 2.3-1 Ecologically or Socioeconomically Important Wetlands ........................................... 11

Table 4.1-1: Type and Amount of Wetland Compensation........................................................... 19



Table of Contents

November 2014

Project No. 1231-10458viii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1-1: Project Location Map ................................................................................................ 26

Figure 1.1-2: Terrestrial Local Study Area – Vegetation Resources.............................................. 27

Figure 2.1-1: Wetland Distribution in the Project Footprint ............................................................ 29



Section 1: Introduction

November 2014

Project No. 1231-104581

INTRODUCTION1

Project Overview1.1

LNG Canada Development Inc. (LNG Canada) is proposing to construct and operate a liquefied

natural gas (LNG) export facility, the LNG Canada Export Terminal (the Project), that will consist of

an LNG processing and storage site and marine terminal for exporting LNG via shipping. This Project

is located in the District of Kitimat, British Columbia (BC) (Figure 1.1-1). It lies within the Coastal

Western Hemlock Very Wet Maritime (CWHvm1) biogeoclimatic variant.

The Project footprint is 429 hectares (ha): 408 ha will require complete vegetation clearing, grading,

and replacement with infrastructure (termed Project facility), and 21 ha located within a safety

setback may require tree-clearing only (termed tree clearing area) where shrub and herb vegetation

would remain and no ground disturbance will occur (Figure 1.1-2). The terrestrial local study area

(LSA) is 786 ha, encompassing the Project footprint plus a 120 m buffer, large enough to account for

direct and indirect effects.

Project activities will lead to the unavoidable loss of approximately 84 ha of wetlands and their

attendant functions. Stantec has prepared this Wetland Compensation Plan on behalf of LNG

Canada to describe the measures proposed to offset the residual loss of wetland functions

associated with the Project.

Policy Context1.2

The Project is subject to both the BC Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act 2012. Environment Canada’s regional office of the Canadian

Wildlife Service advised that based on the Project description, wetland baseline information, and

requirements for a federal authorization, the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation

(Government of Canada 1991), hereafter referred to as the Policy, would apply (Environment

Canada 2014).

The Policy was adopted by the Government of Canada in 1991 as a commitment to promoting

wetland conservation within all federal decisions and responsibilities. Although it is not a regulatory

document, the Cabinet-level direction has been to apply this Policy to all federal policies, plans,

programs, projects and activities (Lynch-Stewart et al. 1996).

The Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada is responsible for coordinating the

implementation of the Policy whenever federal corporations, agents or authorities are making




November 2014

Project No. 1231-104582

decisions that may affect wetlands such as granting permits, constructing facilities, leasing Crown

land, or conducting land use planning.

The Policy commits all federal departments to the goal of no net loss of wetland functions where

any of the following conditions apply:

i. on federal lands and waters,

ii. in areas affected by the implementation of federal programs where the continuing loss or

degradation of wetlands has reached critical levels, and

iii. where federal activities affect wetlands designated as ecologically or socioeconomically

important to a region.

The issuance of a federal authorization or permit, such as a Fisheries Act authorization or a disposal

at sea permit, represents a federal activity that would enable the Project to proceed and, thereby,

affect wetlands and their functions and bring the Policy into effect for the Project.

In BC, wetlands designated as ecologically or socioeconomically important to a region are defined

as:

provincially red- (threatened or endangered) and blue-listed (of special concern)

wetland ecological communities

estuaries, as identified by the Pacific Estuary Conservation Program

areas of continental or regional significance to waterfowl within the Habitat Joint Venture

planning boundaries of BC [for this Project, the Pacific Coast Joint Venture applies], and

all eelgrass (Zostera subspecies) beds (Environment Canada 2014).

Red-listed, blue-listed, and estuarine wetlands occur in the Project footprint. Estuaries are also

considered areas of regional significance to waterfowl within the Pacific Coast Joint Venture delivery

area. The Pacific Coast Joint Venture is one of 22 regional partnerships established to conserve

habitat for birds and wildlife across North America. Together, these joint ventures are called the

Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (MBJV 2014). Eelgrass beds occur within the LSA; however, they are

addressed within the scope of the marine fish and fish habitat environment assessment and

associated offsetting plan.

For projects on non-federal lands and waters, as is the case for the Project, wetland losses are

evaluated in terms of the scope of any federal permits, licenses, authorizations and other

instruments under federal jurisdiction that may be applicable and where the associated wetland

functions support areas of federal jurisdiction (such as habitat for migratory birds and species at

risk). All wetlands within the Project footprint and LSA support migratory birds and some support




November 2014

Project No. 1231-104583

wildlife species on Schedule I of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), thereby, supporting wetland

functions that correspond to areas of federal regulatory jurisdiction.

The Policy’s objective, goals and strategies emphasize consideration of wetland functions, rather

than wetland area as such. Under the Policy, wetland functions include:

“the natural processes and derivations of benefits and values associated with

wetland ecosystems, including economic production (e.g., peat, agricultural crops,

wild rice, peatland forest products), fish and wildlife habitat, organic carbon storage,

water supply and purification (groundwater recharge, flood control, maintenance of

flow regimes, shoreline erosion buffering), and soil and water conservation as well

as tourism, heritage, recreational, educational, scientific, and aesthetic

opportunities” (Government of Canada 1991).

The Policy’s definition of wetland functions includes both “wetland ecological functions” and

“wetland values” as these two terms have more-recently come to refer to different concepts within

the scientific literature. Wetland ecological functions are the inherent physical, chemical, and

biological processes associated with wetlands independent of their benefit to humans; whereas,

wetland values are ecosystem services that wetlands provide to humans (Hanson et al. 2008).

