Grassy Point LNG Terminal Comprehensive Study Report

Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal
Comprehensive Study Report
With Respect to the Requirements

of a Comprehensive Study pursuant to the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
CEAR Reference Number: 07-03-26546
April 2008
February
2008
DRAFT FINAL
Submitted by:
Transport Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Prepared by Jacques Whitford Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT
DRAFT FINAL
Grassy Point Liquefied Natural Gas
Transshipment and Storage Terminal
Comprehensive Study Report
CEAR Reference Number 07-03-26546
Newfoundland LNG Ltd.
April 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Overview
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. is proposing to construct and operate a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Transshipment and Storage Terminal at Grassy Point, Placentia Bay. The Grassy Point site is located
on the island of Newfoundland at the head of Placentia Bay, within Come By Chance Harbour,
approximately 1.5 km west of the town of Arnolds Cove. The Proponent for this proposed Project is
Newfoundland LNG Ltd., a St. Johns-based independent energy services company, which was
incorporated in 1999. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. is a joint venture of North Atlantic Pipeline Partners, L.P.
and LNG Partners LLC, which are private entities incorporated in Newfoundland and Delaware U.S.,
respectively.
The proposed LNG facility will consist of the following components:
a marine terminal comprised of three jetties with berthing capability for LNG carriers up to
265,000 m3;
a tug basin;
eight 160,000 m3 gross capacity LNG storage tanks; and
supporting infrastructure including an access road, office facilities, security fencing and
utilities such as water, sewer and power.
The Project will be designed to provide facilities for LNG cargo transfer, LNG storage and a lay-up site
for transiting LNG carriers. The terminal will provide LNG storage and offloading services for larger
LNG vessels for transfer to smaller LNG carriers for distribution to LNG import terminals along the
Eastern Seaboard of the United States. This LNG Project, unlike other proposals in Canada, is not an
LNG import terminal and is not intended for the re-gasification of LNG. Rather, this facility will operate
as a component of the LNG delivery chain, providing transshipment and storage services for clients
with pre-existing supply arrangements.
The main facility processes will include:
LNG transfer systems to and from LNG carriers (LNGCs) and LNG storage tanks;
LNG storage (single-containment, double-wall, metal tanks);
Boil-off gas (BOG) re-liquefaction systems;
ship-to-ship (STS) transfer of LNG; and
facility power generation.
The Projects construction schedule depends upon the demands of expected customers. It is currently
scheduled to be constructed in three phases. Phase 1 will include site preparation for eight 160,000 m
LNG storage tanks and associated process area, one or two berths for LNGCs and the tug basin.
Phase 1 on-land construction is expected to begin in June 2008 with the 18 month marine construction
project beginning in September 2008. Phase 1 on-land construction is scheduled for completion in
March 2010. Phase 2 will include up to four 160,000 m LNG storage tanks, LNG transfer arms at all
berths, BOG compressors and blowers, two re-liquefaction trains and associated cooling system,
seawater cooling system, power generation equipment and associated fuel gas system, atmospheric
Grassy Point Liquefied Natural Gas, Transshipment and Storage Terminal, Comprehensive Study Report April 2008
Page i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vent stack and associated heating system, control system, additional fire, gas and low temperature
detection systems, associated piping and equipment for facility, utilities, and the third berth for LNGCs.
Construction of Phase 2 is expected to begin in February 2009 and be completed in September 2012.
Phase 3 will include completion of the remaining 160,000 m LNG storage tanks (total of eight for the
facility), additional BOG compressors and blowers, two additional re-liquefaction trains and associated
cooling system, additional power generation equipment and associated fuel gas system, additional fire,
gas and low temperature detection systems, and associated piping and equipment for facility, and
utilities for the additional infrastructure. Construction of Phase 3 is expected to begin in May 2011 for
completion in July 2014.
At peak construction, 350 to 450 persons are expected to be working at the site. A majority of the
workers on site will be residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where practical. There
will be no temporary work camps or accommodations set up at the construction site. Workers will be
responsible for their own transportation to the work site and will be housed at locally-owned facilities
surrounding the Project site.
Main activities during Project construction will include: delivery of materials; dredging and possible
blasting for tug basin construction; berth, pile and superstructure installation; installation of the
seawater intake and outfall pipes; on-land clearing and site preparation; establishment of electrical
supply; establishment of marshalling yard and laydown areas; construction of storage tanks; on-site
concrete production; and vehicle and vessel traffic. Commissioning will include hydrostatic testing of
tanks and pipes and a systems purge and cool-down.
Emissions during construction would consist of noise, dust and combustion emissions from construction
equipment. Emissions during commissioning will result from purging the pipelines and cooling of the
tanks with liquid nitrogen and LNG. Liquid effluents (e.g., stormwater run-off) will be addressed through
standard compliant construction practices. Interceptor ditches and sedimentation/retention ponds will
be constructed to retain stormwater flow and allow any accumulated sediment to dissipate prior to
discharging the water back into the environment. All discharge back to the environment will be in
accordance with the stipulations of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and
Conservation and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Wastes generated during construction will be
handled, stored, transported and disposed of in accordance with all applicable acts, regulations and
guidelines. All hazardous waste generated on-site during construction and operations will be disposed
off-site in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Operations are expected to commence in June 2010 and continue for a period of 50 years.
Approximately 30 persons will be employed per shift at the LNG site during normal operations.
Additional contractual labour requirements (between 50 to 80 personnel) will be required during specific
facility operations (e.g., vessel berthing and de-berthing, snow clearing, waste removal). Key
components of Project operations will include: a 100 m safety zone while LNGCs are at berth; 104
vessels per year during initial operations and as many as 400 vessels per year when the facility is fully
operational; ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore LNG transfer operations; LNG storage; BOG re-liquefaction
through a nitrogen refrigerant system; and a baseload electrical power requirement with a peak power
demand during LNG transfer operations.
During Project operations, air emissions and noise will be generated by Project vessels. Liquid wastes
to be generated by facility operations are limited to the sanitary wastewater from operations staff and
heated water from the seawater cooling system. All discharges will be in accordance with the
stipulations of the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and Sewage Regulations,
Page ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2003. Solid wastes will be sorted at the facility and material not deemed acceptable for re-use or
recycling will be disposed of in an acceptable manner at an approved landfill site. Certified contractors
will be retained for the safe transportation of solid waste to an approved facility. All hazardous waste
generated on-site (e.g., waste oil) during operations will be disposed off-site in accordance with
regulatory requirements. All vessel discharges will be in compliance with the Canada Shipping Act and
all vessels will be required to produce records of compliance.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has recently retained Jacques Whitford to perform a baseline assessment of
their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventory (also referred to as its Carbon Footprint) and to
provide recommendations with respect to a climate policy for the company, and the development of a
GHG management plan.
The proposed LNG facility has an anticipated life expectancy of at least 50 years, during which time the
facility will be maintained to operate safely and efficiently. Prior to facility decommissioning or
abandonment, a detailed decommissioning plan will be developed in consultation with the relevant
regulatory authorities. The plan will consider environmental issues at the site and ensure compliance
with all relevant regulatory requirements, standard and codes of practice of the day.
Properties of LNG and Safety Record
When cooled to a temperature of -160C (or -260F) at atmospheric pressure, natural gas becomes a
clear, colourless and odourless liquid. The liquefaction (cooling) process reduces natural gas to 1/600th
of its original volume, making it possible to transport large amounts of LNG over long distances in
specially-designed ocean carriers. LNG is non-corrosive, non-toxic and vaporizes when exposed to air.
LNG is not pressurized, and is approximately 45 percent the density of water. LNG is odourless,
colourless, non-corrosive and non-toxic. It is not flammable and in fact, LNG itself does not burn
because it does not contain oxygen, which is needed for combustion. LNG is also not explosive. It
cannot explode because the liquid state prevents it from mixing with sufficient oxygen. If LNG is
released into the air, the liquid immediately warms up and converts back to a gas. Initially, the gas is
colder and heavier than the air, so it freezes any water vapour in the air. This can temporarily create an
icy fog. As the gas continues to warm, it disperses into the atmosphere. LNG is not stored or
transported under pressure. In fact, LNG will be stored at Grassy Point in new tanks at very low
pressure, approximately 1 to 3 psig (pounds per square inch above ambient).
The safety record of LNG carriers far exceeds any other sector of the shipping industry. LNG has been
safely delivered across the ocean for almost 50 years. In that time, there have been over 40,000 LNG
carrier voyages, covering more than 60 million miles, without major accidents or safety problems, either
in port or on the high seas (Foss 2003). Over the past 40 years, there have been no collisions, fires,
explosions or hull failures resulting in a loss of containment for LNG ships. LNG is transported in
double-hulled ships designed to prevent leakage or rupture in an accident. LNG is stored in either
double membrane containment systems made of special materials and located within the ship's inner
hull or special 1.9 cm thick (3/4-inch) spherical tanks. For membrane containment systems, a
secondary containment system surrounds the primary container. The insulation space has sensing
equipment to detect even the smallest presence of methane (the main component of natural gas),
possibly indicating a leak of LNG.
The LNG industry employs robust containment systems, proven operational procedures and many
other safeguards. The few incidents that have occurred on LNG ships are typical of the incidents on all
Page iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
types of ships (i.e., not related to either the LNG cargo or the fact that the ship was an LNG carrier).
The experience of the LNG industry demonstrates that normal operating hazards are manageable.
Scoping and Methodology
Due to the nature of the proposed Project, it is subject to a comprehensive study level of assessment
pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act). Both Transport Canada and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have been identified as Responsible Authorities (RA) for this
Project, due to their requirement to issue a permit, license, or other approval in relation to this Project
that is included in the Law List Regulations made pursuant to the CEA Act. Environment Canada,
Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada have been identified as Federal Authorities with
applicable specialist or expert information and departmental knowledge in support of the environmental
assessment process. Preparation of the Comprehensive Study Report (CSR (i.e., this report)) was
delegated by the RAs to the Proponent, as allowed under the CEA Act.
As required for a comprehensive study, there have been numerous opportunities for regulatory,
stakeholder and public consultation. Consultations and public review periods have been conducted by
both the RAs and the Proponent. Any comments/concerns raised have been documented and used in
determining the scope of this assessment. Based on input received during consultations, the public
posting of the Scoping Document, the Environmental Assessment Track Report and professional
opinion of the study team, the CSR has focused on the following subjects or Valued Ecosystem
Components (VECs):
marine fish and fish habitat;
commercial fisheries (including aquaculture and fish processing);
marine mammals;
migratory birds;
species at risk;
atmospheric environment (as it relates to human health); and
marine transportation and safety.
The EA methods and approach used to prepare this CSR were developed to satisfy the factors to be
considered in accordance with sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the CEA Act and the specific requirements
for comprehensive studies under section 21 of the CEA Act. The EA methods included an evaluation of
the potential environmental effects for each VEC that may arise from each Project phase (construction,
commissioning, operation, decommissioning and/or abandonment) as well as malfunctions and
accidents. Note that Project decommissioning has been assessed, but at a level commensurate with
the level of detail currently available regarding likely decommissioning activities. A full assessment
would likely be conducted at the time of decommissioning consistent with assessment and regulatory
requirements at that time. Project-related effects were assessed within the context of temporal and
spatial boundaries established for each VEC. The evaluation of potential cumulative effects with regard
to other projects and activities included existing, approved and proposed activities that will interact
temporally or spatially with this Project.
The CSR also considers technically and economically feasible alternatives to the LNG Project as well
as alternatives for several Project elements and the potential environmental effects of these
Page iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
alternatives, as required under Section 16(2)(b) of the CEA Act. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. considered
alternative Project sites, LNG transfer methods, storage tank types and re-liquefaction methods.
As required by the CEA Act, the CSR also considers the effects of the environment on the Project, i.e.,
the environmental hazards that may affect the Project and their predicted effects, including natural
hazards such as extreme weather events and seismic activities.
Key Findings of the Assessment
Marine Fish and Fish Habitat
Changes in marine fish and fish habitat will occur during construction of the tug basin and jetties.
Increased levels of suspended sediments and noise can be expected within the Assessment Area.
Construction activities that decrease the quality of fish habitat may lead to temporary avoidance by
some species and potentially some eggs and larval mortality due to blasting. In accordance with the
DFO policy of no net loss of fish habitat, a habitat compensation program will be developed in
conjunction with DFO and area fishers to compensate for any loss of habitat. Some mortality of benthic
species is expected as a result of dredging and infilling for the tug basin, but these species are
ubiquitous throughout the area and the tug basin will become colonized by invertebrates within a few
years of construction. During commissioning of the facility, seawater will be used for hydrostatic testing
of the tanks and pipes, which will be followed by a rinse with freshwater. Both the seawater and the
freshwater will be tested for compliance with provincial and federal regulations prior to discharge. The
extent of these potential residual environmental effects on marine fish or fish habitat is localized, of
short duration and reversible and not likely to be significant.
During operation of the facility, the primary environmental effects on fish and fish habitat result from
noise created by vessels and water discharges. The Grassy Point LNG facility will follow the applicable
provincial and federal regulations for discharge of surface runoff, wastewater and cooling water,
thereby containing any potential effects to a localized area. The cooling water discharge will be within 1
C of ambient temperature less than 21 m from the discharge point. All vessels will be required to
comply with the Canada Shipping Act Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations for
discharge of ballast water. All vessels will be required to produce records of compliance. These residual
environmental effects are localized, intermittent and reversible; therefore, potential effects on marine
fish or fish habitat are not likely to be significant.
Commercial Fisheries
The principal marine activities during the construction phase will be the preparation of the tug basin and
associated construction work, the placement of the intake and outfall pipes, and the construction of the
LNG jetties (two in the first construction year, and possibly a third in the future, as market demand
dictates).
Marine construction is expected to start in September 2008. There will likely be no more than three
construction vessels (a crane barge, piling barge and concrete barge) operating at any one time. If the
piles for the jetties are fabricated at the Cow Head facility in Marystown and barged to the Project site,
approximately 24 barge trips will be needed for the first two jetties, and a further 12 trips if the third jetty
is constructed.
Before the start of marine construction activities, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will establish a Construction
Safety Zone (CSZ) in the nearshore area off Grassy Point. It will extend along the shoreline
Page v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
approximately 1700 m and seaward about 400 m from Grassy Point, or about 200 m from the berths
being constructed. Fisheries activities (including fishing boat transits) will be excluded from CSZ
between September 2008 and February 2009 as required for safety reasons. If the third jetty is added,
an appropriately sized CSZ will be reinstated during its construction. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. is fully
committed to working with fishers directly affected by the CSZ to ensure there is no economic effect
from the Project. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will employ the services of a dedicated Fisheries Liaison
Manager (FLM) to develop, maintain and facilitate a close working relationship between Newfoundland
LNG Ltd., its sub-contractors and those fishers that will be affected by the Projects marine construction
activities.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd., in consultation with a Fisheries Liaison Committee (FLC), will establish a
program to compensate fishers for actual economic loss due to the exclusion of, and interference with,
fish harvesting activities within the CSZ during Project construction activities. The program will provide
appropriate economic protection and compensation for all fishers who may be genuinely and
legitimately affected by the presence of the Projects marine construction CSZ. The purpose of the
program would be to compensate the fishers for lost fishing income specifically due to the closure of the
CSZ. This program would pay financial compensation to eligible full-time fishers who have historically
(e.g., in the previous five years) fished grounds within the CSZ. Newfoundland LNG is committed
working with the relevant authorities and fishers via the FLC to minimize potential impacts on fishing
activities.
For aquaculture, the only potential interaction anticipated is through construction-related debris
escaping from the CSZ, and damage to aquaculture gear or infrastructure. Since there are no
aquaculture sites within the immediate vicinity of Project construction activities, no grounds will be
occupied, and no vessel traffic will transit through any aquaculture sites. The distance between Project
construction activities and the closest aquaculture operation is approximately 25 km.
With the described mitigations in place, the effects on commercial fisheries and aquaculture due to
Project construction will be not significant.
Once construction is complete, the restrictions on access to the former CSZ area will be lifted and
fishers will be able to harvest in the area of the tug basin, jetties and the intake and outfall pipes. The
grounds that will no longer be fishable will be limited to those portions under the new jetties and
facilities associated with the tug basin, and the areas occupied by LNG carriers when they are in port.
Though there will be some loss of former grounds within the Project footprint, the area affected will be
minimized by allowing fixed-gear fishing near the facility. The lost habitat will be fully compensated
through the Fish Habitat Compensation program to be developed in consultation with area fishers and
DFO.
LNG carriers will enter and leave Placentia Bay via the designated traffic lanes, assisted by tugs within
the lanes and when docking or departing from the Grassy Point Marine Terminal. It is estimated that
Project operations will involve 104 LNGCs a year starting in early 2010, potentially increasing to 400
LNGCs per year within five to eight years.
Fishers traveling into Come by Chance Harbour from Arnolds Cove (and vice versa) will have to make
a short deviation around the jetties and LNG carriers. This might result in some lost time for these
fishers; however, this will be a very minor deviation, occurring only under specific circumstances and
will not result in identifiable economic loss.
Page vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will maintain the FLC (established in the construction phase) to facilitate and
maintain ongoing consultations and communications with fisheries participants about vessel traffic and
other marine issues. Ongoing consultations and communications with the FLC will ensure that potential
negative interactions are identified, addressed and minimized. In addition to individual area fishers and
aquaculture operators, the FLC would also include representatives of the FFAW.
Considering the location of Project activities in relation to present aquaculture operations, no potential
interactions are expected as a result of routine operation of the LNG facility. There are no aquaculture
sites within the marine terminal area or near routes to be used by Project-related vessels. The closest
aquaculture operation is approximately 25 km from the Projects marine facilities.
With the described mitigations in place, the effects on the commercial fisheries and aquaculture due to
Project operations will be not significant.
Marine Mammals
Changes in the quality of marine mammal habitat will occur during construction of the tug basin and
jetties as a result of increased levels of noise and vessel traffic within the Assessment Area.
Construction noise and activities that decrease the quality of habitat may lead to temporary avoidance
by some mammal species. With appropriate mitigation measures in place, physiological effects of
blasting on marine mammals are not expected. A monitoring program will ensure there are no
mammals within 1000 m prior to each blast. The extent of these potential residual environmental effects
on marine mammals during construction and commissioning is localized, of short duration, reversible
and therefore not significant.
During operation of the facility, the primary potential interactions with marine mammals will be noise
created by vessels and the risk of collisions with vessels. Vessel noise presents the potential for
masking of marine mammal communications. The intermittent nature of vessel traffic, along with the
low number of marine mammals expected in the Assessment Area at any one time, will limit potential
interactions to a few individuals (at most) of any species. The risk of a collision between Project vessels
and marine mammals is minimized by reduced vessel speed. Potential effects on marine mammals are
characterized as moderate in magnitude, local in geographic extent, long term in duration, regular in
occurrence and highly reversible. Therefore, the residual environmental effects during operation are
considered not significant.
Migratory Birds
Changes in the quantity and quality of migratory bird habitat will occur during construction of the berths,
tug basin and on-land site preparation. These changes will result mainly from noise, increased traffic
and bird habitat removal on land. Some of these changes will be temporary (i.e., noise) and restricted
to the construction and commissioning phase. Others will continue for the life of the Project, such as
increased traffic, lighting and habitat fragmentation. The extent of the potential residual environmental
effects on migratory birds during construction and commissioning is localized, and/or of short duration,
but may be irreversible with respect to the habitat loss. Given the low quality of the existing habitat for
migratory birds (as indicated by low abundance) and the abundance of adjacent suitable habitat, the
residual effects of construction are deemed not significant for migratory birds.
During operation of the facility, the primary interactions with migratory birds will be increases in vessel
and vehicular traffic, noise and human presence. Increased marine and land traffic may cause
increased avoidance of the area and some potential mortality due to collisions. Noise and human
Page vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
presence can affect migratory bird behaviour and breeding success, but most species that are sensitive
to these effects would have abandoned the area during the construction phase. Potential effects on
migratory birds during construction are therefore characterized as moderate in magnitude due to the
noise, traffic, and human presence, local in geographic extent, long-term in duration, regular in
occurrence and reversible. Given the low quality of the existing habitat for migratory birds (as indicated
by low abundance) and the abundance of adjacent suitable habitat, the residual effects of operations
are deemed not significant for migratory birds.
Species at Risk
Changes in the quality of habitat for species at risk will occur during Project construction as a result of
increased levels of noise and vessel traffic within the Assessment Area. Construction noise and
activities that decrease the quality of habitat may lead to temporary avoidance by some species at risk.
With appropriate mitigation measures in place, physiological effects of blasting are not expected. The
monitoring program will ensure there are no marine mammal species at risk or sea turtles within 1000
m of the site, prior to each blast. There will be some loss of terrestrial habitat during construction that
could support terrestrial species at risk, but this habitat is marginal and there are no reported
occurrences of these species within the Assessment Area. The extent of these potential residual
environmental effects on species at risk during construction and commissioning is localized, of short
duration and reversible and therefore considered not significant.
During operation of the facility, a potential interaction with species at risk will be noise, which presents
the potential for avoidance. The potential for species at risk to occur within the Assessment Area is low,
with the exception of Atlantic cod, which limits potential interactions. The risk of a collision between
Project vessels and sea turtles and marine mammals is minimized by a reduced vessel speed.
Potential effects on species at risk during operations are characterized as moderate in magnitude, local
in geographic extent, long term in duration, regular in occurrence and highly reversible. Therefore, the
residual environmental effects during operation are considered not significant.
Atmospheric Environment
The magnitude of air emissions resulting from construction, commissioning and operation of the Project
will be a small contribution to the total air emissions in the area and not discernible from current levels.
Any short-term, measurable environmental effects to air quality from dust are likely to be localized.
Noise modelling has demonstrated that the noise level experienced in Arnolds Cove (i.e., the closest
residential receptors) will be in the range of 50 to 55 dB, or at the level of normal conversation. During
commissioning, the processing equipment and storage tanks will be purged to remove oxygen and
moisture and cooled down with liquid nitrogen and LNG, resulting in a short interval (approximately 7
days per tank) of nitrogen and natural gas emissions when the liquids vaporize. Since the emissions
will be of short duration, the gas will quickly dissipate into the atmosphere. During operations, natural
gas will be used to power the facilities re-liquefaction system. Natural gas is the only fuel with negligible
sulphur, carbon monoxide and particulate matter produced during combustion. NO x will be controlled to
a nominal level through the use of low-NOx burners. Project-related emissions of greenhouse gases
(e.g., CO2) are very small. Diesel power will only be used as back-up and emergency power. There will
be air emissions from LNG carriers and tugs, but these will add little to current emissions in the area.
Based on consideration of the magnitude, frequency, and duration of air and sound emissions
associated with the Project, the overall environmental effects of Project activities on the atmospheric
environment are considered not significant.
Page viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Marine Transportation and Safety