Federal corporations, agents or authorities aim to meet the objectives of the Policy by planning

projects and activities using a mitigation hierarchy of: first, seeking to avoid any project-related

effects on wetlands to the greatest extent possible; second, minimizing unavoidable effects; and last,

compensating for remaining unavoidable wetland losses through reasonable and practical means

(Lynch-Stewart et al. 1996). Without such compensation, a project’s residual adverse environmental

effects could be deemed significant, if a net loss of wetland functions were to occur.

Wetland compensation can entail restoration, enhancement or creation. Restoration is defined as

returning a damaged wetland as close as possible to its original condition prior to the damage;

enhancement is making changes or improvements to wetlands to enhance existing functions

performed by the wetlands; and creation is shaping dry land so that it will become wetlands with the

physical and biological characteristics of the area lost or damaged (Wetland Stewardship 2009).

Environment Canada recommends wetland restoration over enhancement and enhancement over

creation (Environment Canada 2014).

Compensation can be implemented by providing in-lieu fees to an environmental non-government

organization with an established record of successfully delivering wetland offsets in western Canada

(ENGO wetland compensation delivery agent). Other options include: proponent-delivered

compensation on private land acquired for the purpose; implementing projects identified by other




November 2014

Project No. 1231-104584

local stakeholders or communities; and/or use of instruments such as carbon offset banks to replace

the loss of specific functions (e.g., carbon sequestration and storage).

Methods1.3

To meet the goals of the Policy, this wetland compensation plan provides an evaluation of wetland

functions associated with the potentially affected wetlands, uses the results of the Project’s effects

assessment to identify loss of wetland functions, and proposes specific measures to compensate for

the loss of identified wetland functions.

The methods of assessing wetland functions for this Project follow guidance contained in Hanson et

al. (2008) and Hruby et al. (1999). Methods from the Washington State Department of Ecology have

been adapted for application at a landscape-scale (as opposed to site-scale) and to the range of

ecosystems in BC, as described by MacKenzie and Moran (2004).

Hydrologic, biogeochemical, and habitat functions of wetlands were determined from literature

review, mapping, and field studies. Many indicators of a wetlands’ potential to provide particular

functions were derived from wetland mapping, based on the defining characteristics of wetland

classes or site associations.

Wetland functions often correlate with wetland classes in accordance with the defining

hydrogeomorphic attributes of each class. Hydrogeomorphic attributes of wetlands refer to the

position of the wetland on the landscape (geomorphic setting), its dominant source of water, and

patterns of surface or subsurface water flow (wetland hydrology). The vegetation structure of

particular wetland associations also affects the potential of wetlands to provide certain ecological

functions. Vegetation structure refers to the growth form of the dominant vegetation, such as whether

the wetland is dominated by trees, shrubs, emergent herbaceous plants, graminoids (grasses,

rushes, and sedges), or floating aquatic plants, as well as the horizontal and vertical spatial

distribution of vegetation within the wetland.

Wetlands were mapped following provincial standards (RIC 1998) for an environmental assessment

(EA) as described in the EA Application, Section 5.5 (Stantec 2014c) using Terrestrial Ecosystem

Mapping (TEM) at a 1:5,000 scale with field surveys identifying wetlands to the ecological community

level, or ‘association.’ Wetlands were classified according to the Canadian Wetland Classification

System (NWWG 1997) and Wetlands of British Columbia: a guide to identification (Mackenzie and

Moran 2004). Additional details about the methods and results of wetland mapping are contained in

the Vegetation Technical Data Report (TDR; Stantec 2014a).




November 2014

Project No. 1231-104585

The following field surveys were conducted by wildlife ecologists during the baseline studies to

determine the presence and abundance of wetland-associated wildlife; additional information about

the wildlife survey methods and results is contained in the Wildlife TDR (Stantec 2014b):

Wildlife habitat surveys were conducted as part of the TEM verification program in

August and September 2012, and September 2013. This information supports the

wildlife habitat suitability ratings that inform the habitat suitability models.

Breeding bird fixed-radius point count surveys were completed for songbirds in May,

early June, and late June 2013.

Raptors and wetland bird call-playback surveys for raptors and wetland birds, and raptor

nest surveys, were completed in May and June 2013 and 2014.

Marbled murrelet surveys and habitat assessments were completed in late May, early

June, early July, and late July 2014.

Amphibian transect and intensive site surveys were conducted in wetland and riparian

areas in conjunction with breeding bird surveys in May and June 2013.

Large mammals transect surveys were conducted in May, June, August, and September

2013 (e.g., grizzly bears).

Incidental observations of wildlife or wildlife sign, important habitat features (e.g., wildlife

trees), and wildlife movement corridors were also recorded opportunistically outside

structured surveys.

The spatial data file of the Project footprint was overlaid on the baseline wetland mapping to

determine the direct losses of wetland area associated with construction. The survey of freshwater

and estuarine fish habitat provided additional information about the hydrological connections

between watercourses and wetlands within the LSA. This information was used to determine

changes in hydrology that could potentially extend to wetland functions beyond the Project footprint.

A direct loss of wetland extent represents the equivalent loss of associated wetland functions.

Additional details about the methods and results of the effects assessment pertaining to wetlands are

contained in Section 5.5 of the EA application.

Wetland compensation measures have been identified in consultation with Environment

Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service and members of the Pacific Coast Joint Venture. Consultation

with potentially affected Aboriginal groups and local environmental organizations is pending and may

further refine the wetland compensation plan. This plan includes the specific measures proposed to

achieve no net loss of wetland functions, the general terms and conditions for implementation (i.e.,

schedule and location), and recommended monitoring requirements for compliance and

performance.




November 2014

Project No. 1231-104586



Section 2: Wetland Resources

November 2014

Project No. 1231-104587

WETLAND RESOURCES2

Wetland Extent2.1

Wetlands occupy approximately 136 ha of the LSA, 84 ha (62%) of which are located within the

Project footprint. Within the tree clearing area, the baseline forested wetland and associated function

is considered lost because trees will be cleared (although understory vegetation remains); however,

non-forested wetland (less than 1 ha) are not considered lost because they will remain intact. As

such, less than 1 ha of wetland and associated functions in the tree clearing area are considered to

retain baseline wetland function because the vegetation structure is shrub and will not , therefore the

height of vegetation is low enough to remain unchanged.

Five wetland classes (estuarine, fen, marsh, swamp, and open shallow water) occur within the

Project footprint and LSA (Table 2.1-1; Figure 2.1-1). Among the five wetlands classes are 13

wetland site associations (Table 2.1-1). See Section 3.1 of the Vegetation TDR (Stantec 2014a) for

additional details about each wetland community.

Table 2.1-1: Wetland Loss within the Project Footprint Compared to the LSA

Wetland ClassMapCode

Ecosystem Name

Area (ha)

ProjectFacility

TreeClearing

Area

FootprintTotal

LSA

Estuarine

CWHvm1/Fl00 DW dune wildrye –Pacific hemlock –parsley

0.3 0.0 0.3 0.9

CWHvm1/Em06 LD c Lyngbye’s sedge – Douglaswater hemlock

1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8

CWHvm1/Em05 LY d Lyngbye’s sedge 7.6 0.0 7.6 13.1

CWHvm1/Ed02 TD d tufted hairgrass – Douglas aster 2.5 0.0 2.5 10.8

CWHvm1/Ed01 TH d tufted hairgrass – meadowbarley

1.6 0.0 1.6 5.0

Estuarine Total a 13.2 0.0 13.2 32.5

Fen

CWHvm1/Wf52 SG d sweet gale – Sitka sedge 1.1 0.0 1.1 4.7

CWHvm1/Wf01 BK water sedge - beaked sedge 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1

Fen Total a 1.2 0.0 1.2 4.8

Marsh

CWHvm1/Wm05 CT c cattail 2.6 0.0 2.6 6.8

CWHvm1/Wm50 PP c Sitka sedge – hemlock – parsley 6.9 0.0 6.9 11.4




November 2014

Project No. 1231-104588

Wetland ClassMapCode

Ecosystem Name

Area (ha)

ProjectFacility

TreeClearing

Area

FootprintTotal

LSA

Marsh Total a 9.5 0.0 9.5 18.2

Swamp b

CWHvm1/14 RC c western redcedar – Sitka spruce– skunk cabbage

32.9 1.6 34.5 46.1

CWHvm1/Ws50 PS hardhack – Sitka sedge 13.6 0.1 13.7 20.0

CWHvm1/Ws51 SW d Sitka willow – pacific willow/skunk cabbage

9.7 0.2 9.9 12.5

Swamp Total a 56.2 1.9 58.1 78.6

CWHvm1/00 OW shallow open water 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.6

Total a 81.6 1.9 83.5 135.6

NOTE:a Totals may not add due to rounding.b Only treed forested communities were counted as direct loss in the tree clearing portion of the footprint; see Section 5.5 of

the EA application for the totals of all units within the tree clearing area. Forested communities that are listed apply tostructural stages greater than 6 only, but have not been separated out by age/structural stage in this overview table.

c Blue-listed ecological communityd Red-listed ecological community

Wetland Function2.2

Wetlands provide three primary ecological functions that are beneficial to local and regional

ecosystems: hydrological, biogeochemical and habitat.

2.2.1.1.1 Hydrological Function

Hydrological function is the capacity of a wetland to store, moderate, and release water in a

watershed (i.e., providing groundwater recharge, flood flow alteration, or base flow augmentation).

This function also maintains human and ecological life support systems, protects infrastructure, and

enhances social values. This function of a wetland is driven by its hydrogeomorphic setting, its basin

form, and its water balance: water quantity and velocity moving through the system (Hanson et al.

2008; Hruby et al. 1999).

The wetlands in the Project footprint and vicinity have the potential to absorb the energy (velocity)

and volume of major flooding events from the Kitimat River by allowing the flood flows to spread out

across the relatively flat terrain and encounter the roughness provided by woody vegetation

structure. Historical dyking in this area has reduced the potential of these wetlands to absorb energy,

however, flood attenuation still applies. Fens and marshes (both freshwater and estuarine) also have




November 2014

Project No. 1231-104589

the potential to attenuate peak flows of storm events prior to discharging to receiving water bodies;

however, in this instance, the actual opportunity to provide this function is limited since the receiving

water body immediately downstream is the ocean. During the summer months, the wetlands (all

classes) have the potential to augment baseflows in smaller watercourses. Wetlands in the Project

footprint are not likely to contribute to groundwater recharge considering their position in the

watershed and proximity to the marine environment in Kitimat Arm.

2.2.1.1.2 Biogeochemical Function

Biogeochemical function refers to the capacity of the wetland to improve water quality or store

carbon.

The wetlands in the Project footprint have the potential to improve water quality by retaining

suspended sediments and absorbing excess nutrients (nitrogen). The wetlands in the LSA also have

the potential to store carbon in soils and biomass. The ability of a wetland complex to sequester and

store carbon contributes to maintenance of the global carbon cycle and its role in global climate

regulation.

2.2.1.1.3 Habitat Function

Habitat function refers to the manner in which a wetland contributes to biological productivity and

diversity. Known habitat functions provided by wetlands within the Project footprint include the

following:

foraging, nesting and stopover habitat for migratory birds, including songbirds and

shorebirds, which totalled 58 species according to breeding bird survey results in the

Wildlife TDR (Stantec 2014b)

providing breeding and/or dispersal habitat for amphibians such as the western toad

(Anaxyrus boreas), Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), and northwestern

salamander (Ambystoma gracile), which were all found during the field studies (Stantec

2014b)

contributing to habitat diversity, as indicated by supporting five red-listed and four

blue-listed wetland communities at risk (Table 2.1-1).

potentially supporting federally and provincially listed wildlife species at risk identified in

the Wildlife TDR, such as: western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), great blue heron (Ardea

herodias ssp. fannini), and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) (Stantec 2014b).