Prior to construction, the Proponent will submit an application to the Navigable Waters Protection
Branch of Transport Canada, which administers the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). The
NWPA approval process will ensure that construction activities do not represent an unacceptable risk to
navigation and may stipulate temporary lights or other navigation aides to be used during the
construction period. A Notice to Mariners about construction at the LNG terminal site will be issued,
including any restrictions that are to be in place when vessels are approaching or working at the
terminal. Any restriction placed on the movement of vessels in the vicinity of the construction will be
promulgated by MCTS (Marine Communications and Traffic Services) in either the Notices to Mariners
or Notices to Shipping. All construction vessels will be subject to the standards and regulations made
under the Canada Shipping Act, the Labour Code, and the Oceans Act. The movement of the vessels
will be subject to the Practices and Procedures for Public Harbours, made under the Canada Marine
Act and administered by Transport Canada. Given the controls and mitigating measures described
above, Project-related effects on marine transportation during Project construction are considered to be
localized and temporary and are therefore considered not significant.
While the increase in vessel traffic could potentially be approximately 100 percent of the current total
(when Phase 3 is complete), the relative number of ships using Placentia Bay is low compared to other
Canadian ports. Halifax Harbour reported 1,720 calls in 2006. The port of Sept les, Quebec reported
650 commercial vessels and the port of Vancouver reported 2,610 commercial vessels on average, in
the past two years. For further comparison, the Port of Rotterdam (a major international port) reported
31,077 vessel calls in 2006. From these numbers, it is apparent that the traffic destined for Placentia
Bay, when all the terminals are fully operational, is not large by comparison. The increase in traffic is
not an operational concern, and the risks associated with the increase are low. In addition, a number of
measures will be implemented, if not already in place in Placentia Bay, to ensure interactions between
the Project and existing marine vessel traffic are mitigated. These include:
use of support vessels (tugs);
Traffic Separation Scheme and Routing;
compulsory pilotage area;
protocols for icing on ships;
MCTS;
ship clearance protocols;
vessel quality and crew qualifications;
simulation and safety as part of TERMPOL (Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal
Systems and Transhipment Sites);
arrival and departure criteria;
criteria for cargo handling operations; and
port and terminal operations manuals.
Provided the controls and mitigating measures described above are undertaken, significant Project
related effects on marine transportation and safety during Project operations are considered not
significant.
Page ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Decommissioning and Abandonment

Decommissioning and abandonment activities are likely to interact with VECs in a manner similar to
Project construction, particularly with respect to noise, disturbance, generation of suspended sediments
and vessel interference, although the magnitude and duration of potential effects will be less. Unlike
construction, however, there will be no additional loss of terrestrial or marine habitat at this stage and
no requirement for dredging or blasting. Rehabilitation activities will result in the improvement of
marine and terrestrial habitat post-decommissioning. Standard mitigation procedures related to the
control of site runoff, dust and noise will be implemented. Compensation programs will be in place to
compensate fishers that may experience economic losses due to the presence of the marine safety
zone. Procedures will also be in place to minimize interference with other non-Project vessels and to
ensure vessel safety. Although individuals of some species may temporarily avoid areas where noise
and dust is being generated, these effects are considered short-term, localized, and reversible. With
appropriate mitigation and compensation in place, the predicted residual effects of decommissioning
and abandonment on all VECs is considered to be not significant.
Assessment of Accidental Events
Malfunctions and accidental events associated with the Project have the potential to result in
environmental effects. Potential malfunctions and accidental events have been scoped to include those
events and scenarios that have a reasonable chance of occurring (although may be highly unlikely) and
could lead to adverse environmental effects. They include: failure of sedimentation/erosion control
structures; gas fires and explosions; marine vessel accidents; hazardous materials spills; and LNG
release at the terminal.
LNG carriers have an excellent, demonstrated safety record. There has never been an accident which
has resulted in a loss of LNG to the environment from a vessel. There has never been a fire that has
been associated with LNG on board a ship. Groundings and touching bottom have not resulted in a
pollution event. Accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events will be mitigated by the implementation
of a comprehensive health and safety management system, an environment protection plan and an
emergency response plan. While all of these accidental events are considered unlikely and will be
minimized if they do occur through appropriate response, significant adverse environmental effects
could result. If a gas fire or explosion or major oil spill were to occur as a result of a collision between
an LNG carrier and a crude tanker, significant effects are predicted for commercial fisheries and
aquaculture, migratory birds, species at risk, air quality and marine transportation and safety. In all
cases where significant adverse effects are predicted, their likelihood is low and there is a high level of
confidence associated with that prediction.
The significant adverse effect predicted for commercial fisheries (including aquaculture and fish
processing) in the event of a major accident is related to loss of access to fishing grounds. If a crude
spill were to occur, there is potential for gear damage and loss of market confidence as a result of real
and/or perceived tainting of product. The impacts to marine fish and fish habitat as a result of a crude
spill were predicted to be not significant; therefore, the biological integrity of the fish resource will not be
jeopardized even in the event of a large spill. The issues of loss of access and real and/or perceived
taint are temporary issues that will be resolved over a period of time (likely within a one year period).
Loss or damage of gear can be compensated and within a reasonably short period of time, damaged
gear can be replaced or repaired.
Page x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Migratory birds may be significantly impacted by a large crude spill. Spills will result in habitat
degradation and individual mortality. A significant adverse environmental effect on migratory birds is
one that affects the population of a species of migratory birds or portion thereof in such a way as to
cause a decline or change in abundance or sustainability of the population over one or more
generations. In the unlikely event that a large spill occurs and a large number of birds are oiled, there is
a potential for a significant impact as defined above. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any
population of marine bird species likely affected by such a spill would not recover after a period of one
or more generations.
The significant impact predicted for species at risk are specifically in relation to a large oil spill affecting
a particular species at risk, such as the leatherback sea turtle. Given their current population status
(i.e., endangered) and the potential of a large spill to cause injury to one or more individuals, this worst
case scenario has been assessed as significant.
Significant adverse air quality effects have been predicted to occur as a result of a gas fire or explosion
or a large spill of LNG. The effects in each of these scenarios are predicted to be significant due to the
temporary exceedance of regulatory guidelines and the immediate human health threat posed by these
accident scenarios. In all cases, air quality impacts are temporary and air quality is expected to return
to pre-event conditions very quickly following extinguishing of the fire or clean-up of the oil spill.
Marine transportation could be adversely affected by clean-up activities following a large spill. Vessels
may be required to avoid part of the eastern channel resulting in delays or re-routings which could
result in substantial economic consequences and therefore a significant effect.
Cumulative Effects
The method used to assess cumulative effects for this Project followed current practice and is
consistent with the CEA Act and informed by the assessment framework presented in the Cumulative
Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (CEA Agency 1999). Past projects or activities potentially
affecting VECs were considered in the description of existing conditions as applicable for each VEC
(e.g., noise from traffic and other facilities would be included when describing existing background
noise levels in Arnolds Cove). Ongoing activities assessed as part of the cumulative effects
assessment included shipping activity and commercial fisheries. Existing projects included operation of
the North Atlantic Oil Refinery and operation of the Newfoundland Transshipment Facility. Likely future
projects and activities included proposed construction and operation of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Refining Project at Southern Head and the proposed construction and operation of the Long Harbour
Commercial Nickel Processing Plant.
VECs selected for the cumulative effects assessment included Air Quality, Marine Fish and Fish
Habitat, Migratory Birds, Marine Mammals, Species at Risk, Commercial Fisheries and Marine
Transportation and Safety. With implementation of the proposed mitigation, adherence to applicable
legislation and guidelines, and with the assumption that future projects would also be required to
implement mitigation and follow applicable legislative requirements, cumulative effects for all VECs
were determined to be not significant.
Effects of the Environment on the Project
The proposed facility consists of two main portions, the marine and onshore facilities. The onshore
facility is primarily subject to meteorological regime (severe weather such as wind, precipitation, icing
Page xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and seismic events). The marine facility will be affected by both the meteorological and oceanographic
regime (waves, currents, visibility, bathymetry and, to a lesser extent, sea ice). Professional engineers
will design the Project to withstand the effects of the environment on the Project by applying good
engineering practices and the various codes and standards, some of which are specific to LNG
facilities. Scheduling and completion of the LNG transfer, even after it has been initiated, is very flexible
and can be halted at any time if there is a safety concern.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. is committed to undertaking simulation studies that will identify the forces
required to overcome winds and currents to validate the safety of navigation. The Terminal Operator
and the Harbour Authority will identify the size and numbers of tugs necessary for the berthing process,
the confirmation of which will be verified by Transport Canada, Marine Safety. Meteorological criteria for
safe berthing and departure from the berth will be identified and approved through the TERMPOL
Review process. The design criteria for the Terminal and operational constraints will be reviewed by the
TERMPOL Review Committee. In consideration of the planned mitigation, all residual effects of the
environment on the Project are predicted to be not significant.
Environmental Design Features and Mitigation
All aspects of the design, construction and operation of the LNG facility will be highly regulated and will
meet all applicable design standards and codes. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has committed to
constructing and operating a facility in which all aspects comply with relevant legislation, license
conditions and accepted good practice. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will be proactive in implementing
procedures to prevent pollution and to continually improve environmental performance and, along with
its contractors, will manage environmental issues as a priority. Safety features will also be incorporated
into every aspect of the facility design, and a quality assurance system will be implemented for the
Project to ensure the final design meets these standards.
An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) will be developed prior to construction and operation, outlining
all environmental protection measures to be implemented during each phase of the Project. The EPP
will provide documentation of general and site-specific environmental protection procedures, ensuring
that the Newfoundland LNG Ltd. commitments made in this assessment are implemented and
monitored. Environmental awareness training for employees will be required and documented in the
EPP. An Emergency Response Plan (ERP) will also be developed to document the procedures to be
used in case of an emergency. The ERP will be developed with input from employees and local,
provincial and federal authorities and finalized before commissioning. The ERP will meet the
requirements of Canadian Standards Association CSA-Z276-07 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Production, Storage and Handling, and will be consistent with the Environmental Emergency
Regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A Terminal Operations Manual will also be
developed based on national and international regulations and codes of practice. The manual will
outline the safety standards and operational procedures to be used by vessels using the facility. The
manual will be reviewed by the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada and the regional Pilotage
Association. Comments from the reviewing bodies will be incorporated into the manual.
As part of facility design and improved safety, the Project will be subject to a hazards and operability
(HAZOP) analysis as part of the front-end engineering and design (FEED) stage. A HAZOP is a
systematic approach to reviewing a process system design to ensure that potential safety hazards and
operability problems are identified and resolved. The Project will also be subject to the TERMPOL
review process (TRP). TERMPOL refers to the Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systems
Page xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and Transshipment Sites. The TRP focuses on the Project vessels selected route in waters under
Canadian jurisdiction to its berth at a proposed marine terminal or transshipment site and, specifically,
to the process of cargo handling between vessels, or off-loading from ship to shore or vice-versa.
Follow-Up
The follow-up program is designed to: 1) verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment for the
project; 2) determine the effectiveness of the measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental
effects of the project; and 3) support and verify predictions made concerning the likelihood of no
significant adverse environmental effects. The follow-up program can also ensure that unanticipated
environmental effects or effects caused by any unforeseen accidents and/or malfunctions are
addressed in a timely manner and do not result in environmental degradation.
A follow-up program will be developed to ensure that the Proponent has implemented all mitigation
measures and that these mitigation measures are working to protect the identified VECs from
significant adverse environmental effects. Key aspects of the follow-up program will include:
monitoring to ensure the NWPA Conditions of Approval are adhered to;
monitoring to ensure conditions of the Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting
Fish Habitat are implemented and to verify their effectiveness, including the Fish Habitat
Compensation Agreement;
monitoring to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations of the Canada Shipping
and relevant International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions including
International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, International Convention for
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the International Convention
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers;
Act
the
the
on
monitoring to ensure that the sedimentation control devices are installed properly and
minimize sedimentation during the construction phase of the Project; and
monitoring of marine water quality, including sedimentation rates and temperature to protect
fish and fish habitat.
It is anticipated that follow-up and monitoring would also be required during the decommissioning
phase to ensure that any rehabilitation efforts were progressing as planned and to ensure that all
emissions, effluents and debris are appropriately handled. Specific requirements for follow-up and
monitoring would have to be developed in consultation with regulators at the time of decommissioning
to ensure compliance with applicable legislation and regulations.
Summary
The only predicted significant impacts associated with the Project would be as a result of an accidental
event; however, the likelihood of such an event occurring is low and the confidence associated with
these predictions is high. As well, the VECs for which significant adverse effects were predicted were
further considered to determine the capacity of renewable resources to meet the needs of the present
and those of the future. In all cases, significant impacts on the capacity of renewable resources were
unlikely, temporary and reversible.
The Proponent has committed to a number of environmental design features and mitigation measures,
as summarized above. Through the development and implementation of an environmental protection
Page xiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
plan, an emergency response plan, and a quality assurance program, each of these design features
and mitigations will be implemented as indicated thus reducing the environmental footprint of the
Project to the extent feasible. Based on these commitments by the Proponent and the assessment of
effects as included in this CSR, it is concluded that this Project could proceed without resulting in any
likely, significant adverse effects on the receiving environment.
Page xiv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