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045810

Wetlands Subject to the Policy2.3

Ecologically important wetlands in the context of the Policy include:

provincially red- and blue-listed wetland communities, and

estuarine wetlands.

Red and blue- listed wetlands are tracked by the BC Ministry of Environment’s Conservation Data

Centre. These ecological communities are not necessarily listed due to rarity or restricted

distribution. They may be listed due to their inherent sensitivity to disturbance or time required to

recover from disturbance (i.e., ecological resilience).

The forested wetland communities (swamps) that are in a structural stage less than 6 (i.e., younger

than mature or old forest) are not considered occurrences of provincially red- or blue-listed

communities; only mature or climax species compositions are considered occurrences of ecological

communities at risk. In the Project footprint, although the younger seral listed wetlands may or may

not have the potential to become listed communities once mature, they are not currently composed

of the climax listed species composition (See Vegetation TDR for additional information). Therefore,

provincially listed forested wetland communities structural stage equal to or greater than 6, non-

forested provincially listed wetland communities, and all estuarine communities are considered

ecologically or socioeconomically important wetlands for the purposes of this plan. The no net loss

goal of the Policy will be applied to these wetlands.

Similarly, three wetland types, CWHvm1/Wf01 water sedge – beaked sedge fen (BK), CWHvm1/00

shallow open water (OW), and CWHvm1/Ws50 hardhack – Sitka sedge swamp (PS), are not listed

or estuarine, therefore the no net loss goal of the Policy will not be applied to these wetlands.

A total of approximately 40 ha of ecologically or socioeconomically important wetlands will be

removed from the Project footprint and result in lost wetland functions (Table 2.3-1). This area is

composed of the following:

estuarine (13 ha)

fen (1 ha)

marsh (10 ha)

swamp (15 ha)

Of these areas, 23 ha and 17 ha are red and of blue-listed communities, respectively.

The dominant ecological communities include Sitka willow / Pacific willow / skunk cabbage swamp

(10 ha), Lyngbye’s sedge estuary (8 ha), and Sitka sedge / hemlock / parsley marsh (7 ha)

(Figure 2.1-1).




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045811

Table 2.3-1 Ecologically or Socioeconomically Important Wetlands

Site Series /Wetland Code

MapCode

Ecosystem NameListingStatus

Area (ha)

LNGFacility

TreeClearing

TotalProjectFootprint

Estuarine

CWHvm1/Fl00 DW dune wildrye –Pacific hemlock –parsley

not listed0.3 0.0 0.3

CWHvm1/Ed01 TH tufted hairgrass / meadowbarley estuary

red1.6 0.0 1.6

CWHvm1/Ed02 TD tufted hairgrass / Douglas asterestuary

red2.5 0.0 2.5

CWHvm1/Em05 LY Lyngbye’s sedge estuary red 7.6 0.0 7.6

CWHvm1/Em06 LD Lyngbye’s sedge / Douglaswater hemlock estuary

blue

1.4 0.0 1.4

Subtotal Estuarine 13.2 0.0 13.2

Fen

CWHvm1/Wf52 SG sweet gale / Sitka sedge fen red1.1 0.0 1.1

Subtotal Fen 1.1 0.0 1.1

Marsh

CWHvm1/Wm05 CT Cattail marsh blue 2.6 0.0 2.6

CWHvm1/Wm50 PP Sitka sedge / hemlock / parsleymarsh

blue6.9 0.0 6.9

Subtotal Marsh 9.5 0.0 9.5

Swampa

CWHvm1/Ws51 SW Sitka willow / Pacific willow /skunk cabbage swamp

red

9.7 0.2 9.9

CWHvm1/14 RC western redcedar – Sitka spruce/ skunk cabbage

blue5.7 0.1 5.8

Subtotal Swamp 15.4 0.3 15.7

Total 39.2 0.3 39.5

NOTES:

aOnly structural stage equal to or greater than 6 (mature and old) is included for treed communities.




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045812



Section 3: Framework for Wetland Compensation

November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045813

FRAMEWORK FOR WETLAND COMPENSATION3Planning wetland compensation that meets the Policy requires consideration of the following factors:

the need for compensation ( i.e., consideration of the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance,

minimization of adverse effects, and lastly, compensation (Lynch-Stewart et al. 1996))

the use of a functions assessment to evaluate the net effects, and

determination of the location, type, and amount of compensation.

Mitigation Hierarchy3.1

Compensation is considered the third element of the mitigation hierarchy, following avoidance and

minimization of adverse effects (Lynch-Stewart et al. 1996). This mitigation hierarchy has been

considered and followed with respect to wetlands in the Project footprint. Complete avoidance of

wetlands is the preferred alternative when wetlands are designated as ecologically or

socioeconomically important to a region, or where losses have been severe (Lynch-Stewart et al.

1996).

Due to the extensive coverage of wetlands in the Project footprint, feasible alternatives to the

location or configuration of the Project design and placement, which would completely avoid

wetlands, could not be identified. The management of the Project footprint will reduce effects on

wetlands by maintaining the hydrology wherever possible. Mitigation measures will be implemented

to allow flow-through along the LNG loading line by means of raised infrastructure and breaks. These

breaks will allow stream and surface flow to continue. Potentially adverse effects on wetlands should

be limited through application of an Environmental Management Plan within the EA application for

the Project, which describes drainage and erosion control techniques that will be developed to

maintain the hydrology of remaining wetlands and protect water quality. Mitigation measures to

reduce effects on wetland function are described in the EA application for the Project.

This wetland compensation plan addresses the remaining unavoidable adverse effects (i.e., residual

effects) on applicable wetlands that may occur following all avoidance and minimization measures.

Assessing Wetland Functions3.2

The first factor in developing a compensation plan for unavoidable effects on wetlands is to

determine the wetland functions that may be affected by the Project. It is helpful to examine the

wetlands within the context of the regional landscape and relative location to other wetlands.

Landscape context provides a sense of the opportunities for displaced wildlife species to meet their

life-history requirements in other suitable habitat. Examining the functions provided by other




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045814

wetlands within the landscape provides a sense of how well the wetland under consideration

performs select functions relative to wetlands in the landscape with the same or different classes.

This information becomes particularly important if the proposed compensation entails creation,

rehabilitation, or enhancement of a different class of wetland that may perform select functions better

(e.g., the ability of a freshwater marsh compared to a bog for providing foraging habitat for migratory

shorebirds). Assessing the wetland functions provided by the proposed compensatory wetlands

provides the ability to assess the net residual effect on wetland functions.

Development of this compensation plan incorporated an assessment of wetland functions for

wetlands within the Project footprint and LSA following methods outlined in Section 1.3. The wetland

functions provided by wetlands within the Project footprint are presented in Section 2.2.

Wetland Compensation Location, Type, and Amount3.3

Select functions are best replaced in as close proximity as possible to the affected wetlands (e.g.,

supplementing baseflow within the same watershed). Other functions may be served by

compensatory wetlands located farther away from the Project without diminishing the effectiveness

of compensation for replacing particular functions (e.g., atmospheric carbon capture and

sequestration).

It is generally assumed that enhancement, restoration, or creation (listed here in order of their

preferred implementation) of the same wetland class as the potentially affected wetlands would best

address loss of functions of the affected wetland. However, since some wetland classes provide

select functions better than others, compensatory wetlands of a different class can provide increased

function in some cases (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat functions of a riparian forested swamp

compared to these functions in a sedge fen; the former supports greater fish habitat function).

Occasionally, compensatory wetlands can address strategic conservation goals for a region (e.g.,

when compensation includes protection, restoration, or creation of a rare or at-risk wetland type

following the loss of a common or degraded wetland type). Because the goal of achieving no net loss

of wetland functions is part of a nationwide Policy, rather than a project-specific goal, it allows for

such strategic decision-making regarding wetland conservation and management within a regional or

provincial context. Preservation of high-quality well-functioning wetlands that face demonstrable

threat of further degradation can preserve ecological functions within critical areas that may

otherwise be lost. Some wetland classes cannot be feasibly created in a practical timeframe (e.g.,

peatlands), in which case wetland compensation may require rehabilitation of degraded wetlands of

the same class, or creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands of a different class.




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045815

The area of compensatory habitat is determined by considering the risk of temporal loss or partial

failure of the compensatory wetland habitat. Temporal loss refers to the time delay between effects

occurring on the wetland and the successfully functioning compensatory wetlands. During the delay,

there is a temporary loss of functions, unless compensation precedes effects. Compensation ratios

are often used to try to offset the potential temporal loss or partial failure of the compensatory

wetland by compensating for more area or function than is affected. Although there are no federal or

provincial statutes or regulations concerning the ratio to use, Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife

Service recommends a minimum 2:1 ratio (Environment Canada 2014).

Effectiveness monitoring of wetland compensation sites is typically used to determine the success

and persistence of the compensatory wetland functions and to guide adaptive management actions,

such as: altering the natural water flow to ensure soil water saturation or adjust water level, planting

more wetland plant species, soil transplanting, etc.




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045816



Section 4: Wetland Compensation Plan for the Project

November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045817

WETLAND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE4PROJECT

The wetland compensation strategy aims to replace the wetland functions to be lost within the

Project footprint at a ratio of 2:1 (wetland functions replaced: wetland functions lost). This ratio is

applied to ensure no net loss of wetland functions due to the uncertainty of success associated

with wetland compensation and potential temporal loss of function between loss of wetland and re-

established wetland function at the compensatory site(s). The compensation plan aims to replace

lost wetland functions as close to the Project footprint as possible and seeks opportunities to

benefit similar wetland classes and habitats.

A total of 40 ha of wetland and associated functions will be affected, requiring compensation for

lost functions. Of this, 8 ha of estuarine wetland will be created by measures outlined in the marine

component of the Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Plan under the requirements of the associated

Fisheries Act authorization (Section 5.7 of this Application). The net area requiring wetland

compensation within this plan is, therefore, 32 ha.

With a 2:1 ratio applied, compensation for the functions associated with 64 ha of wetlands will be

required to achieve the no net loss goal. The loss of wetland functions will be offset by

implementation of 64 ha of new off-site wetland compensation with the potential to provide high-

quality wildlife habitat functions through a legally binding agreement between LNG Canada and an

ENGO wetland compensation delivery agent. Local opportunities to implement wetland

compensation will also continue to be sought based on input from potentially affected Aboriginal

groups, local environmental groups, and Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service.

Wetland Compensation Criteria and Process4.1

The priority for wetland compensation sites is to implement compensation as close to Kitimat as

possible and reflect similar wetland types within the LSA. Potential opportunities will be evaluated

using a ranking system that give weighted preference to sites that are closest geographically and

most comparable to the habitat and functions of affected wetlands and less weight to other factors

(e.g., cost, conservation priorities). Additional ranking criteria will prioritize among the compensation

measures according to the following order of preference (highest to lowest): wetland restoration,

enhancement, and creation.