ACCDC
Atlantic Canadian Conservation Data Centre
Adverse effect
An effect that impairs or damages the environment, including an adverse effect

respecting the health of humans or the reasonable enjoyment of life or property.
AIS
Automated Information Systems
APA
Atlantic Pilotage Authority
ASME
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ATOR
Approved Terms of Reference for an Environmental Certificate (dated May 25,

2005, and accepted by the EAO on June 6, 2005
Berthing
dolphins
a berthing dolphin is an isolated structure, remote from the main structure that is
designed to resist the large horizontal loads caused by berthing ships
BLEVE
Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion
BOG
Boil-off Gas
boil-off gas
gas produced in LNG storage tanks as it warms up in storage either in tanks or in

vessels. Modern insulation is used to reduce boil-off gas to a minimum
Boil-off gas
compressors
equipment that inhales boil-off gases from the surface of LNG in the storage tanks
and exhales it under pressure of 8 kg/cm2 into the distributing system
BSL
basic sound level
CAC
Conventional Air Contaminant
CBSA
Canadian Border Services Agencies
CCG
Canadian Coast Guard
CCME
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CEA Agency
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
CEA Act
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
CEAR
Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry
CEPA
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
Certificate
Environmental Assessment Certificate
CH4
Methane
CO
Carbon monoxide
CO2
Carbon dioxide
CO2eq
Carbon dioxide equivalent
COSEWIC
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
Cryogenic
at very low temperature; having or relating to extremely low temperatures
CSA
Canada Shipping Act
CSA (2001)
Canada Shipping Act (2001) effective July 1, 2007
Page xv
CSR
Comprehensive Study Report prepared pursuant to CEAA
Cumulative
environmental
effect
the environmental effects on the environment, over a certain period of time and
distance, resulting from the environmental effects of the Project when combined
with those of other past, present and imminent future Projects and activities
CWH
Coastal Western Hemlock ecosystem
CWS
Canadian Wildlife Service
dB
Decibels
DCS
Distributed Control System
Desuperheater
Desuperheaters are heat exchangers that extract heat from a working fluid in a
thermodynamic system. The working fluid must be compressed to a high enough
pressure for the condenser to liquefy it. A side effect of compression is that its
temperature and heat content become larger than what is needed to vaporize it.
What results is excess heating of the working fluid, called superheating. Some of
this excess heat can be recovered by utilizing a desuperheater
DFO
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (or Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
DGPS
Differential Global Positioning System
dwt
Dead weight tonnes
EA
Environmental Assessment
EC
Environment Canada
ECARG
Eastern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone
ECRC
Eastern Canada Response Corporation
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EMO
Emergency Measures Organization
Environment
The components of the earth that include air, land and water; the layers of the
atmosphere; organic and inorganic matter and living organisms; the interacting
systems that include components referred to above; and the socio-economic,
environmental health, cultural and other items referred to in the definition of
environmental effect
Environmental
assessment
report
A report that presents the results of an environmental assessment.
Environmental
effect
as defined by CEAA means: in respect to a Project, any change that the Project
may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on health
and socio-economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, on the current use
of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons, or on any
structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or
architectural significance, and any change to the Project that may be caused by the
environment, whether any such change occurs within or outside Canada
Page xvi
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
used in place of environmental assessment to reflect the Provincial process. As

defined by CEAA, environmental assessment means, in respect to a Project, an
assessment of the environmental effects of the Project that is conducted in
accordance with this Act and the regulations
EPCM
Engineering Procurement Construction Management
EPP
Environmental Protection Plan
ERP
Environmental Response Plan
ERS
Emergency Response System
ES
Environmental Supervisor
ESA
United States Endangered Species Act
ESD
Emergency Shut-down Device
EUB
The Province of Albertas Energy and Utility Board
Exclusion zone
exclusion zones are navigational restrictions on the movement of tankers and

support vessels that may be permanently or periodically established in the interest
of safe navigation
FA
Federal Authority as defined by CEAA means: (a) a Minister of the Crown in right of
Canada, an agency of the Government or other body established by or pursuant to
an Act of Parliament that is ultimately accountable through a Minister of the Crown
in right of Canada to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs, any department or
departmental corporation set out in Schedule I or II to the Financial Administration
Act, and any other body that is prescribed pursuant to regulations made under
paragraph 59(e)
FEED
Front End Engineering Design
GCDWQ
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GHG
Green House Gases
GPM
Gallons per Minute
Greenhouse gas (GHG)
radioactive gases in the earths atmosphere which absorb long-wave heat radiation
from the earths surface and re-radiate it, there-by warming the earth (e.g., carbon
dioxide and water vapour)
GSC
Geological Survey of Canada
ha
Hectares
HADD
Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (of fish habitat, as defined by the

Fisheries Act)
HAZOP
Hazards and Operability (analysis)
HC
Health Canada
HDPE
High Density Polyethylene
Hearing
A public hearing or review before the hearing panel
Page xvii
HES
Health, Environment and Safety management system
HMI
Human Machine Interface
hp
Horse power
HVAC
Heating, Venting, and Air Conditioning
IAO
Insures Advisory Organization
IFC
Issued for Construction
IMO
International Maritime Organization
ISM
International Safety Management Code is a mandatory process for overseeing the

safety of operations and environmental protection aboard ships.
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
km
Kilometre(s)
kPa
kilopascal
KV
Kilo-volt
Litres
LDAR
Leak Detection and Repair
LFL
Lower Flammability Limit
Liquefaction
conversion of a solid or a gas into a liquid
Liquefied natural gas
a liquid composed predominantly of methane and which may contain minor

quantities of ethane, propane, nitrogen, or other components normally found in
natural gas, produced by cooling natural gas to -160 C. Usually used when a gas
producer has no access to market by pipeline or a single source of supply
LNG
Liquefied Natural Gas
LNGC
Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier
LNT
Low normal tide
LRTAP
Long Range Transport of Air Pollution
Metres
Metres square
Cubic Metres
MCC
Motor Control Centre
MCTS
Marine Communications and Traffic Services
MDO
Marine diesel oil
Mile and
nautical mile
International nautical mile of 1852 metres
Mitigation
With respect to an undertaking, the elimination, reduction or control of the adverse

effects or the significant environmental effects of the undertaking, and may include
restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through
replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means
Page xviii
MMSCFD
Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day (million cubic feet of gas per day measured at
standard conditions 14.7 psia and 60 F)
Mooring dolphin -
A mooring dolphin is an isolated structure, piled or solid, forming part of a berth but
remote from the main structure, often forming a single mooring point usually a
small distance from the main jetty.
MW
Mega watt
NAPS
National Air Pollution Surveillance Network
NARL
North Atlantic Refining Limited
NEB
National Energy Board
NLDEC
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation
NMFS
US National Marine Fisheries Service
NO
Oxides of nitrogen
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCan
Natural Resources Canada
NSEL
Nova Scotia Department of the Environment and Labour
NTU
Nephelometric Turbidity Units
NWPA
Navigable Waters Protection Act (R.S. 1985, c.N 22)
O3
ozone
OBE
Operating Basis Earthquake
ODAS
Ocean Data Acquisition System
OMOE
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
ORV
Open Rack Vaporizer
P&ID
Process and Instrumentation Diagram
PAO
Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Archaeology Office
PERC
Powered Emergency Release Coupling
PFD
Process Flow Diagram
PHA
Process Hazard Analysis
PM
Particulate Matter
PPE
Personal Protective Equipment
ppm
Parts per million
Project
Proposed Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal
Proponent
psi
Pounds per square inch
psu
Practical salinity units
PSV
Pressure Safety Valve
Page xix
psig
Pounds per square inch at the gauge
PSL
permissible sound levels
PTS
Permanent Threshold Shift
RA
Responsible Authority. Defined in CEAA as in relation to a Project, means a

federal authority that is required pursuant to subsection 11(1) to ensure that an
environmental assessment of the Project is conducted
Recondensers
equipment that recondenses the boil-off gas when it is mixed with the cold LNG
discharged from a low-pressure pump
Registration
Document
A document that identifies the Proponent and outlines the general characteristics of
the undertaking (i.e., Location, nature, purpose, schedules, etc.)
Residual
environmental
effect
an environmental effect that remains after the mitigation has been implemented
RO
Response Organization
RoW
Right of Way; the area which must be cleared (vegetation), crossed (watercourse),
or developed (land) for the purpose of installing a pipeline
SARA
Species at Risk Act
SCV
Submerged Combustion Vaporizers
Seismicity
a characterization of the seismic history at a particular location
SIGTTO
Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators Limited
Significant
With respect to an environmental effect, an adverse impact in the context of its

magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, degree of reversibility, possibility
of occurrence or any combination of the foregoing
Significant
residual
environmental
effect
a residual environmental effect that exceeds the environmental effects significance

rating criteria
SO2
Sulfur Dioxide
SOLAS
Safety of Life at Sea Convention (IMO)
SPL
Sound Pressure Level
SSE
Safe Shutdown Earthquake
sound transmission class
Compass course, track or bearing measured clockwise from True North.
TC
Transport Canada
TCH
Trans Canada Highway
TCMS
Transport Canada Marine Safety
TDG
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act
TEM
Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping
STC
o
T or
(T)
Page xx
TERMPOL
Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systems and Transshipment Sites
Thermocouple
cable
thermocouple cable is electrical cable that is used for remote temperature sensing.
TOR
Terms of Reference
TOV
Tow Operated Vehicle
TRC
Technical Review Committee
TRP
TERMPOL Review Process
TRR
TERMPOL Review Report
TSB
Transportation Safety Board
TSP
total suspended particulate
TSS
Traffic Separation Scheme (i.e., shipping lane) or total suspended solids
TTS
Temporary Threshold Shift
TUS
Traditional Use Study
UHF
Ultra High Frequency (radio signals)
ULCC
Ultra Large Crude Carrier
Unloading arm
a facility that safely transfers LNG from the LNG ship to the storage tank by
connecting to the ship and overland pipelines
UPS
Uninterruptible Power Supply
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USM
Unsuitable Material
UV/IR
Ultraviolet/Infrared
Vaporizers
equipment which converts LNG from its liquid form to natural gas
VEC
Valued Environmental Component
VHF
Very High Frequency (radio signals)
VLCC
Very Large Crude Carrier
VOC
Volatile Organic Chemicals
VSC
Valued Socio-economic Component
VTS
Eastern Canada Vessel Traffic Services
Wetland
Land that is commonly referred to as marsh, swamp, fen, bog and shallow water
that is saturated long enough to promote aquatic processes which are indicated by
poorly drained soil, vegetation and various kinds of biological activity which are
adapted to a wet environment
WHMIS
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System
Page xxi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
1.1
Purpose of the Comprehensive Study Report ................................................................... 1
1.2
Need and Purpose of the Project ...................................................................................... 3
1.3
Proponent Information ....................................................................................................... 4
1.4
Properties of LNG.............................................................................................................. 5
1.5
LNG Industry Safety Record ............................................................................................. 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................7

2.1
Location ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2
Description of Project Facilities ......................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Facilities Overview, Layout and Footprint .............................................................. 9
2.2.2 Liquefied Natural Gas and Natural Gas Characteristics ........................................ 9
2.2.3 Design Standards and Activities .......................................................................... 11
2.2.4 LNG Carriers ....................................................................................................... 13
2.2.5 Berth and Transfer Facilities ................................................................................ 17
2.2.6 LNG Transfer Arms ............................................................................................. 20
2.2.7 Ship to Ship Transfer ........................................................................................... 21
2.2.8 Tug Berth ............................................................................................................. 22
2.2.9 Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Facilities ............................................................. 22
2.2.10 Storage Tank Secondary Containment ............................................................... 24
2.2.11 Re-liquefaction Facilities ...................................................................................... 24
2.2.12 Fire Prevention and Control ................................................................................. 25
2.2.13 Water Supply ....................................................................................................... 31
2.2.14 Stormwater Sedimentation Pond ......................................................................... 34
2.2.15 Ancillary Facilities ................................................................................................ 34
2.3
Construction and Commissioning.................................................................................... 37

2.3.1 Labour and Equipment Requirements ................................................................. 37
2.3.2 Equipment ........................................................................................................... 37
2.3.3 Capital Cost ......................................................................................................... 38
2.3.4 Schedule.............................................................................................................. 38
2.3.5 Marine Facilities and Activities ............................................................................ 38
2.3.6 Land Facilities and Activities ............................................................................... 43
2.3.7 Land-based Vehicle Traffic .................................................................................. 47
2.3.8 Transportation, Storage and Handling of Hazardous Materials ........................... 47
2.3.9 Freshwater Supply ............................................................................................... 49
2.3.10 Commissioning .................................................................................................... 49
2.3.11 Emissions and Waste .......................................................................................... 51
2.4
Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................ 55

2.4.1 Labour Requirements .......................................................................................... 55
Page xxii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7
2.4.8
2.4.9
2.4.10
2.4.11
3.0
4.0
Exclusion Zones .................................................................................................. 55

Marine Traffic....................................................................................................... 56
Land-based Vehicle Traffic .................................................................................. 57
LNG Transfer Facilities ........................................................................................ 57
LNG Storage........................................................................................................ 61
Reliquefaction ...................................................................................................... 61
Power Supply ...................................................................................................... 62
Emissions and Waste .......................................................................................... 62
Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 66
Operations Schedule ........................................................................................... 66
2.5
Decommissioning and Abandonment .............................................................................. 67

2.5.1 Facilities Removal ............................................................................................... 67
2.5.2 System Decommissioning ................................................................................... 68
2.5.3 Facility Abandonment .......................................................................................... 68
2.5.4 Air Emissions ....................................................................................................... 69
2.5.5 Wastes................................................................................................................. 69
2.6
Safety, Health and Environment...................................................................................... 69

2.6.1 Environmental Protection Plan ............................................................................ 70
2.6.2 Emergency Response Plan for Operations ......................................................... 72
2.6.3 Terminal Operations Manual ............................................................................... 76
CEAA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ................................................ 78

3.1
Identification of Responsible Authorities and Expert Federal Authorities ........................ 78
3.2
Comprehensive Study Process ....................................................................................... 79
SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT........................................................... 82

4.1
Scope of Project .............................................................................................................. 82
4.2
Comprehensive Study Rationale ..................................................................................... 83
4.3
Factors and Scope of Factors ......................................................................................... 83

4.3.1 Scope of the Factors to be Considered ............................................................... 84
4.3.2 Accidents and Malfunctions ................................................................................. 84
4.3.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects ....................................................................... 84
4.3.4 Effects of the Environment on the Project ........................................................... 85
4.3.5 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ....................................................................... 85
4.3.6 Follow-Up Program .............................................................................................. 85
5.0
PROVINCIAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ..................................................................... 86
6.0
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION AND CONSULTATION ............................................. 87

6.1
Consultations with Federal and Provincial Regulators .................................................... 87

6.1.1 Consultations with Federal Authorities ................................................................ 87
6.1.2 Project Working Group ........................................................................................ 88
Page xxiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.0
8.0
9.0
6.2
Consultation Conducted by Proponent............................................................................ 88

6.2.1 Pre-registration Consultation ............................................................................... 88
6.2.2 Post-registration Consultations ............................................................................ 89
6.3
Public Participation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ...................... 91

6.3.1 CEA Act Section 21 Public Participation Regarding Proposed Scope of
Project ................................................................................................................. 91
6.3.2 CEA Act Section 21.2 - Public Participation in the Comprehensive Study .......... 92
6.3.3 CEA Act Section 22 - Public Access to the Comprehensive Study Report ......... 93
6.4
Public Consultation Required by other Federal or Provincial Processes ........................ 93
6.5
Consultation Summary .................................................................................................... 93
6.6
Letters of Support ............................................................................................................ 99
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 100

7.1
Alternatives to the Project ............................................................................................. 100
7.2
Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project ............................................................... 100