The ENGO wetland compensation delivery agent will first identify suitable land and secure it using a

conservation covenant or acquisition. The ENGO delivery agent will then implement the wetland

restoration, enhancement and/or creation measures on the identified site(s). The wetland hydrology




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045818

at the identified site(s) will be restored and revegetation will be managed and enhanced as needed

to promote wildlife habitat functions for amphibians, birds and mammals. Ideally, the hydrology of the

wetland compensation site(s) will be designed with the goal of being self-sustaining, relying on

natural surface and groundwater flows rather than requiring long-term, manually-operated, or

engineered flow-management structures. It is anticipated that a wetland class capable of providing

equivalent or higher wildlife habitat functions will be selected, which will feasibly support a

comparable number of breeding bird species, amphibians and wetland-associated mammal species.

Implementation and management of the newly-established off-site wetland compensation site(s) will

be ensured through a legally binding agreement between LNG Canada and the ENGO wetland

compensation delivery agent. The agreement will set forth a requirement that the new off-site

wetland compensation measures be established within five years of start of construction. LNG

Canada will provide funding for the habitat compensation planning, implementation, and monitoring

period. The ENGO wetland compensation delivery agent will commit to implementation, monitoring

and management of the habitat compensation measures. Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife

Service will provide review of the proposed compensation measures in consultation with potentially

affected Aboriginal Groups and local environmental groups, as appropriate.

Wetland Balance4.2

The goal of the wetland compensation plan is to replace the wetland functions identified as being

provided by wetlands in the Project footprint. This will sustain the productive capacity of affected

wetland-associated plants, wildlife, and ecological communities within the Pacific Coast region and

fully offset adverse effects on wetland functions associated with the Project. Table 4.1-1 summarizes

the habitat balance between potentially affected wetland functions and wetland benefits in the

compensation plan.

Effects on wetlands will be limited to the Project footprint. Wetlands adjacent to the Project may

experience a shift in species composition as a result of Project related activities; however, it is not

anticipated that these wetlands will be lost (i.e., become uplands) or cease to provide wetland

functions, based on the mitigation measures outlined in the EA application for the Project. Pre- and

post-construction monitoring will be implemented to detect potential unanticipated loss of wetland

functions. If monitoring detects a loss of wetland functions beyond the Project footprint, further

measures will be discussed with Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service at that time.




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045819

Table 4.1-1: Type and Amount of Wetland Compensation

Wetland Functions LostCompensationComponent

Wetland FunctionsReplaced

AreaBenefitted

Habitat supporting 22.5 ha of red-listed and 16.7 ha of blue-listedwetland communities

13.2 ha of estuarine, 12.9 ha ofwhich are also listed

Breeding and dispersal habitat foramphibians

Foraging and nesting habitat forbird species, including migratorybirds and SARA-listed species

Breeding, foraging and denninghabitat for wetland-associatedmammals

1.1 ha of peat soils (fen) providingatmospheric carbon storage

Securement andrestoration,enhancement orcreation of 63.4 haof comparablewetlands (basedon a 2:1 ratio)

Breeding and dispersalhabitat for amphibians

Foraging and nestinghabitat for bird species,including migratory birdsand potentially SARA-listed species

Breeding, foraging anddenning habitat forwetland-associatedmammals

Replacement of lostbiomass (i.e., carbonstorage)

63.4 ha

Monitoring Program4.3

The ENGO wetland compensation delivery agent will develop a monitoring program as part of their

off-site wetland compensation program. Details of this program will be determined through

consultation with LNG Canada and the Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service. This

program typically consists of compliance monitoring that will ensure compensatory habitats are

constructed in accordance with the compensation plan, and effectiveness monitoring to ensure that

restored, enhanced and/or created wetlands are functioning as intended after construction.

Effectiveness monitoring is intended to guide adaptive management actions to promote the long-

term performance of compensatory wetland habitat.

Summary4.4

The Project footprint will remove 84 ha of wetland extent and associated functions, of which 40 ha

are listed or estuarine and, therefore, subject to the no net loss goal of the Policy.

Subtracting the area (8 ha) where the wetland compensation plan accounting overlaps with the

accounting of compensation measures proposed in the fish habitat offsetting strategy described in

Stantec and Triton (2014), the net extent requiring compensation for the Wetland Compensation

Plan is 32 ha.




November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045820

These wetlands support the following ecological functions:

habitat for rare wetland communities (23 ha and 17 ha are red and of blue-listed

communities, respectively); and SARA-listed species of Special Concern (western toad)

habitat for amphibian species (western toad, Columbia spotted frog and northwestern

salamander)

foraging and nesting habitat for birds; 58 species were observed in the study area during

baseline wildlife surveys (Stantec 2014b)

foraging and nesting habitat for the blue-listed great blue heron and barn swallow

breeding and foraging and denning habitat for wetland-associated mammals, including

foraging habitat for moose and grizzly bear

atmospheric carbon storage (1 ha of peat soils).

LNG Canada has committed to the following wetland compensation measures to fully offset the loss

of wetland functions associated with the Project:

In-lieu fees to an environmental non-governmental organization with an established

record of successfully delivering wetland offsets in western Canada (ENGO wetland

compensation delivery agent) to deliver land securement and the restoration,

enhancement and/or creation of 64 ha of high-quality wetlands through a legally-binding

agreement with LNG Canada, and,

The ENGO wetland compensation delivery agent will develop a wetland monitoring

program as part of their off-site wetland compensation program in accordance with this

compensation plan and agreements with LNG Canada

Local opportunities to implement wetland compensation will continue to be sought based on input

from potentially affected Aboriginal groups, local environmental groups and Environment

Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service.

Overall, the proposed habitat compensation plan is expected to result in no net loss of wetland

functions within the applicable terms of the Policy.



Section 5: Closure

November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045821

CLOSURE5This Wetland Compensation Plan has been prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd., on behalf of LNG

Canada to support the environmental assessment certificate Application for the LNG Canada Export

Terminal Project. The information presented in this report is based on best available information at

the time of preparation. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the content of the

plan, please contact the undersigned at (604) 436-3014.

All compensation proposed is conceptual and is expected to require refinement.

Respectfully submitted,

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Original signed by: Original signed by:

Nicole Tennant, B.Sc., Dip.Tech, R.P.Bio Matthew Ramsay, M.Sc., P.Ag.

Environmental Scientist Vegetation Ecologist

Original signed by:

Sandra Webster, Ph.D., R.P.Bio.

Project Manager



Section 5: Closure

November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045822



Section 6: References

November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045823

REFERENCES6

Literature Cited6.1

Bolund, P. and S. Hunhammar. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics

29(2): 293-301.

Carter, V. 1997. Technical Aspects of Wetlands: Wetland Hydrology, Water Quality, and Associated

Functions. U.S. Geological Survey National Water Summary on Wetland Resources, Water

Supply Paper 2425. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/hydrology.html.

Accessed: March 2014.

Environment Canada 2014. Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation: Guidance for Application and

Implementation in Environmental Assessment. April 2014. Environment Canada.

Government of Canada 1991. Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation, Ottawa, Ontario. Website

publication (http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection/CW66-116-1991E.pdf).

Accessed March 2014.

Hanson, A., L. Swanson, D. Ewing, G. Grabas, S. Meyer, L. Ross, M. Watmough, and J. Kirby 2008.

Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An Overview of Approaches. Canadian Wildlife

Service Technical Report Series No. 497. Atlantic Region. 59pgs.

Hruby, T, T. Granger, K. Brunner, S. Cooke, K. Dublanica, R. Gersib, L. Reinelt, K. Richter, D.

Sheldon, E. Teachout, A. Wald, and F. Weinmann. July 1999. Methods for Assessing

Wetland Functions Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of

Western Washington. WA State Department Ecology Publication #99-115

Lynch-Stewart, P., P. Neice, C. Rubec, I. Kessel-Taylor 1996 The Federal Policy on Wetland

Conservation Implementation Guide for Federal Land Managers. Prepared for Wildlife

Conservation Branch, Canadian Wildlife Services, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 41pgs.

MacKenzie, W. and J.Moran 2004). Wetlands of British Columbia, A Guide to Identification. Land

Management Handbook No. 52. Research Branch BC Min. of Forests, Victoria BC 287 pgs.

Migratory Bird Joint Venture (MBJV). 2014. Migratory Bird Joint Ventures: A Model for Partnership-

driven Conservation. Available at:

http://www.pcjv.org/pdfs/national_jv_factsheet_2014_final_no_marks.pdf

NWWG (National Wetlands Working Group). 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System,

Second Edition. Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON. Available

at: http://www.gret-

perg.ulaval.ca/fileadmin/fichiers/fichiersGRET/pdf/Doc_generale/Wetlands.pdf Accessed

March 2014



Section 6: References

November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045824

Resource Inventory Committee (RIC). 1998. Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British

Columbia. Prepared by Ecosystems Working Group, Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force,

Resources Inventory Committee.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. and Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. (Stantec and Triton). 2014.

Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Plan. Prepared for LNG Canada Development Inc.

Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec). 2014a Vegetation Technical Data Report; LNG Canada Project,

prepared for LNG Canada Development Inc.

Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec). 2014b. Wildlife Technical Data Report; LNG Canada Project,

prepared for LNG Canada Development Inc.

Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec). 2014c. LNG Canada Export Terminal Environmental Assessment

Certificate Application. Prepared for LNG Canada Development Inc.

Wetland Stewardship Partnership (WSP). 2009. Wetland Ways: Interim Guidelines for Wetland

Protection and Conservation in British Columbia. Authors: Cox, RK, and Cullington, J.

Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/BMP/bmpintro.html



Section 7: Figures

November 2014

Project No. 1231-1045825

FIGURES7Please see the following pages.

±

1.1-1

NAD 83

BC Albers NP

DATE

DRAWN BY

FIGURE NO.

PROJECTION

DATUM CHECKED BY

13-JUN-14 6/13/2

014 -

10:43

:41 AM

\\c

d118

3-f04

\work

group

\1231

\activ

e\EM\

1231

1045

8\gis\

figure

s\disc

ipline

s\wetl

and_

comp

ensa

tion\f

ig_10

458_

wetla

nd_c

ompe

nsati

on_0

1_01

_01_

LNG_

cana

da_p

rojec

t_loc

ation

_map

.mxd

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"_̂

U.S.A

WASHINGTON

CANADA

U.S.A

ALASKA

B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A ALBERTA

Y U K O N T E R R I T OR Y N O R T H W E S T T E R R I T OR I E S

CANADA

Hope

Terrace

Kitimat

Kelowna

Victoria

Kamloops

Vancouver

Fort Nelson

Prince George

Prince Rupert

Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA

" City or TownRoadProvincial BoundaryInternational Boundary

0 50 100 150 200 250Kilometres

1:6,000,000

±

Proposed Project Site

LNG CANADA PROJECT LOCATION MAPSW

WETLAND COMPENSATION PLAN

LNG CANADA EXPORT TERMINALKITIMAT, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Douglas Channel(Kitimat Arm)

KITIMAT

MinetteBay

K i t i m a t R i v e r

Rio Tinto Alcan Plant

KITAMAATVILLAGE

Wathl Creek

Anderson Creek

Pine C

reek

Bolto

n Cree

k

Moore Creek

Morrison Creek

Corde

llaCree

k

NAD 83

UTM9 SS

SWDATE

DRAWN BY

FIGURE NO.