7.2.1 Alternative Site Evaluation ................................................................................. 100
7.2.2 Alternative Marine Facilities for LNG Carrier Transfer ....................................... 102
7.2.3 Alternative LNG Tank Options ........................................................................... 104
7.2.4 Alternative Re-liquefaction ................................................................................. 106
7.3
Summary of Alternatives Assessment ........................................................................... 107
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS ......................................................... 112

8.1
Information Considered ................................................................................................. 112

8.1.1 Scoping of Issues and Selection of VECs ......................................................... 113
8.2
Identification of Valued Environmental Components ..................................................... 113
8.3
Environmental Assessment Boundaries ........................................................................ 114
8.4
Assessment of Environmental Effects ........................................................................... 115
8.5
Characterization of Effects ............................................................................................ 117
8.6
Determination of Significance........................................................................................ 117

8.6.1 Follow-Up and Monitoring .................................................................................. 119
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................... 120

9.1
Geophysical Environment ............................................................................................. 120

9.1.1 Physiography and Topography .......................................................................... 120
9.1.2 Soils and Geology ............................................................................................. 120
9.1.3 Natural Hazards................................................................................................. 121
9.2
Atmospheric Environment ............................................................................................. 123

9.2.1 Climate .............................................................................................................. 123
9.2.2 Wind .................................................................................................................. 125
9.2.3 Precipitation ....................................................................................................... 127
9.2.4 Extremes ........................................................................................................... 129
9.2.5 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 131
Page xxiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9.3
Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife ................................................................................ 133

9.3.1 Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 133
9.3.2 Wetlands............................................................................................................ 136
9.3.3 Wildlife (Mammals) ............................................................................................ 138
9.3.4 Terrestrial Birds and Waterfowl ......................................................................... 140
9.4
Freshwater Aquatic Environment .................................................................................. 145

9.4.1 Freshwater Habitat and Vegetation ................................................................... 145
9.4.2 Freshwater Fauna ............................................................................................. 145
9.5
Marine Environment ...................................................................................................... 151

9.5.1 Water Temperature and Salinity ........................................................................ 154
9.5.2 Waves................................................................................................................ 159
9.5.3 Currents ............................................................................................................. 162
9.5.4 Tides .................................................................................................................. 165
9.5.5 Ice and Iceberg Conditions ................................................................................ 165
9.6
Marine Habitat ............................................................................................................... 169

9.6.1 Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 169
9.6.2 Sediment Quality ............................................................................................... 169
9.6.3 Shoreline ........................................................................................................... 170
9.6.4 Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Habitat .............................................................. 175
9.7
Marine Fauna ................................................................................................................ 187

9.7.1 Invertebrates...................................................................................................... 187
9.7.2 Fish .................................................................................................................... 187
9.7.3 Shellfish ............................................................................................................. 192
9.7.4 Commercial and Aquaculture Fisheries ............................................................. 193
9.7.5 Marine Mammals ............................................................................................... 215
9.7.6 Marine Birds ...................................................................................................... 218
9.8
Species at Risk.............................................................................................................. 224

9.8.1 Marine Fish ........................................................................................................ 225
9.8.2 Marine Mammals ............................................................................................... 230
9.8.3 Reptiles.............................................................................................................. 232
9.8.4 Birds .................................................................................................................. 233
9.8.5 Lichens .............................................................................................................. 236
9.8.6 Arthropods ......................................................................................................... 238
9.9
Regional Socio-Economic Overview ............................................................................. 239

9.9.1 Demography ...................................................................................................... 239
9.9.2 Economy, Business and Employment ............................................................... 240
9.9.3 Community and Regional Infrastructure and Services ...................................... 243
9.10
Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 246

9.10.1 Historical Land Use ........................................................................................... 246
9.10.2 Present Day Land Use ...................................................................................... 250
9.10.3 Aboriginal Land Issues ...................................................................................... 252
Page xxv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.0
9.11
Human Health ............................................................................................................... 253

9.11.1 Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 253
9.11.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 254
9.11.3 Ambient Noise ................................................................................................... 255
9.12
Marine Transportation ................................................................................................... 256

9.12.1 Traffic in Placentia Bay ...................................................................................... 256
9.12.2 Traffic Management ........................................................................................... 257
9.12.3 Emergency Preparedness and Response ......................................................... 263
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................................................................... 264

10.1
Marine Fish and Fish Habitat ........................................................................................ 264

10.1.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component .......................... 264
10.1.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries ............................................................ 264
10.1.3 Significance Criteria ........................................................................................... 267
10.1.4 Potential Project-VEC Interactions .................................................................... 267
10.1.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation .................................................. 269
10.1.6 Evaluation of Significance ................................................................................. 279
10.2
Commercial and Aquaculture Fisheries ........................................................................ 282

10.2.3 Significance ....................................................................................................... 284
10.3
Marine Mammals ........................................................................................................... 297

10.4
Migratory Birds .............................................................................................................. 313

10.4.1 Rationale for Selection as a Valued Environmental Component ....................... 313
10.5
Species at Risk.............................................................................................................. 329

10.5.1 Rationale for Selection as a Valued Ecosystem Component ............................ 329
Page xxvi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.5.3
10.5.4
10.5.5
10.5.6
11.0
Significance Criteria ........................................................................................... 331

Potential Project-valued Environmental Component Interactions ..................... 332
Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation .................................................. 337
Evaluation of Significance ................................................................................. 349
10.6
Atmospheric Environment ............................................................................................. 352

10.7
Marine Transportation and Safety ................................................................................. 369

10.8
Decommissioning and Abandonment ............................................................................ 380

10.8.1 Marine Fish and Fish Habitat ............................................................................. 380
10.8.2 Commercial and Aquaculture Fisheries ............................................................. 380
10.8.3 Marine Mammals ............................................................................................... 381
10.8.4 Migratory Birds .................................................................................................. 381
10.8.5 Species at Risk .................................................................................................. 382
10.8.6 Atmospheric Environment ................................................................................. 382
10.8.7 Marine Transportation and Safety ..................................................................... 383
10.8.8 Follow-Up and Monitoring .................................................................................. 383
OTHER FACTORS ...................................................................................................... 384

11.1
Environmental Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions ................................................... 384

11.1.1 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation ......................................................... 386
11.1.2 Conclusion on Significance of Adverse Environmental Effects after
Consideration of Mitigation ................................................................................ 408
11.2
Effects of the Environment on the Project ..................................................................... 410

11.2.1 Environment Conditions Considered ................................................................. 410
11.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ..................................................................... 410
11.2.3 Significance Criteria........................................................................................... 410
11.2.4 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigations ................................................ 411
11.3
Capacity of Renewable Resources ............................................................................... 416

11.3.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 416
11.3.2 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 416
Page xxvii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11.4
Assessment of Cumulative Environmental Effects ........................................................ 418

11.4.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 418
11.4.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 418
11.4.3 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation ......................................................... 422
11.4.4 Conclusion on Significance of Adverse Environmental Effects after
Consideration of Mitigation ................................................................................ 435
12.0
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................. 436
13.0
FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 445

13.1
General.......................................................................................................................... 445
13.2
Navigable Waters Protection Act Conditions of Approval ............................................. 445
13.3
Fisheries Act.................................................................................................................. 445
13.4
Follow-Up Program ....................................................................................................... 446
13.5
Proponents Commitments and Obligations .................................................................. 446
14.0
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 448
15.0
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 451

15.1
Personal Communication .............................................................................................. 451
15.2
Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 452
Page xxviii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 2.8
Table 4.1
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
Table 9.3
Table 9.4
Table 9.5
Table 9.6
Table 9.7
Table 9.8
Table 9.9
Table 9.10
Table 9.11
Table 9.12
Table 9.13
Table 9.14
Table 9.15
Table 9.16
Table 9.17
Existing and Proposed World Fleet by Capacity ....................................................... 14

World Fleet Principal Dimensions of LNG Vessels 87,000 to 265,000 m3. ................ 14
Facility Fire Suppression System .............................................................................. 26
Construction Equipment Description ......................................................................... 37
Freshwater Requirements During Construction and Commissioning ........................ 49
Preliminary Cool-down Fluid Usage Estimates ......................................................... 53
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .......................................................... 53
Estimated Emissions by Project Vessels during Operation ....................................... 63
Valued Environmental Components Recommended in the Environmental
Assessment Track Report (TC and DFO 2007) ........................................................ 84
Summary of Public Issues and Concerns Identified at all Open Houses .................. 94
Summary of Issues and Concerns Identified by RAs through Public Consultation
on the Scoping Document (Source: Environmental Assessment Track Report
(Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2007).................................. 98
Key Requirements for LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal ......................... 100
Site Selection Attributes and Assessment for Potential LNG Transshipment and
Storage Terminal ..................................................................................................... 101
Summary of Assessment of Alternatives ................................................................. 109
Valued Environmental Components and Potential Environmental Effects to be
Considered in the Newfoundland LNG Comprehensive Study................................ 114
Example Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix ............................................... 116
Example Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix .................................... 119
Occurrence of Reduced Visibility and Ceiling at Argentia from 1953 to 1983 ......... 125
Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Speed for the Centre of Placentia Bay Node
11761 ...................................................................................................................... 126
11761 ...................................................................................................................... 127
Air Quality Index ...................................................................................................... 131
Maximum Background Concentrations in Arnolds Cove and Come By Chance .... 131
Maximum Background Concentrations Collected by North Atlantic Refining
Limited ..................................................................................................................... 132
Area of Vegetation Cover on the Grassy Point Peninsula ....................................... 135
Vascular Plants Species Observed within the Grassy Point Peninsula................... 135
Bird Point Count Totals for Grassy Point 2006 Survey............................................ 141
Terrestrial Bird and Waterfowl Species List for Surveys Completed within Grassy
Point Area ................................................................................................................ 142
Summary of Fishing Effort Conducted in Ponds in 2006 and 2007 ......................... 145
Stream Habitat and Fish Sampling Summary ......................................................... 146
Marine Mammals Observations in Placentia Bay .................................................... 153
Summary of Current Measurements in Northern Placentia Bay (BIO, 2007) .......... 163
Summary of Current Speed and Direction Inside Come By Chance Bay (Stations
8 to 15) .................................................................................................................... 163
Summary of Current Speed and Direction Outside Come By Chance Bay
(Stations 1 to 7, 16) ................................................................................................. 163
Summary of Current Speed and Direction in Winter and Summer in Come By
Chance Bay (Stations 8 To 15) ............................................................................... 164
Page xxix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 9.18
Table 9.19
Table 9.20
Table 9.21
Table 9.22
Table 9.23
Table 9.24
Table 9.25
Table 9.26
Table 9.27
Table 9.28
Table 9.29
Table 9.30
Table 9.31
Table 9.32
Table 9.33
Table 9.34
Table 9.35
Table 9.36
Table 9.37
Table 10.1
Table 10.2
Table 10.3
Table 10.4
Table 10.5
Table 10.6
Table 10.7
Table 10.8
Table 10.9
Table 10.10
Table 10.11
Table 10.12
Table 10.13
Table 10.14
Table 10.15
Table 10.16
Table 10.17
Summary of Current Speed and Direction in Winter and Summer Outside Come
By Chance Bay (Stations 1 to 7, 16) ....................................................................... 164
Placentia Bay Harvest, 2003 to 2006 (by Year) ...................................................... 198
Placentia Bay (3PSc) Harvest by Gear Type, 2003 to 2006 Average ..................... 202
Placentia Bay Harvest by Vessels from Statistical Section 30 Ports (2003 to 2006
Averages) ................................................................................................................ 208
Placentia Bay Harvest Landed in Statistical Section 30 Ports (2003 to 2006
Averages) ................................................................................................................ 208
Number of Core and Non-Core Enterprises by Vessel Size, Statistical Section 30
(2007 Data) ............................................................................................................. 210
Placentia Bay Study Area Aquaculture Site Licences and Applications, 2007 ........ 212
Activity Status of Northern Placentia Bay Aquaculture Sites (to April 2007) ........... 214
Marine Associated Bird Species Known to Occur in Placentia Bay ........................ 219
Federal Species at Risk that may Occur in Placentia Bay ...................................... 224
Selected Economic Indicators for Newfoundland and Labrador, 1995 to 2005 ....... 241
Unemployment Rates for Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador and Economic
Regions, Three Month Moving Average, Ending March 2006 ................................. 242
Use of Income Support and Employment Insurance, 1994 and 2004, Arnolds
Cove, Region and Province ..................................................................................... 243
Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts by Vehicle Type, 1996 .................................. 245
Acquired Land Area by Newfoundland LNG Ltd...................................................... 252
Maximum Background Concentrations in Arnolds Cove and Come By Chance .... 254
Limited ..................................................................................................................... 254
Reported Vessel Movements in Placentia Bay........................................................ 256
Pilotage Assignments in Placentia Bay ................................................................... 257
Response Time of Response Organizations to Various Sized Spills ...................... 263
Potential Project Interaction with Marine Fish and Fish Habitat .............................. 269
Summary of the Thermal Modeling Results ............................................................ 277
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Fish and Fish Habitat (Construction
and Commissioning) ................................................................................................ 280
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Marine Fish and Fish Habitat
(Operation) .............................................................................................................. 281
Potential Project Interactions with Commercial Fisheries........................................ 285
Effects Assessment Matrix: Commercial Fisheries (Construction and
Commissioning ........................................................................................................ 295
Effects Assessment Matrix: Commercial Fisheries (Operations) ........................... 296
Potential Project Interactions with Marine Mammals ............................................... 301
Percentage of Reported Collisions with Mammals by Vessel Type ........................ 306
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Marine Mammals (Construction and
Commissioning ........................................................................................................ 311
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Marine Mammals (Operation) ............ 312
Potential Project Interactions with Migratory Birds .................................................. 318
Percentage of Vegetation Cover Types to be Removed from the Classified
Assessment Area, including the Tank Area and Access Road ............................... 319
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Migratory Birds (Construction and
Commissioning ........................................................................................................ 326
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Migratory Birds (Operation) .................. 328
Federal Species at Risk that may occur in the Assessment Area ........................... 332
Potential Project Interactions with Species at Risk.................................................. 337
Page xxx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 10.18
Table 10.19
Table 10.20
Table 10.21
Table 10.22
Table 10.23
Table 10.24
Table 10.25
Table 10.26
Table 10.27
Table 10.28
Table 10.29
Table 11.1
Table 11.2
Table 11.3
Table 11.4
Table 11.5
Table 11.6
Table 11.7
Table 11.8
Table 11.9
Table 11.10
Table 12.1
Table 12.2
Table 12.3
Table 14.1
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Species at Risk (Construction and

Commissioning ........................................................................................................ 350
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Species at Risk (Operation) ................. 351
Newfoundland and Labrador Air Quality Regulations (Environment Act) and
Canadian Environmental Protection Act Ambient Air Quality Objectives ................ 355
Project Interactions with Atmospheric Environment ................................................ 358
Typical Construction Equipment Noise.................................................................... 359
Estimated Fuel Gas Heater Emissions .................................................................... 363
Ship Emission Inventory .......................................................................................... 365
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Atmospheric Environment
(Construction and Commissioning) ......................................................................... 367
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Atmospheric Environment
(Operation) .............................................................................................................. 368
Time on Route from the Common Position in the Traffic Separation Scheme ........ 371
Potential Project Interaction with Marine Transportation and Safety ....................... 373
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Marine Transportation and Safety ........ 379
Potential Interaction of Accidents and Malfunctions with Valued Environmental
Components ............................................................................................................ 386
Navigation Risk Analysis Summary ......................................................................... 394
Marine Accidents and Incidents All Vessels for 10 years in Eastern Placentia Bay 395
Predicted Significance of Accidents and Malfunctions by VEC ............................... 409
Likely Future Projects and Activities with Potential Cumulative Interactions with
the Grassy Point LNG Transshipment Storage Terminal ........................................ 422
Summary of Vessel Calls to Major Industrial Facilities in Placentia Bay ................. 431
Vessel Traffic in Port of Halifax (January to December 2006) ................................. 432
Vessel Traffic in the Port of Sept- les ..................................................................... 432
Vessel Traffic in the Port of Vancouver ................................................................... 432
Vessel Traffic in the Port of Rotterdam (January to December 2006) ..................... 433
Summary of Project Environmental Design Features.............................................. 436
Summary of Mitigation by VEC................................................................................ 439
Measure Associated with Accidental Events and/or Effects of the Environment on
the Project ............................................................................................................... 442
Summary of Predicted Environmental Effects by VEC ............................................ 450
Page xxxi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.8
Figure 2.9
Figure 2.10
Figure 2.11
Figure 2.12
Figure 2.13
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.2
Figure 7.3
Figure 7.4
Figure 9.1
Figure 9.2
Figure 9.3
Figure 9.4
Figure 9.5
Figure 9.6
Figure 9.7
Figure 9.8
Figure 9.9
Figure 9.10
Figure 9.11
Figure 9.12
Figure 9.13
Figure 9.14
Figure 9.15
Figure 9.16
Figure 9.17
Figure 9.18
Figure 9.19
Figure 9.20
Figure 9.21
Figure 9.22
Figure 9.23
Figure 9.24
Figure 9.25
Figure 9.26
Grassy Point, Placentia Bay ........................................................................................ 2