PROJECTION

DATUM CHECKED BYTERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA- VEGETATION RESOURCES

19-NOV-14 11/19

/2014

- 3:25

:14 PM

\\c

d118

3-f04

\work

group

\1231

\activ

e\EM\

1231

1045

8\gis\

figure

s\disc

ipline

s\wetl

and_

comp

ensa

tion\f

ig_10

458_

wetla

nd_c

ompe

nsati

on_0

1_01

_02_

LSA.m

xd

WatercourseFirst Nations ReserveProject FootprintPotential Tree ClearingTerrestrial Local Study Area

±

0 500 1,000 1,500Metres

1:45,000

LNG CANADA EXPORT TERMINALKITIMAT, BRITISH COLUMBIA 1.1-2


K i t i m a t R i v e r

Rio Tinto Alcan Plant

8SW32CT2

5SS53RC52AD6

6SS52PP22CD5

6SS52PP22CD5

7SS43PS3

9CD51SW3

8SS52RC5

9SS71RC7OW

OW

8CD52SW36SS5

4RC58SS62RC6

7SS62RC61SS5

6BE12DW32PC3

8RC 52AD 5

RC 4

7PS33PP2

8PP22RC6

PS3

8PS32RC6

RC6

6SS52CD52RC5

7SS72SS61RC7

RC7PS3

6SW34PS3

7TD23TH2

7LY23DW2

LY2

7TD23DW2

LY2

6PS34SW3

6PS34SW3

8PS32SW3

8SW32RC5

8SW32RC5

5RC53SS52SW3

6SS52RC52PP2

6PS32RC52PP2

6SS62PP22PS3

9LY21LD2

CT2

6BE12TD22LY2

5PD3CT22RC5

8RC51PS31SS5

5SS54RC51PS3

6RC54PS3

5SS44SS51PS3 6PS3

2PP22RC5

5SS53RN2PS3

5SS53RN2PS3

5SS64SP71RC7

6RC64RC5

RC5

7CT23SW3

LY2

Vegeta tion ResourcesLoca l Study Area Potentia l Tree Clea ringProject FootprintBlue Listed Ecologica l Com m unities At-riskRed Listed Ecologica l Com m unities At-risk

Wetland EcosystemLess tha n 50%Between 50% a nd 80%Grea ter tha n 80%

±

0 200 400 600Metres

1:21,000

27/08/2014 - 12:33:30 PM \\CD1183-F04\workgroup\1231\active\EM\123110458\gis\figures\disciplines\wetland_compensation\fig_10458_wetland_compensation_02_01_01_wetland_communities_for_LSA.mxd


WETLAND DISTRIBUTION IN THE PROJECT FOOTPRINT

LN G CAN ADA EXPORT TERMIN ALKITIMAT, BRITISH COLUMBIA

6BE12DW32PC3

7DK33DW3

7CW33TD2

6SS63RC61SS3

7SS53RC5

7SS62RC61SS5

8CD52SW3 OW8SW3

2CT2

8CW42BK2

OW

7TD22LD21SG3

7CT23TH2

7TD23TH2

4SG34TD22PP2

6TD22LD22SG3

5TD23SG32TH2

7PP23CT2

6RC64PS3

5TH24LD21TD2

5PP25CT2

6TH24TD2

6SW34CT2

6SG34CT2

7CT23SW3

7TD22TH21LY2

5SS64SP71RC7

5SS63SS62RC5

SW3

4TL33CW33SW3

6PP22SG32TD2

5SG33PC32SP6

7TD23DW3

TH24CW34TD22DW3

5PP25PC3

CT2

7TD22LD21SG3

7LD22CT21SG3

7TD22SG31CW3

5PC33SP62PP2

TH2

8SG32TD2

LD2

5LD24TH21SG3

8SG32TD2

8SG32PC3

TD2

6PC32TH22SG3 5TH2

3SG32PC3

5TH23TD22OW

7PS33RC6

7SG33DW3

8LY22TH2

8TD22TH2

7SG32DW31TD2

4LD24TD22SG3

4TD23LY23TH2

5TD23TH22LY2

LY2LY2

8TD22TH2

LD2

8TD22TH2

Ecosystem Labele.g. 5SHx75 = decileSH = m a p codex = m a p code m odifier7 = structua l sta ge

Inset1:10,000

2.1-127-AUG-14

UTM 9

N AD 83

SS

SWFIGURE N O:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

DATUM:

PROJECTION :Sources:

Ma p Code Ecosystem N a m e Wetla nd Sta tusAB western hem lock – a m a b ilis fir / b lueb erryAD a m a b ilis Fir – Sitka spruce – devils clubAF a m a b ilis fir – western redceda r / foa m flowerBE b ea chBK wa ter sedge - b ea ked sedge √CD cottonwood – red-osier dogwoodCT ca tta il √ BlueCW cottonwood - willowDK dikeDW dune wildrye - Pa cific hem lock - pa rsley √EP eflluent pondsGB gra vel b a rGP gra vel pitLC western hem lock – lodgepole pine / Cla dinaLD Lyngb ye’s sedge – dougla s wa ter hem lock √ BlueLY Lyngb ye’s sedge √ RedOC ocea nOR orga nic wood wa steOW open wa ter √PC pa cific cra b a pple – fa lse lily of the va lleyPD pondPP Sitka sedge – hem lock – pa rsley √ BluePS ha rdha ck – Sitka sedge √RC western redceda r – Sitka spruce – skunk ca b b a ge √ BlueRE reservoirRI riverRR rura lRS western redceda r – western hem lock – sword fernRZ roa d surfa ceSF Sitka willow – fa lse lily of the va lleySG sweet ga le – Sitka sedge √ RedSP Sitka spruce – pa cific cra b a ppleSS Sitka spruce – sa lm onb errySW Sitka willow – pa cific willow – skunk ca b b a ge √ RedTD tufted ha irgra ss – dougla s a ster √ RedTH tufted ha irgra ss – m ea dow b a rley √ RedTL tra nsm ission lineTZ m ine ta ilingsUR urb a n

Wetland compensation plan : LNG Canada Export Terminal · 2015-01-08 · LNG Canada Export Terminal...

Documents

Transcript of Wetland compensation plan : LNG Canada Export Terminal · 2015-01-08 · LNG Canada Export Terminal...