Proposed Location of the Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage
Terminal ...................................................................................................................... 8
Grassy Point LNG Marine Terminal and Facility Site Layout .................................... 10
Kvaerner-Moss Spherical Tanks (left) and Membrane Tanks in an LNGC ............... 15
Containment and Insulation in Spherical Tanks Construction ................................... 16
Containment and Insulation in Membrane Tank Construction................................... 16
Dock Plan and Section .............................................................................................. 18
Typical Transfer Arms ............................................................................................... 20
Ship to Ship LNG Transfer with Flexible Hose .......................................................... 21
Single Containment LNG Tank Design...................................................................... 23
Seawater Intake Plan and Details ............................................................................. 33
Tug Basin Plan and Section ...................................................................................... 40
Seawater Outfall Pipe Plan and Details..................................................................... 42
Commissioning Manual Suggested Table of Contents.............................................. 52
LNG Unloading Arms .............................................................................................. 103
Single-containment Tank ......................................................................................... 104
Double-containment Tank ....................................................................................... 105
Full-containment Tank ............................................................................................. 106
Air Temperature (1971-1994) to Arnolds Cove....................................................... 124
Air Temperature (1971 to 2000) Come By Chance .............................................. 124
Precipitation (1971 to 1994) - Arnolds Cove ........................................................... 128
Precipitation (1971 to 2000) Come By Chance .................................................... 128
Mean Precipitation Arnolds Cove (1971 to 1994) and Come By Chance (1971 to
2000) ....................................................................................................................... 129
Main Vegetative Cover Types within the Vegetation Study Area ............................ 134
Historical locations of Bald Eagle Nests within 5 km of the Project (1989 to 2001) 144
Stream and Waterbody Sampling Locations ........................................................... 147
Placentia Bay Bathymetry Map ............................................................................... 152
Regions of Extracted Data from the BIO Database ................................................. 155
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Temperature ............ 155
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Salinity ..................... 156
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Density ..................... 156
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Temperature ............ 157
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Salinity ..................... 157
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Density ..................... 158
Density Comparison Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Solid
Line and Come By Chance Bay (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.1 to 54W) Dotted Line .......... 158
Location of MSC50 Nodes Used to Derive Wave Climate Statistics ....................... 160
Yearly Wave Rose for the Eastern Channel of Placentia Bay ................................. 160
Monthly Wave Roses for the Eastern Channel of Placentia Bay............................. 161
Placentia Bay North and Come Chance Bay Current Measurement Locations ...... 162
WebTide Prediction for 2007 Near Come By Chance Bay ...................................... 165
Freeze-Up Dates for Eastern Canadian Waters ...................................................... 166
30-Year Median Ice Concentration in Eastern Canadian Waters ............................ 167
Iceberg Sightings From 1960-2003 ......................................................................... 167
Year Frequency of Presence of Sea Ice in Eastern Canadian Waters .................... 168
Page xxxii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 9.27
Figure 9.28
Figure 9.29
Figure 9.30
Figure 9.31
Figure 9.32
Figure 9.33
Figure 9.34
Figure 9.35
Figure 9.36
Figure 9.37
Figure 9.38
Figure 9.39
Figure 9.40
Figure 9.41
Figure 9.42
Figure 9.43
Figure 9.44
Figure 9.45
Figure 9.46
Figure 9.47
Figure 9.48
Figure 9.49
Figure 9.50
Figure 9.51
Figure 9.52
Figure 9.53
Figure 9.54
Figure 9.55
Figure 9.56
Figure 9.57
Figure 9.58
Figure 9.59
Figure 9.60
Figure 9.61
Figure 9.62
Figure 9.63
Figure 9.64
Figure 9.65
Figure 9.66
Figure 10.1
Figure 10.2
Figure 10.3
Figure 10.4
Figure 10.5
Figure 10.6
Figure 10.7
Figure 10.8
Shoreline from Grassy Point Looking North ............................................................ 171

Grassy Point Headland ........................................................................................... 172
Shoreline North of Grassy Point .............................................................................. 173
Shoreline South of Grassy Point ............................................................................. 174
Shoreline at Tug Basin Location.............................................................................. 175
Boulder/Bedrock Algal Community Nearshore ........................................................ 176
Fish Habitat South of Grassy Point ......................................................................... 178
Fish Habitat within the Proposed Tug Basin Location ............................................. 179
Fish Habitat within the Area of the Seawater Intake Pipe ....................................... 180
Coralline Algae Substrate ........................................................................................ 181
Fish Habitat North of Grassy Point .......................................................................... 182
Representative Boulder Habitat .............................................................................. 183
Typical Substrate off Grassy Point .......................................................................... 184
Fish Habitat off Grassy Point ................................................................................... 185
Study Area (blue) and Unit Area 3PSc Boundaries ................................................. 194
Placentia Bay Harvest, All Species, 1987 to 2006 .................................................. 196
Placentia Bay Harvest, Groundfish, 1987 to 2006................................................... 197
Placentia Bay Harvest, Other Species (Not Groundfish), 1987 to 2006 .................. 197
All Species, Quantity by Month ............................................................................... 200
Cod, Quantity by Month ........................................................................................... 201
Lobster, Quantity by Month ..................................................................................... 201
Snow Crab, Quantity by Month ............................................................................... 202
2003 to 2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, All Species, Aggregated ... 204
2003 to 2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, All Species, Aggregated
Commercial Fisheries Study Area ........................................................................... 205
Placentia Bay, Study Area and Location of Statistical Sections .............................. 206
2003 to 2006 Placentia Bay Harvest (tonnes), All Species, by Statistical Section
of Homeport ............................................................................................................. 207
2003 to 2006 Placentia Bay Harvest (tonnes), All Species, by Statistical Section
of Landing ................................................................................................................ 207
Placentia Bay Landed Harvest All Species 2003 to 2006 ....................................... 209
Aquaculture Sites in Placentia Bay, 2007................................................................ 213
Historical Locations of Marine-Associated Birds in Placentia Bay........................... 221
Historic Locations of Gull Colonies in Placentia Bay ............................................... 222
Historical locations of Common and/or Arctic Terns in Placentia Bay ..................... 223
Known distribution of Erioderma pedicellatum in Insular Newfoundland ................. 237
Monarch Butterfly Distribution in Insular Newfoundland .......................................... 238
Population of Isthmus Area, 1986 to 2006 .............................................................. 239
Isthmus Age Distribution, 2001 ............................................................................... 240
Historic Land Use Areas .......................................................................................... 248
Placentia Shipping Lane .......................................................................................... 258
MCTS Placentia Traffic Zone Limits, Sectors and Calling-in-Points........................ 260
Head of Placentia Bay ............................................................................................. 262
Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment Area ..................................................... 265
Commercial Fisheries Assessment Area................................................................. 283
Construction Safety Zone ........................................................................................ 287
Newfoundland LNG Water Lot Lease Area ............................................................. 292
Marine Mammal Assessment Area.......................................................................... 298
Migratory Birds Assessment Area ........................................................................... 315
Species at Risk Assessment Area........................................................................... 330
Air Quality Assessment Area ................................................................................... 354
Page xxxiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 10.9
Figure 10.10
Figure 11.1
Figure 11.2
Noise Attenuation from Heavy Truck Traffic ............................................................ 362

Marine Transportation and Safety Assessment Area .............................................. 370
Accidental Events Assessment Area ....................................................................... 385
Cumulative Effects Assessment Area ..................................................................... 420
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A Newfoundland LNG Ltd. Open House Summaries
APPENDIX B Agencies and Persons Consulted (Commercial Fisheries and Aquaculture
Sector)
Page xxxiv
INTRODUCTION
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. (the Proponent) proposes to develop a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Transshipment and Storage Terminal at Grassy Point, Placentia Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador (the
Project; see Figure 1.1). The Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal will provide
facilities for LNG cargo transfer, LNG storage and a lay-up site for transiting LNG carriers. The marine
facility will provide storage and loading capabilities for smaller or specialized LNG carriers that are able
to enter most LNG terminal ports in the United States (US). This LNG Project, unlike the other
proposals in Canada, is not an LNG import terminal and is not intended for the re-gasification of LNG.
Rather, this facility will operate as a component of the LNG delivery chain, providing transshipment and
storage services for clients with pre-existing supply arrangements. The terminal will provide storage
and offloading for larger LNG vessels for transfer to smaller LNG carriers for distribution to Eastern
Seaboard LNG import terminals.
The Project will involve the construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of:
a marine terminal comprised of three jetties with berthing capability for LNG carriers up to
265,000 m3;
a tug basin;
1.1
Purpose of the Comprehensive Study Report
Transport Canada (TC) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have initiated the federal
environmental assessment (EA) process pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the
CEA Act) for this Project. These departments have a responsibility to conduct an EA pursuant to
paragraphs 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(c) of the CEA Act and they are therefore considered Responsible
Authorities (RAs) for this Project. TCs and DFOs responsibility to ensure an assessment is conducted
is related to the issuance of a permit, license, or other approval that is included in the Law List
Regulations made pursuant to the CEA Act.
Environment Canada (EC), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Health Canada (HC) have
provided specialist or expert information and departmental knowledge in support of the environmental
assessment process.
In accordance with Sections 16 and 21 of the CEA Act, when a component of a development proposal
is prescribed in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations, the RAs must ensure that the federal
environmental assessment is conducted through a comprehensive study process. Components of the
proposed Project are listed under both Sections 13 (d) and 28 (c) of these regulations.
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1
Grassy Point, Placentia Bay
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
1.2
Need and Purpose of the Project
Natural gas is used in homes for cooking and heating, as fuel for school buses, and is also used as fuel
for generating electricity. In the US, natural gas makes up approximately 25 percent of all energy
consumed each year. Liquefaction also provides the opportunity to store natural gas for use during high
demand periods, or peakshaving, whereby local electric power and gas companies store gas for peak
demand that cannot be met via their typical pipeline source. When gas demand increases, the stored
LNG is converted from its liquefied state back to its gaseous state.
The projected increase in demand in the US for natural gas, along with declining domestic production,
has led to a surge of activity in developing LNG infrastructure. All existing US import terminals have
been expanded or are under expansion and dozens more terminals are proposed, have filed for
approval or, are under construction.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has stated its desire to establish the province as an
Energy Warehouse and the construction of an LNG terminal contributes to the critical mass of energy
infrastructure in the province. LNG is of critical importance to the North American energy equation and
Newfoundland (specifically the proposed facility) is exceptionally well positioned as an aggregation
point along existing and future LNG trade routes. Furthermore, Grassy Points proximity to the
northeast US, one of the largest LNG markets in the world, allows it to become a cost-effective service
provider, enhancing the Atlantic basin LNG supply and delivery chain.
The demand for natural gas in the US has increased since the 1980s due to:
increased energy requirements;
the desire to diversify energy resources and thereby enhance energy supply security;
the environmental advantages of natural gas over other fossil fuels; and
its superior thermal efficiency when used for electricity generation.
Most natural gas used in the US comes from domestic production, predominately from mature fields
that are declining in productivity. In recent years, new domestic discoveries have not offset reserves
being consumed. Therefore, imported natural gas in the form of LNG is needed to meet future demand.
Due to existing market dynamics such as offshore re-gasification technology, buoy-type import
terminals and longer shipping distances involved in the global transport of LNG supplies, there is a
predicted long-term need for strategic transhipment and storage facilities to service key North American
markets.
By allowing long-haul vessels to tranship cargos into smaller vessels that have buoy connection ports,
a transhipment and storage facility maximizes the buoy-type import terminals use. In addition, with
construction orders already placed for the 265,000 m3 LNG carriers, a transshipment and storage
facility will allow delivery into existing and proposed receiving terminals that cannot accommodate the
larger vessels.
Today there are over 100 active LNG facilities (inland storage, importing and exporting) in the US. In
Canada, there are eight proposals to develop LNG import and/or transshipment and storage facilities
that have gone through the EA process or are currently going through the EA process:
Kitimat LNG (Kitimat, British Columbia: import facility);
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Enbridge, Gaz Mtro, and Gaz de France (Beaumont, Qubec Rabaska project: import
facility);
nergie Grande-Anse (Saguenay, Qubec Project Grande-Anse: import facility);
TransCanada and Petro-Canada (Gros Cacouna, Quebec Cacouna Energy project: import
facility);
Irving Oil Limited and Repsol YPF (Saint John, New Brunswick Canaport LNG project:
import facility);
Keltic Petrochemicals and Maple LNG (Goldboro, Nova Scotia: import facility);
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Canso Strait, Nova Scotia - this project has received
regulatory approval, but development remains uncertain); and
West Pac (Prince Rupert, BC: import facility this project is approved, but development is
on hold)
The purpose of the Grassy Point Project is to provide Atlantic Basin LNG supply-chain solutions
through development of strategic transshipment and storage facilities. The Project will provide LNG
transshipment and storage services for northeastern US and Canadian LNG importers and providers.
When complete, the Project will provide facilities for the following services:
LNG cargo transfer;
short and long-term storage of LNG;
temporary vessel-based LNG storage; and
a lay-up site for in-transit LNG carriers.
1.3
Proponent Information
Newfoundland LNG Ltd., incorporated in 1999, is a St. Johns-based independent energy services
company. A joint venture of North Atlantic Pipeline Partners, L.P. and LNG Partners LLC, private
entities incorporated in Newfoundland and Delaware, U.S. respectively, are proposing the construction
and operation of Newfoundland LNG Transshipment, Storage and Marine Terminal (Newfoundland
LNG Ltd.).
Name of Corporate Body:
President and
Chief Operating Officer

Suite 302, 10 Fort William Place
St. Johns NL A1C 1K4
www.newfoundlandlng.com
Mark Turner
Suite 302, 10 Fort William Place
St. Johns, NL A1C 1K4
Tel. (709) 738-2600/ Fax: (709) 738-2632
mgt@newfoundlandlng.com
Page 4
INTRODUCTION
1.4
Properties of LNG
The main component of natural gas is methane, but it may also contain ethane, propane and small
quantities of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulphur compounds and water. The liquefaction process
requires the removal of some of the non-methane components, such as water and carbon dioxide, from
the natural gas to prevent formation of solids when the gas is cooled. As a result, LNG is made up
mostly of methane, typically approximately 95 percent.
Natural gas is an organic fossil fuel found in reservoirs beneath the Earths surface, often occurring in
the same locations as crude oil. When cooled to a temperature of -160C (or -260F) at atmospheric
pressure, natural gas becomes a clear, colourless and odourless liquid. The liquefaction (cooling)
process reduces natural gas to 1/600th of its original volume, making it possible to transport large
amounts of LNG over long distances in specially-designed ocean tankers. LNG is non-corrosive, nontoxic and vaporizes when exposed to air. LNG is not pressurized, and is approximately 45 percent the
density of water.
The low temperature of LNG is maintained by heavily insulating the tanks to keep heat out and by
removing the vapour that forms in the tank. LNGs low temperature requires that it be stored in
specially- designed tanks that can withstand extreme cold. The LNG is stored in double-walled tanks at
atmospheric pressure. The space between the walls in the tanks is filled with insulation to keep the
LNG cool. The inner tank, in contact with the LNG, is made of materials suitable for cryogenic service
and structural loading of LNG. These materials include 9 percent nickel steel, aluminum and prestressed concrete. The outer tank is generally made of carbon steel or pre-stressed concrete.
When LNG is confined within a tank, ignition of the natural gas vapours cannot occur due to the lack of
oxygen. If LNG leaks out and begins evaporating in an open area, the natural gas vapours are often
quickly dispersed by wind, making ignition unlikely. If ignition of the natural gas vapours occurs, the gas
does not burn rapidly like gasoline, but forms a slow burning flame that burns back to the source of the
natural gas vapour, until the fire is extinguished or the fuel is exhausted. Unlike products that are
considered flammable liquids, LNG must first be vaporized, mixed with air and then be exposed to an
ignition source before it will ignite. The flammable range lies between 5 and 15 percent in air, by
volume. For ignition to occur when LNG vapour contacts a hot surface, the temperature of that surface
must exceed 540C.
In summary:
LNG is not flammable. In fact, LNG itself does not burn because it does not contain oxygen,
which is needed for combustion.
LNG is not explosive. It cannot explode because the liquid state prevents it from mixing with
sufficient oxygen.
If LNG is released into the air, the liquid immediately warms up and converts back to a gas.
Initially, the gas is colder and heavier than the air, so it freezes any water vapour in the air.
This can temporarily create an icy fog similar to the vapour that escapes when you open
your freezer door in warm weather. As the gas continues to warm, it disperses into the
atmosphere.
LNG is odourless, colourless, non-corrosive and non-toxic.
LNG is not stored or transported under pressure. In fact, LNG will be stored at Grassy Point
in new tanks at very low pressure at approximately 1 to 3 psi (pounds per square inch).
Page 5
INTRODUCTION
1.5
LNG Industry Safety Record
Natural gas liquefaction dates back to the 19th century, when British chemist and physicist Michael
Faraday experimented with liquefying different types of gases, including natural gas. The liquefaction of
natural gas raised the possibility of its transportation to distant destinations. The first LNG plant was
built in West Virginia in 1912. The first LNG carrier, The Methane Pioneer, carried an LNG cargo from
Louisiana to England in January 1959. This event demonstrated that large quantities of LNG could be
transported safely across the ocean. The British Gas Council became the worlds first LNG importer,
bringing LNG from Algeria in 1964. Since that time, facilities have been developed in the US and
elsewhere to handle and distribute LNG. The worldwide fleet of LNG carriers was 136 in 2002, and is
expected to reach 300 in 2008.
The safety record of LNG ships far exceeds any other sector of the shipping industry. Worldwide in
2002, there were 17 LNG export (liquefaction) terminals, 40 import (re-gasification) terminals and 136
LNG ships, altogether handling approximately 120 million metric tons of LNG every year. LNG has
been safely delivered across the ocean for almost 50 years. In that time, there have been over 40,000
LNG carrier voyages, covering more than 60 million miles, without major accidents or safety problems,
either in port or on the high seas (Foss 2003). Over the past 40 years, there have been no collisions,
fires, explosions or hull failures resulting in a loss of containment for LNG ships. LNG is transported in
double-hulled ships designed to prevent leakage or rupture in an accident. LNG is stored in either
double membrane containment systems made of special materials and located within the ship's inner
hull or special 1.9 cm-thick (3/4-inch) spherical tanks. For membrane containment systems, a
secondary containment system surrounds the primary container. The insulation space between the two
has sensing equipment to detect even the smallest presence of methane (the main component of
natural gas), possibly indicating a leak of LNG.
The few incidents that have occurred on LNG ships are typical of the incidents on all types of ships (i.e.,
not related to either the LNG cargo or the fact that the ship was an LNG carrier). Incidents have
included minor piping leakage (non-LNG) and an occasional venting of a tank. According to the US
Department of Energy, over the life of the industry, eight marine incidents worldwide have resulted in
spillage of LNG, with some hulls damaged due to cold fracture, but no cargo fires have occurred. Seven
incidents have been recorded, two from groundings, but with no large cargo loss; that is, repairs were
quickly made and leaks were avoided (Foss 2003). Isolated accidents and fatalities occurred at several
onshore facilities in the early years of the industry. More stringent operational and safety regulations
have since been implemented. The experience of the LNG industry demonstrates that normal operating
hazards are manageable. The LNG industry employs robust containment systems, proven operational
procedures and many other safeguards.
Page 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
Location
The Grassy Point site is located on the island of Newfoundland at the head of Placentia Bay, within
Come By Chance Harbour, approximately 1.5 km west of the town of Arnolds Cove (Figure 2.1). The
landmark Grassy Point is a headland on the western side of a peninsula that forms Arnolds Cove
Harbour. This peninsula herein is referred to as the Grassy Point Peninsula, which is entirely within
the municipal boundary of the Town of Arnolds Cove.
Come By Chance Harbour is designated a Federal Harbour and under the jurisdiction of Transport
Canada. Transport Canada is responsible for the safety of operations within the Harbour under the
Canada Marine Act and Regulations. The route along Placentia Bay to Grassy Point is controlled by an
existing vessel traffic system operated by the Canadian Coast Guard and regulated under the Canada
Shipping Act.
2.2
Description of Project Facilities
The facility will be designed for LNG transfers, storage and reloading of LNG carriers (LNGCs), for
transshipment to market destinations. The Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal (the
Project) will consist of LNGC berths, a tug basin, LNG storage tanks, interconnecting flow lines, reliquefaction equipment, facility power generation and support facilities. The facility will also be designed
to allow ship-to-ship transfer of LNG. The facility will include onshore and pier fire fighting capability and
on-site spill containment and clean-up equipment.
In particular, the proposed Project will include:
three berths, each with service platforms and transfer arms;
one tug basin;
LNG pipeline from each pier to the LNG storage tanks;
eight 160,000 m3 LNG storage tanks;
access roads;
in-tank LNG pumps;
cryogenic compressors;
cryogenic blowers;
boil-off gas (BOG) compressors;
fuel gas system which includes LNG pumps and vaporizers;
nitrogen re-liquefaction system for LNG BOG;
seawater pipes and pumps;
Page 7
Gravel Road
Newfoundland
Transshipment Terminal
Roads
Berth Configuration
Grassy Point LNG Transshipment
and Storage Project Boundary
Tug Basin
Tank Area
Arnold's Cove
CLIENT:
NEWFOUNDLAND LNG LIMITED
PROJECT TITLE:

and Storage Terminal CSR
DRAWING TITLE:
Proposed Location of the Grassy Point

LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal
Figure 2.1
Jacques Whitford
Bordeaux
Island
SCALE:
250
Metres
500
1:26500
DRAWN BY:
EDITED BY:
CP
CP
DRAWING No.:
MAP FILE:
BASE_Fig_2.1.mxd
DATE:
FEB 22, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
cooling water pumps;

fire suppression system;
gas turbine power plant;
various plant support auxiliary systems, including wastewater handling system; and
various safety systems, including fire, gas and low temperature detection sensors.
The main facility processes include:
LNG transfer systems to and from LNGCs and LNG storage tanks;
LNG storage;
BOG re-liquefaction systems;
ship-to-ship transfer of LNG; and
power generation.
2.2.1
Facilities Overview, Layout and Footprint
The facility is designed to provide LNG transshipment from one LNGC to another, as well as provide
on-site storage and re-liquefaction capacity for the BOG. The facility will accommodate LNGCs up to
265, 000 m in capacity. All piers will be able to support side-by-side docking of two LNGCs for ship-toship transfer.
Access to the site will be via a secondary road off the Trans Canada Highway (TCH). The developed
area of LNG facility will encompass approximately 115 ha. A plan view of the LNG facility layout is
presented in Figure 2.2.
2.2.2
Liquefied Natural Gas and Natural Gas Characteristics
LNG is the name given to natural gas when it is cooled to a temperature of -160C and attains liquid
composition. Liquefaction minimizes the transportation costs by reducing the volume of natural gas by
600 times. Natural gas remains in its liquid form due to cryogenic cooling and is never pressurized.
LNG has the following characteristics:
it is odourless and colourless and looks much like water;
it is non-toxic, non-corrosive and non-poisonous;
it is at a cryogenic temperature of -160C;
it is stored at just above atmospheric pressure;
at normal ambient temperatures, it evaporates very rapidly and expands to approximately
600 times its liquid volume; and
it has density which is just under half that of water and therefore floats on water.
Page 9
Figure 2.2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Comparably, as the LNG begins to vaporize, it obtains the following characteristics (OTA 1977):
in the vapour state when it is still very cold, the gas is heavier than air and, in the event of a
spill, will collect at the ground surface until it dissipates;
when the vapour warms up to approximately -110C, it is lighter than air and will rise and
dissipate;
in the vapour state, it is not poisonous, but could cause asphyxiation above a certain
concentration; and
in the vapour state, only concentrations of 5 to 15 percent natural gas in air by volume are
flammable.
Natural gas (vaporized LNG) is primarily comprised of methane (CH4), ethane and propane and small
fractions of butane and pentane. Natural gas from its source also contains impurities such as hexane,
plus nitrogen, water, sulphur compounds, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Natural gas is purified and
converted to LNG so that this energy source can be shipped economically (LNG occupies 1/600th the
volume of its source gas). Unlike heavier hydrocarbons, methane cannot be liquefied by increasing its
storage pressure. Methane first must be cooled below its critical temperature before it can be liquefied
at any pressure. Generally, LNG is handled at approximately atmospheric pressure. This low pressure
dictates that the LNG temperature is approximately -161C (-259F). LNG weighs 42 to 47 percent (420
to 470 kg/m3) of an equal volume of water (1,000 kg/m3). LNG liquid itself is non-flammable. If ignition
occurs, the vapour above the pool will burn, but not the liquid. If ignited, LNG vapour burns slowly
relative to some other fuels. Therefore, the flame front associated with an LNG vapour cloud ignition
travels relatively slowly and, if in an open space, results in a deflagration-type (low overpressure and
slow flame front) flash fire. LNG vapour must be confined when ignited to cause overpressure.
2.2.3
Design Standards and Activities
The design and construction of the LNG facility is highly regulated with design standards and codes.
The following is a list of codes which may apply to this facility:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AISI: American Iron and Steel Institute
ANSI: American National Standards Institute
API: American Petroleum Institute
API RP 2A-LRFD: Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms Load and Resistance Factor Design
API SPEC 2B: Specification for Fabricated Structural Steel Pipe
API 5L: Specification for Line Pipe
API PUB 5L: Guide for Application of Water Spray Systems for Fire Protection in the
Petroleum Industry
ASTM A307: Carbon Steel bolts and Studs
ASTM A325: Structural bolts, Steel, Heat Treated 120/105 ksi Minimum Tensile Strength
BS 6349: Part 1 : British Standard Code of Practice for Maritime Structures Part 1 General
Criteria
Page 11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BS 6349: Part 2 : British Standard Code of Practice for Maritime Structures Part 2 Design
of Quay Walls, Jetties & Dolphins
BS 6349: Part 4 : British Standard Code of Practice for Maritime Structures Part 4 Design
of Fendering and Mooring Systems
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
Canadian Electrical Code C22.1 & C22.2
CAN/CSA-S6: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC)
CSA A23.1: Concrete Materials & Methods of Concrete Construction
CSA A23.2: Methods of Test for Concrete
CSA A23.3: Design of Concrete Structures
CSA A23.4: Precast Concrete Materials and Construction
CAN/CSA-S16.01: Limits States Design of Steel Structures
CAN/CSA G40.20: General Requirements for Rolled or Welded Structural Quality Steel
CAN/CSA G40.21: Structural Quality Steels
CSA S37: Antennas, Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures
CSA Z276-07: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Production, Storage & Handling
CISC Handbook of Steel Construction
CISC Design Guide for Hollow Structural Section Connections and Trusses
CPCA Concrete Design Handbook
CSA Z299.3: Quality Verification Program Requirements
NBCC: National Building Code of Canada
NFCC: National Fire Code of Canada
NFPA: National Fire Protection Association
Fire Commissioner of Canada FC No. 373: Standard for Piers and Wharves
OCIMF: Oil companies International Marine Forum
SSPC: Steel Structures Painting Council
Transport Canada TP 743: Code of Recommended Standards for the Safety and Prevention
of Pollution for Marine Transportation Systems and Related Assessment Procedures
(TERMPOL CODE)
WHMIS: Workplace Hazards Materials Information System
CSA Z276-07, the Canadian Labour Code(s), provincial Labour Code(s) and good
engineering/operating practice require procedures to be established and measures to be taken to help
ensure an LNG facility is designed, constructed and operated in a way that keeps the public, the
environment and the on-site workers safe. One element of a safe design is the team-based process
hazards analysis (PHA). Hazards and operability (HAZOP) analysis is a generally accepted design
analysis technique in industry that is applicable to large LNG projects. During the front-end engineering
and design (FEED) stage, as sufficient design information is completed, a HAZOP will be performed.
Page 12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following information and resources will be included in the HAZOP:

Process Flow Diagram (PFD) that will show flow rates, temperatures, pressures, inventories
and key process equipment and piping;
Process and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs);
Final plant layout that indicates locations of buildings, roads, process equipment, property
lines, marine facilities, major piping, sensitive environmental areas (if any) and thermal
radiation and vapour dispersion zones that were determined per CSA Z276-07 guidelines;
LNG properties and potential hazards (as well as information about any other relevant
compounds);
relevant guidance documents, such as CSA Z276-07, that relate to facility siting and layout,
as well as a checklist(s) to facilitate an analysis of the facilitys layout;
written process, facility and safety systems description,
a trained, independent facilitator;
team members that include engineering, operating, maintenance, instrumentation and
control personnel with experience in the process;
brief training in the PHA methodology for most team members (the facilitator will receive
formal training);
a means to document the teams review and findings;
a list of previous incidents related to the type of facility/process being constructed, and
guidance on risk ranking methodology.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has scheduled a simulation study for safety and design considerations and to
satisfy requirements of the TERMPOL process. This study is being completed by the Centre for Marine
Simulation, Memorial University.
Through simulation modelling of the marine aspects of the Project, the forces needed to counteract
wind and current will be identified and the safety of navigation will be validated. The Terminal Operator
and the Harbour Authority will identify the size and numbers of tugs necessary for the berthing process,
the confirmation of which will be verified by Transport Canada, Marine Safety. Meteorological criteria for
safe berthing and departure from the berth, using tugs, will be identified, and approved through the
TERMPOL Review process. The design criteria for the Terminal and operational constraints will be
reviewed by the (Transport Canada) TERMPOL Review Committee.
2.2.4
LNG Carriers
The Grassy Point terminal berths are designed to accommodate LNG carriers (LNGCs) between
87,000 m3 and 265,000 m3. Smaller LNG carriers may be accommodated but economics, efficiency and
the end users port facilities dictate that the 87,000 m3 is the optimum smallest to be used by the
Project.
The world fleet of LNG carriers consists of 369 vessels in service or on order, of which 148 vessels are
on the books and not due for delivery until 2007 or later. These vessels range in capacity from 1,078 m3
to 153,000 m3 (Table 2.1).
Page 13
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3
The Q-Flex vessels are 210,000 m to 216,000 m and the Q-Max vessels are 250,000 m3 to
265,000 m3.
Table 2.1
Existing and Proposed World Fleet by Capacity

Capacity in cubic metres
250,000 to 265,000
210,000 to 217,000
150,000 to 177,000
140,000 to 150,000
120,000 to 140,000
80,000 to 88,000
50,000 to 80,000
< 50,000
No. of
vessels
10
27
55
96
142
4
15
20
LNGCs are large vessels with a comparatively shallow draft, large air draft and surface areas
susceptible to wind loading. The hull form on LNGCs is relatively fine, enabling the vessels to operate
at comparatively high speeds in open seas. Table 2.2 gives the range of the principal dimensions,
power and speed:
Table 2.2
World Fleet Principal Dimensions of LNG Vessels 87,000 to 265,000 m3.

Dimension
Length Overall
Beam
Draft
Depth
Engines and Machinery
Total Power, kW
Service Speed, knots
Range in metres
239 to 345
34 to 54
11.8 to 13.5
23 to 27
20,000 to 46,000
18.5 to 20.5
Conventional LNGCs are powered by steam turbine engines driving single propellers. The steam is
produced in boilers powered by gas which has been boiled off from the cargo during the transit,
collected and burned in the boilers. These vessels are not normally fitted with re-liquefaction plants. On
the ballast voyage, the boilers are fuelled by marine fuel oil. Because these vessels are required to use
the services of tugs in most ports of the world, these carriers are fitted with single acting rudders, and
some have no bow thrusters, relying on the tugs to assist in the manoeuvring alongside and from the
berths.
Modern design has recognised the need for greater manoeuvrability, and new LNGCs are being
developed with twin propellers (some variable pitch), high lift rudders (e.g., Becker type) and thrusters
(bow and stern). This increases the manoeuvrability of the vessels, and reduces the reliance on tugs, or
provides additional mitigation in the event of mechanical failure. This increase in manoeuvrability of
newer vessels is in no way brought about by the lack of confidence in the conventional carriers
manoeuvrability. It is the economics of requiring large numbers of powerful tugs for berthing and
departure. The newer vessels are also equipped with re-liquefaction plants to return the boil-off gas to
the cargo tanks. The newly designed vessels are diesel or diesel electric main power plants equipped
with twin propellers, a high-lift rudder and bow thrusters. Fuel for the motor ships is diesel fuel or
marine fuel oil on both legs of the voyage. Some research is being undertaken to identify if the boil-off
gas can be utilised in the propulsion units.
On the main sea voyage, the vessels have an average service speed of approximately 19.5 knots (10
m/sec), and following time to reduce the engine temperatures, have a reduced full manoeuvring speed
of approximately 12 knots (6.17m/sec) to 15 knots (7.71m/sec). Effective dead slow ahead speed is
Page 14
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
approximately 6 knots (3.08m/sec). Stopping distances will vary, but in a crash stop scenario, not
using tugs or rudder, a Moss type LNG carrier with a displacement of approximately 90,000 tonnes,
making way through the water at full sea speed (21 knots) will take approximately 10 to 12 minutes to
reduce speed through the water to less than 1 knot, and the advance will be approximately 3,500
metres. Utilizing the rudder, and reducing cavitation by stepping the engine speeds from full ahead to
full astern may reduce the advance and the time. Within Placentia Bay ,the LNGCs will not be
proceeding at full sea speed, but at the maximum, full speed manoeuvring, or approximately 12 to 15
knots, which will reduce the time and advance significantly, if a crash stop is required.
2.2.4.1 Cargo Carriage and Tank Design
LNGCs are of two basic designs and both are likely to use the Grassy Point facility. The Kvaerner-Moss
spherical tanks have proven to be the most suitable for vessels up to approximately 140,000 m3 cargo
capacity, but the geometry precludes the use of the spheres for the larger vessels. The membrane tank
enables better usage of the ship hull design (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3
Kvaerner-Moss Spherical Tanks (left) and Membrane Tanks in an LNGC
The tanks are constructed with material capable of withstanding the cryogenic temperatures (e.g.,
alloys of nickel steel or aluminium) and the shaping of the tanks has been developed to reduce the
possibility of damage due to sloshing forces of the liquid. Limitations are placed on the movement of the
membrane tank carrier when the tanks are partially discharged (or loaded), due to the prospect of
sloshing damage.
Spherical Tank LNGCs Tanks and Containment
The mid-range capacity and smaller LNGCs were developed with spherical tanks, which provided a
suitable and safe system for carriage of LNG. The tanks are constructed of nickel steel, aluminium or
other alloy suitable for containing the cryogenic liquid, surrounded by insulation and an outer steel shell.
No part of the primary containment comes into contact with the carrier hull (Figure 2.4).
Page 15
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2.4
Containment and Insulation in Spherical Tanks Construction
Membrane Tank LNGCs Tanks and Containment

The Gaz Transport system uses two membranes constructed of Invar (36percent nickel-iron low
expansion alloy). The primary barrier, inner tank membrane, and the secondary barrier are separated
by boxes of insulation. Similar boxes are fitted between the secondary barrier and the inner hull (Figure
2.5). The membrane surface is supported by the insulation, and the load is transferred to the hull
through the insulation. The membrane ensures the liquid-tightness of the containment. One drawback
with the membrane system is that sloshing of the liquid in the tanks can cause damage to the
membrane. For this reason, the vessels should not be in a seaway when the tanks are between 10
percent and 80 percent full.
Figure 2.5
Containment and Insulation in Membrane Tank Construction
Page 16
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The specific gravity of LNG is about half that of water (0.46); the ships are therefore of large capacity,
light in draught, and large in air draft. The vessels hulls are designed to accommodate the cargo tanks,
the insulation, outer tank shells, void spaces and ballast tanks. No part of the cargo tank comes into
contact with the hull. The overall dimensions of the vessels are large so they can be economical. The
largest design vessel will be 354 m in length over-all, with a beam of 55 m, draught of 12.5 m and a
depth of 27 m. The tanks will protrude above the main deck approximately 4 to 6 m.
2.2.5
Berth and Transfer Facilities
The Grassy Point LNG facility will use three berths outfitted with applicable LNG transfer equipment.
The transfer platforms for each pier will be interconnected to shore via an elevated access trestle. The
exact configuration of the piers is currently under design review. In particular, there are two locations
being considered for Berth 1 (see Figure 2.2).
Each berth will be capable of berthing a 140,000 m3 and 265,000 m3 LNG vessel. The construction of
the three berths will be phased in over the duration of the Project.
Each pier will be similar in construction and will consist of a substructure, superstructure, service
platform, mooring dolphins, berthing dolphins, an access trestle connecting the loading platform to
shore and walkways connecting the mooring and berthing dolphins (Figure 2.6).
The three berths will include facilities for the receiving, unloading and loading of LNG product from
LNGCs. The piers will have safety design features including quick disconnect transfer arms and quick
release mooring hooks.
Each berth will be constructed with the following structures and features:
service platform approximately 30 m x 30 m;
two berthing dolphins approximately 9 m x 12 m each;
four mooring dolphins approximately 6 m x 8 m each;
steel truss catwalks connecting the dolphin structures;
access trestle capable of carrying vehicle traffic and LNG pipe racks;
quick release mooring hooks;
spill containment equipment;
fire fighting equipment and fire monitors; and
electrical supply and lighting.
Each berth will have four mooring dolphins, two on either side of the service platform. The mooring
dolphins will be designed to withstand forces created by wind, waves and currents on the LNGCs. Each
mooring dolphin will be equipped with:
triple quick release hook assemblies with powered capstans; and
handrail and bull rails.
Each berth will have two berthing dolphins, which are designed to absorb the berthing forces of the
LNGC. The berthing dolphins will be equipped with energy absorbing fenders.
Page 17
Figure 2.6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.2.5.1 Sub-Structure
The sub-structure support for the service platform, dolphins and access trestle will be steel-pipe-piles,
which are driven into the bedrock and grouted to the pile caps. An optional structural configuration
would use pre-fabricated steel jackets. The final selection of the structural system will be determined
upon completion of the geotechnical surveys, engineering design and costing exercises.
Piles under tension loads will be fixed to the seabed by grouting anchors into the pile annulus and
drilling and grouting the anchors into the bedrock. All drill cuttings will be returned to the drilling barge
and discharged onshore in accordance with regulatory requirements.
2.2.5.2 Superstructure
The superstructure of each of the marine structures will consist of a combination of pre-cast concrete
elements combined with in-situ concrete. Concrete bases will be provided for mechanical equipment.
Handrails and bull rails will provide protection along the perimeter of the service platform, mooring
dolphins and berthing dolphins.
2.2.5.3 Service Platform
Each service platform will be equipped with four loading arms. Three arms will be dedicated for LNG
flow and one for vapour return. The service platform will be accessible for vehicle traffic and will be
equipped with:
a control station;
pipe racks;
mooring hooks to handle the vessel spring lines;
cranes;
lighting and electrical distribution systems;
navigational aids;
cathodic protection;
communications equipment;
fire detection and fire fighting equipment; and
gas detection systems.
2.2.5.4 Access Trestle
An access trestle will serve to provide a support system for the pipe racks, mechanical systems,
electrical trays and vehicle traffic. The trestle lengths will vary with each pier. The overall width will be
sufficient to provide one way vehicle traffic, pedestrian right-of-way, pipeline and other utilities.
Trestles will be constructed of steel plate girders with pre-cast deck elements. Piping and utilities will be
supported by a steel truss structure. The trestle will be supported on a concrete pile cap supported on
steel pipe piles. Elastomeric bearing pads will be provided under each of the trestle bearing points.
Page 19
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.2.5.5 Access Walkways

Steel truss walkways will link the service platform, berthing dolphins and mooring dolphins. The
walkways will also carry the cable trays for electrical conduits for power, navigation aids and piping for
LNG product.
2.2.6
LNG Transfer Arms
LNG transfer arms, used for both loading and unloading LNGCs, will be installed at each of the three
piers associated with this Project. Loading arms will be designed to accommodate LNGCs ranging in
capacity from 140,000 to 265,000 m3. Each berth will have four 500 mm (20) LNG transfer arms (one
vapour, three liquid). The piping system and pumps will be designed for a maximum transfer rate of
15,000 m3 per hour such that LNG can be transferred from onshore tanks to ships, from ships to
onshore tanks, or from ship-to-ship. Typical transfer arms as connected are shown in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7
Typical Transfer Arms
Page 20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Safety and operability of the transfer arm connection process and pier facilities will be enhanced by
quick connect/disconnect couplers, powered emergency release couplings (PERCs), hazard detection
instruments, emergency and automatic shutdown systems, remote monitoring devices, increased
personnel attendance during LNG transfers and fire extinguishing equipment. The PERCs are used for
emergency quick disconnect of the ship-to-shore piping connections. The quick connect/disconnect
couplers are used to align and connect the unloading arm flange and the ships flange during hook-up.
The quick connect/disconnect couplers will enhance efficiency and worker safety during the ship-toshore connection process.
A containment area consisting of concrete berms and a sump will be constructed around the transfer
arms to contain any spilled LNG. A sump pump will pump the LNG ashore in the event of a spill.
2.2.7
Ship to Ship Transfer
Transfer of LNG from vessel to vessel will be conducted using specially designed flexible hoses or a
modified hard arm loading system (Figure 2.8). Ship to ship transfers will only be conducted while
vessels are secured to the jetties either side by side or while two vessels are secured to adjacent jetties
and the product is transferred via inter connecting pipeline from one jetty to the other. No ship to ship
transfers will be performed while at anchorage or underway.
Figure 2.8
Ship to Ship LNG Transfer with Flexible Hose
2.2.7.1 Manifold Connections

The manifolds for connections between ship and shore, and ship and ship will be such that the hard
arms or hoses enable both the vapour and the LNG to be transferred concurrently. The system is a
closed-loop system and no product is lost to the atmosphere. The emergency shutdowns and
disconnects (ESDs) will be tested prior to operation commencement.
Page 21
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The connections for the operations monitoring and data transfer interface are located adjacent to the
manifolds, and must be confirmed to be working in all respects before the commencement of the
transfer operations.
The manifolds will allow the transfer of both the LNG to the tank and the expelled vapour from the
receiving tank. In the event of a major malfunction or movement of the vessel beyond the permitted
range, the connections to the manifolds have the capability of automatically breaking away and the
product lines sealed, minimizing the loss of product.
2.2.7.2 Cool down
The tanks on a receiving LNGC must be cooled to below the normal carriage temperature to
approximately -164 Celsius. This will be carried out by introducing LNG to the tank at less than
maximum flow rates and in spray form. This will displace the vapour in the tank which will be
transferred to the shore facility, the re-liquefaction plant or to the LNCCs power plant and burned as
fuel.
2.2.7.3 LNG Transfer
When the tanks are at the correct loading temperature, the LNG will be transferred at increasing rates
until the maximum flow rate for the transfer is obtained. Throughout the operation, the transfer will be
monitored by the receiving vessel, the discharge vessel and the terminal ashore. The positions of the
LNGCs will be monitored and controlled to ensure that they retain their respective positions in relation
to each other and/or to the berth. This control will require attention to the mooring lines, and to the
intake and/or discharge of ballast. It is imperative that the range of movement of the vessels remains
within the limits of the hard arms or the hoses.
Both vessels will be fitted with ESDs that will be electronically and/or hydraulically linked so that, in any
event where one vessel seeks to stop the operation, the process will stop the operation on both
vessels.
2.2.8
Tug Berth
A dedicated tugboat berth will be constructed north of the jetties for the mooring of project-specific
tugboats ( Figure 2.2). Fuelling of the tugs will be carried out at NARL. The tug basin will be constructed
of rock fill and concrete caissons. Dredging will be required to construct the tug basin. Some rock
blasting may also be required to achieve the required 7 m water depth. Details of tug basin construction
are provided in Section 2.3.5.2.
2.2.9
Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Facilities
The Project at full build out will consist of eight LNG storage tanks. The nominal capacity of each tank
will be 160,000 m. The proposed LNG storage tanks are single-containment, double-wall, metal tanks.
Nine percent nickel steel will be used for LNG storage tank inner vessels. Carbon steel or concrete may
also be used for the outer shell. The tank design pressure will be 2 psig (i.e., gauge pressure or 2 psi
above ambient air pressure).
Page 22
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The tanks will be insulated with perlite in the annular space between the walls, cellular foam glass
blocks on the bottom and fibreglass blanket on the suspended deck (Figure 2.9). The tank and
insulation systems will be designed to limit the heat in-leak such that the maximum BOG generated
from the tank will be 0.05 percent of the tanks volume. The inner tank will contain LNG and will operate
at cryogenic temperature. The outer will fully enclose the insulation and inner tank. This is the most
common LNG tank type in North America. The tanks will be designed, constructed and tested per CSA
Z276-07 and API 620.
Figure 2.9
Single Containment LNG Tank Design
The LNG tanks will be equipped with level devices, pressure/vacuum relieving devices, pressure makeup system, remote monitoring capability, overfill prevention interlocks, pressure and temperature
indication, and LNG density profiling capability to detect stratification. The piping systems will be
designed so that LNG can be re-circulated or loaded from both the top and bottom to help prevent
stratification. Fire/leak detection and fire extinguishing equipment will be sited throughout the tank area
to detect and mitigate potential leaks and fires. There will be no below-liquid-level tank penetrations.
This is possible due to the incorporation of submersible LNG in-tank pumps that will be installed inside
the tanks and discharged through the top of the tanks. Eliminating below-liquid-level penetrations
reduces the likelihood of LNG leaks.
As with any LNG storage or handling operation, boil off gas (BOG) will be generated by heat input to
the LNG from air temperature and from processing operations. The BOG will be controlled by the use of
boil-off compressors that will pull the vapours from the LNG storage tanks and send the vapours to the
fuel gas system, back to the LNGC, or to the re-liquefaction units. BOG will be collected and reliquefied or used for the facilities power production. BOG will not normally be vented to the atmosphere.
For upset conditions, there will be a heated vent gas system which will be tied to all LNG storage tanks
and will vent to atmosphere at a safe location.
Page 23
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.2.10 Storage Tank Secondary Containment

Secondary containment for each LNG storage tank will be provided by an independent bund wall
impoundment system designed as per CSA Z276-07. The impoundments will be designed to hold the
full contents of each LNG tank plus a 10 percent allowance for precipitation accumulation. The holding
volume of the impoundment will be designed to account for any volume lost to equipment foundations.
The impoundments will be designed per the seismic criteria contained in CSA Z276-07 to maintain their
structural integrity and spill containment capability in the event of a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).
Water accumulation is inevitable due to precipitation from weather conditions. A pump will be installed
at a low point or sump in each containment area. These pumps will contain low temperature sensors
and gas detection equipment to detect any spilled LNG and prevent the accidental pumping of LNG out
of the impoundment area.
2.2.11 Re-liquefaction Facilities
The re-liquefaction facilities will include the refrigerant and liquefaction system and BOG/vapour
handling system.
Since the Grassy Point facility does not have a natural gas pipeline to provide an outlet for the BOG, a
re-liquefaction system will be installed to re-liquefy the boil-off and return the LNG to the storage tanks.
There will be four re-liquefaction trains installed for this process.
Each re-liquefaction train will consist of a nitrogen refrigerant system, which will include compression
and expanders. Each train will have a cold box where heat is exchanged between the BOG and
refrigerant, cooling the BOG to a point it condenses into a liquid (LNG). The refrigerant system will also
include one or two nitrogen generation units.
Each cold box will have containment underneath and any LNG spill would be contained. There will be a
containment trench sloped from each cold box where it is contained in a process impoundment area.
Prior to entering the cold box, BOG will be compressed to approximately 750 psig through the BOG
compressors. The pressure of the LNG flowing from the cold box will then be reduced and sent to the
LNG transfer headers, the0n on to the LNG carriers and storage tanks.
The re-liquefaction system and BOG compressors will require cooling. A closed loop water/glycol
system using propylene glycol will be used to provide cooling to inter-stage and after-stage heat
exchangers. This system will include pumps, inter-stage and after-stage heat exchangers,
expansion/surge tank and seawater heat exchanger(s). A seawater once-through cooling system will be
used to remove heat from the closed loop water/glycol system. The seawater cooling system will
include seawater intake, pumps, heat exchanger(s) and discharge piping.
2.2.11.1
Boil-off Gas and Vapour Handling Systems
During LNG transfer from LNGCs, BOG is created in greater quantities. These vapours are generated
by heat in-leak from air temperature, heat from mechanical input, and displacement when filling a ship
or storage tank. The storage tank or ship being emptied requires vapour to be returned to fill the void
from the liquid being transferred.
Page 24
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.2.11.2
Cryogenic Blowers
Cryogenic blowers will be installed to move displacement vapours back to the ship when unloading
LNG. The ships will have blowers onboard to move vapours back to the storage tanks. These blowers
will increase the pressure to approximately 10 to 18 psig.
2.2.11.3
Boil-off Gas Compressors
Both cryogenic and non-cryogenic compressors will be installed to increase the BOG pressure to
approximately 750 psig. The BOG discharge from these compressors will then flow into the fuel gas
system or to the re-liquefaction system.
2.2.11.4
Vent Gas System
A vent gas system will include an atmospheric vent stack and a heated water/glycol loop to heat the
vapours before they enter the vent stack. This system is intended to operate during unusual
circumstances such as power outage. During a power outage, the BOG generated in the storage tanks
will not be re-liquefied for a short period due to lack of power to the refrigerant compressor. A back-up
generator will immediately provide power to supply BOG compressor (for fuel gas), water/glycol heater,
pumps and control system with at least 30 minutes of power to allow for safe shutdown of process
systems.
Without power, the BOG will enter the vent gas system and go through a heat exchanger that will
transfer heat from the heated water/glycol to the BOG. The BOG will then be vented through the vent
stack to the atmosphere. This heating process is intended to warm the vapours to a temperature such
that the vapours will be lighter than air and rise into the atmosphere.
The water/glycol system will include two hot water heaters, pumps, expansion/surge tank and plate-fin
heat exchanger. The system will use propylene glycol and will be common with the water/glycol system
required for the fuel gas systems. A third hot water heater will be installed for the fuel gas system, as
well as additional pumps.
2.2.11.5
Fuel Gas System
The fuel gas system will provide fuel for the hot water/glycol heaters and the power generation
equipment. During idle periods and periods when LNG is being transferred, BOG vapours will supply all
of the fuel gas requirements. However, prior to LNG transfer operations, the re-liquefaction process will
be started for cool down. During this period, the amount of BOG vapours will not be enough for power
generation. Therefore, two shell and tube LNG vaporizers and pumps will be installed to supplement
the fuel gas system during these periods. Once LNG transfer begins, the BOG generated will be more
than enough to supply the fuel for power generation and the LNG vaporizers and associated pumps will
shut down. A heated water/glycol loop will provide the heat for LNG vapourization.
2.2.12 Fire Prevention and Control
The design of the terminal is based on standards and codes that provide a high level of integrity,
thereby minimizing the potential for flammable gas and liquid releases.
An extensive range of spill, leak and fire detection systems will be installed throughout the facilities. In
addition to the automatic alarms raised by the detection systems, pre-engineered automatic shutdowns
are also included in the design to mitigate releases of any flammable products. Automatic fire protection
Page 25
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
and containment systems will also be constructed. To allow for the unlikely event of a relief valve fire,
an automatic fire suppression system will be installed.
The planned number, capacity and location of fire water monitors, including those located at the berths,
is such that resourced fire exposure protection is provided throughout the process and storage areas.
The fire water main is supplied by two electrical pumps. In the event of loss of power supply, the fire
water duty is provided by two standby diesel pumps with the same capacity. Each pump is rated for 250
m3/h. In general, sea water will be used for the fire suppression water requirements. A 30 cm diameter
submerged intake pipe will be located at a berth to supply water to the pumps. The intake pipe will be
designed to meet all applicable regulations including DFOs Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen
Guideline (1995).
Additional fire suppression equipment provided includes:
packaged foam generation system(s);
firewater truck;
dry chemical truck; and
dry powder system(s).
Details of the fire suppression systems are provided below in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3
Facility Fire Suppression System
Facility
Component
Fire Extinguishing
System at each
LNG Storage
Tank
Dry Chemical Fire

Extinguishing
Systems for Each
Berth
Feature of System
An automatic nitrogen snuffing system shall be provided at the tailpipe of each LNG storage tank
pressure relief valves to extinguish a fire at a discharge point associated with a leaking valve and
an ignition source such as lightning.
The nitrogen snuffing system shall include nitrogen bottle storage at the base of each tank, a riser
pipe from the bottle storage to the vent pipes at the top of each tank, control valves and entries
into each stack.
Hand held dry chemical fire extinguishers shall be installed at the pump platform on the top of
each tank.
To avoid inadvertent leaks from each LNG storage tank, all connections shall be through the top of
the tank. The LNG storage tank pumps shall be submersible pumps mounted within each tank.
Flanged connections shall be located at the top of each tank for connection of field piping. A
stainless steel spill prevention pan shall be provided at the top of each tank around the flanged
connections to catch any inadvertent LNG leaks and keep the cold liquid away from the carbon
steel outer liner of the LNG storage tank. An automatically controlled water based deluge fire
suppression system shall be provided at the top of each tank to service the spill prevention pan. In
the event of an LNG spill, the deluge system shall apply water to the spill prevention pan to
vaporize the LNG liquid before it has a chance to spill out of the collection pan and overflow onto
the outer carbon steel tank.
The dry chemical extinguishing systems shall be designed, constructed and installed in
accordance with NFPA-17.
Dry chemical skid mounted system with Purple K dry chemical agent.
Nitrogen cylinders mounted on the skid shall provide the system pressure.
The skid shall be pre-piped prior to arriving on site.
The skid shall include a corrosion control package to enable it to be mounted outdoors in a marine
environment without fear of corrosion.
The skid shall include a 30 metre hand held hose and nozzle and hard piped monitor nozzle in a
turret assembly.
The system shall be capable of both automatic and manual activation. A fire alarm panel shall be
provided complete with the skid to enable interfacing with fire detection devices at the berth to
enable the system to be activated automatically.
Dry chemical skid packages shall be located on each 30 metre by 30-metre service platform.
Page 26
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Facility
Component
LNG Storage
Tank Secondary
Impoundment
Process
Impoundment
Area
Pier Impoundment
Areas

Feature of System
Each LNG storage tank shall have a secondary impoundment area within the main impoundment
dike.
The anticipated initial size of the secondary impoundment area shall be 30 m x 30 m x 3 m deep.
The sub impoundment shall be sized based upon a 10-minute LNG tank pump out spill at a
design-pumping rate of 15,000 m3/hr of LNG.
The concrete trench between the main impoundment and the secondary impoundment shall be
concrete. Consideration shall be given to the use of Perlite insulation to minimize the heat gain to
the LNG as it makes its way to the secondary impoundment. This would result in a decrease in
LNG vapour formation. The present tank locations and the vapour dispersion analysis have been
carried out assuming uninsulated concrete trenches from the main impoundment to the sub
impoundment.
At present it is not envisioned to provide high expansion foam fire suppression systems at each
LNG storage tank sub impoundment. However a fire protection evaluation shall be carried out in
accordance with Z276 to determine if a high expansion foam system is needed at each LNG
storage tank location.
An impoundment area shall be provided at the process area to collect and contain an inadvertent
LNG spill.
The process impoundment shall be of concrete construction to match the impoundments at the
LNG storage tanks, and will likely be 19 m x 19 m x 3 m deep.
The process area impoundment shall be sized to contain a spill from the LNG booster pump
suction line for a three-minute duration at an LNG design flow of 15,000 m3/hr.
The process impoundment area shall be protected with a high expansion foam system, capable of
supplying foam at a rate of 1.83 cubic metres of foam per minute.
The foam concentrate tank shall be capable of storing enough foam concentrate to enable 60
minutes of foam generator operation.
The high expansion foam system shall utilize a 1.15 foam shrinkage factor and 1.2 foam leakage
factor in the sizing of the high expansion foam generator.
The system shall use a balanced bladder pressure tank to store high expansion foam concentrate.
Water pressure supplied by the sea water fire pumps will pressurize the bladder tanks to provide
the motive force to inject the high expansion foam concentrate into a foam proportioner.
A pipe mounted foam proportioner shall be supplied for each high expansion foam system. The
seawater shall flow through the proportioner and in doing so shall create a point of low pressure.
The difference between the seawater pressure applied to the bladder and the lower pressure in
the proportioner shall cause the high expansion foam concentrate to be drawn into the
proportioner and be mixed with the seawater.
Foam proportioning shall be 2.75% (2.75 units of high expansion foam concentrate to 97.5 units of
sea water).
The design foam expansion rate shall be 500:1, which shall make it less susceptible to wind
conditions than higher expansion foam rates. A fence shall be installed around the process
impoundment area to help maintain the high expansion foam blanket in the event of a discharge.
The high expansion foam system shall be total flooding as opposed to on/off.
A deluge valve shall be used to control the seawater applied to both the high expansion foam
concentrate bladder tank and each foam generator.
The piping between the deluge valve, bladder tank, proportioner, and each foam generator shall
be dry until the deluge valve is activated.
Each high expansion foam generator shall be mounted on top of the process impoundment area
walls.
Each foam generator shall have a 316 stainless steel housing and motor bracket suitable for
seawater applications.
Each foam generator shall be UL listed for heat exposure to LNG fires.
An impoundment area shall be provided at each pier to collect and contain an inadvertent LNG
spill.
Each pier impoundment shall be of concrete construction.
The anticipated initial size of each pier impoundment area shall be 25 m x 15 m x 0.8 m deep.
Each pier area impoundment shall be sized to contain a leak from a single loading arm for a
duration of 1 minute at an LNG design flow of 15,000 cubic metres per hour.
At present it is not envisioned to provide a high expansion foam fire suppression system to service
each pier impoundment area. However, a fire protection evaluation shall be carried out in
accordance with Z276-07 to determine if a high expansion foam system is needed at each pier
impoundment area.
Page 27
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Facility
Component
Water Based Pier
Fire Protection
Yard Main System

Feature of System
All areas on each pier are to be capable of being covered with at least two (2) water streams.
Consideration shall be given to making all areas of the pier capable of being covered by four (4)
water streams during the fire protection evaluation.
Two hydrants shall be provided on each pier service platform, one at either end of the 30 m by 30
m platform.
Hydrants shall be complete with NPS 1-1/2 and 2-1/2 hose connections; located within hose
houses; and provided with NPS 2-1/2 by NPS 1-1/2 reducer connections and 30 m of NPS 1-1/2
hose, rack mounted and physically connected to the hydrant.
The hose houses shall also be outfitted with 30 m of NPS 2-1/2 hoses and an assortment of
nozzles, spanners, etc.
Tower mounted monitors shall be provided at either end of each 30 m x 30 m service platform.
Tower mounting shall enable the monitors to remain effective in fighting fires on the deck of each
vessel as the vessel rises in the water during product off loading. The monitors shall be electrically
actuated and remotely operated. Each monitor shall be sized to provide a range of jet of 76.2 m
with an incoming water pressure of 902 kPa and a water flow of 5700 litres per minute.
Water supply to each pier must have the capability of supplying all hydrants and monitors, which
service the pier simultaneously in addition to an allowance of 3785 litre per minute. This will mean
a pier preliminary design seawater fire flow of 18,950 litres per minute.
A residual pressure of 516 kPa is required at the hydraulically most remote hydrant on each
respective pier from the seawater fire pump with at least two devices (both monitors) in
simultaneous operation at that particular pier.
A hydrant with NPS 2-1/2 hose connections shall be provided at each pier to shore connection.
This hydrant shall have an international connection size so that hoses from the ship can connect to
this hydrant and draft from the yard main.
A yard main shall be provided in accordance with NFPA-24.
The yard main shall serve dry barrel hydrants with NPS 6 connections.
The design fire flow for each hydrant shall be 31.6 litres per second which will ensure compliance
with the maximum outside hose allowance for any type of sprinkler system which may be installed
in any of the various buildings around the site.
To overcome friction loss in the hydrant branch, hydrant and suction hose, a minimum residual
pressure of 150 kPa is normally required in the underground main at the branch connection to
each hydrant to ensure sufficient pressure for a pumper to draft from the hydrant. In this particular
application the hydrants are to be supplied without NPS 3-1/2 pumper connections since it is a
private fire service main. Therefore to allow short hose lines to be operated directly from the
hydrants without pumping, a minimum residual pressure of 500 kPa is to be maintained at each
hydrant in the system. Higher pressures will be required in the private yard main to ensure
adequate pressure to service sprinkler systems, standpipe and hose systems, water monitors, and
high expansion foam generators. A computer model of the yard main system will be generated and
the flow and residual pressure required at each of the various take-offs from the yard main will be
established by analyzing the requirements of the various fire protection systems serving the site.
Numerous scenarios shall be modeled for the yard main assuming flow and pressure criteria
outlined above to properly size the yard main piping system and fire pump to ensure adequate flow
and pressure is available in the yard main at all times.
The underground yard main piping shall be sized for a maximum water flow velocity of 4.87 metres
per second.
Each NPS 6 fire hydrant connection to the private yard main shall have an isolation valve key
operated from the surface.
The hydrants shall be spaced such that no hydrant is within 13.7 metres of a building.
Hydrants shall be spaced at 91.5 metres centre-to-centre distances around the site to comply with
the Insurers Advisory Organization (IAO) hydrant spacing for private yard mains. In addition
hydrants shall be spaced such that every building on the site is within 30 metres of a hydrant.
Every building equipped with either a sprinkler and/or standpipe and hose system shall have a fire
department connection equipped with two (2) NPS 2-1/2 threaded connections. These fire
department connections shall be located such that they are within 45 metres of a hydrant.
The underground yard main shall be constructed of cement lined ductile iron to AWWA standards.
The fittings shall be mechanical joint and shall be restrained with EBBA Iron megalugs. Concrete
thrust blocks shall be provided at changes in direction such as at hydrant connections.
The yard main shall be dry under normal circumstances and shall only be flooded during a fire
event.
Page 28
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Facility
Component
Sprinkler Systems
Standpipe and
Hose Systems

Feature of System
Hydrants shall be provided with both NPS 1-1/2 and 2-1/2 threaded connections. The NPS 1-1/2
connection shall be accomplished through the installation of a reducer on one of the hydrant NPS
2-1/2 connections.
Hydrants shall not be provided with NPS 3-1/2 pumper connections since it is a private fire service
main and not a public water supply.
Hydrants around the site shall be installed in hose houses.
Each hose house shall have a hose rack with 30 metres of NPS 1-1/2 hose physically connected
to the hydrant at all times. In addition each hose house shall be outfitted with 30 metres of NPS 21/2 hose and a supply of various nozzles, spanners, etc.
Two vertical turbine fire pumps installed in accordance with NFPA-20 shall supply the yard main.
These fire pumps shall be installed in a pump room located directly adjacent to the ocean. The
pumps shall be installed in a wet well located directly below the pump room. One pump shall be
electrically operated off the main electrical grid while the other shall be diesel driven as an
emergency backup. The fire pumps shall supply salt water to the dry private service main for fire
fighting throughout the site.
Sprinkler systems shall be designed in accordance with NFPA-13 for the various buildings
throughout the site.
Sprinkler systems shall be either dry, single interlock pre-action, double interlock pre-action or
deluge depending upon the application.
All above ground sprinkler piping shall be steel, ASTM A53, Grade B, schedule 40.
Threaded piping shall be schedule 30 over NPS 8.
Threaded piping NPS 8 and below shall be schedule 40.
Roll-grooved piping shall be schedule 10 up to NPS 5, 3.4 mm wall thickness for NPS 6, 4.78 mm
wall thickness for NPS 8 and NPS 10, and 8.38 mm wall thickness for NPS 12 piping.
All sprinkler systems shall be hydraulically calculated.
Total combined inside/outside hose allowance shall be added to the sprinkler water demand for
each building in order to determine the water flow required to service the sprinkler system in each
respective building.
Design areas for the sprinkler systems shall be adjusted upward by 30% to account for the fact
that the sprinkler systems are to be dry.
The design water flow density shall depend upon the hazard classification for each particular
application.
Rack storage higher than 3.65 metres shall require in-rack sprinklers or adjustment of the design
density of the ceiling mounted sprinklers to account for the rack storage.
An assessment of the rack storage shall have to be made on a building-by-building basis in order
to properly determine the design criteria for the sprinkler system for each particular application.
Minimum design pressure at each sprinkler head shall be 48.2 kPa.
Standpipe and hose systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA-14.
Standpipe and hose systems shall be automatic dry type.
Standpipe and Hose systems shall be installed where required by the National Building Code of
Canada (NBC), National Fire Code of Canada (NFC) and any applicable NFPA standards.
The standpipe and hose systems shall utilize dry alarm valves for initiation.
The design air pressure shall be 137.8 kPa higher than the design trip pressure of the dry pipe
valve.
The design residual water pressure at the top of the hydraulically most remote standpipe NPS 21/2 hose connection shall be 689 kPa.
The design residual water pressure at the top of the hydraulically most remote standpipe NPS 11/2 hose station shall be 447 kPa.
The class of standpipe and hose system installed in any one building shall be as required by the
relevant codes and standards outlined above. The systems shall be either Class 1 (NPS 2-1/2
hose connections only); class 2 (NPS 1-1/2 hose connections only); or Class 3 (NPS 1-1/2 and
NPS 2-1/2 hose connections).
Each NPS 1-1/2 hose connection shall be provided with a rack and 30 metres of NPS 1-1/2 hose.
NPS 2-1/2 connections shall be provided with a threaded end cap only.
NPS 2-1/2 hose connections shall be installed in exit stairwells at intermediate landings where
applicable.
NPS 1-1/2 hose stations, when required, shall be spaced throughout the protected building at a
maximum spacing of 39.6 metres.
Page 29
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Facility
Component
Clean Agent Fire

Suppression
Systems
Fire Extinguishers
Fireproofing and
Cryogenic Spill
Protection of
Structural Pipe
Supports

Feature of System
Buildings protected throughout with sprinkler systems shall be permitted to have the NPS 1-1/2
hose station installation requirement wavered in accordance with NFPA-13 and NFPA-14 unless
required by another code or standard.
Hose connections shall be mounted between 1 and 1.5 metres above the finished floor.
The minimum size of any standpipe shall be NPS 4.
Separate standpipes shall be provided for each exit stair in buildings requiring NPS 2-1/2 hose
connections for fire fighter usage.
Fire department connections for standpipe and hose systems shall be installed within 45 metres of
a hydrant.
Standpipe and hose systems shall be hydraulically calculated.
Class 1 and Class 3 standpipe and hose systems shall be hydraulically calculated to provide each
of the two top most hose connections on the hydraulically most remote standpipe with a water flow
of 15.79 litres per second. In addition, a flow of 15.79 litres per second shall be added for each
successive standpipe back to the entrance to the building to a total standpipe system water flow of
78.95 litres per second or 63.2 litres per second for a building which is sprinkled throughout.
For horizontal Class 1 and Class 3 standpipe systems, the hydraulic calculation outlined above
shall be extended to three (3) hose connections and a total of 47.4 litres per second per horizontal
standpipe.
Class 2 standpipe and hose systems shall be hydraulically calculated to provide 6.3 litres per
second at the top most hose station on the hydraulically most remote standpipe. No additional flow
is required to be added either for additional hose stations on the most remote standpipe or for
additional standpipes.
Clean agent fire suppression systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA-2001.
Clean agent fire suppression systems shall be installed in critical areas such as control room
panels where the release of water or dry chemical would cause considerable damage to electronic
equipment.
Fire suppression agent to have an ozone depletion potential of zero, a global warming potential of
1 and a five-day atmospheric lifetime.
System to be suitable for Class A, B and C fires.
System shall be total flooding.
The design concentration of fire suppression agent upon discharge shall be between 4 to 6%.
Preliminary system selection shall be Ansul Sapphire clean agent fire suppression system utilizing
Novec 1230 as the fire suppression agent.
The fire suppression agent is a clear, odourless, colorless liquid that is super-pressurized with
nitrogen and stored in high-pressure cylinders.
The high-pressure liquid vaporizes into a gas upon discharge.
The system shall be capable of both automatic and manual activation. Automatic activation shall
be electric.
The system shall include a fire alarm panel which shall be interfaced with field-mounted devices to
enable automatic activation of the system.
Portable fire extinguishers shall be selected and located in accordance with NFPA-10.
Fire extinguisher type shall be selected based upon the type of fire they are intended to extinguish.
Large, 70 kg wheeled dry chemical extinguisher units with a 15 metre hose will be provided at the
pier service platforms, mooring dolphins, and throughout the process area. These extinguishers
shall use potassium-bicarbonate (Purple-K).
Vertical structural members that support cryogenic piping, or equipment shall be supported with
concrete columns below any potential LNG spill high liquid level .The pipe supports above the
potential LNG spill high liquid level shall be structural steel. This structural steel shall be fire
proofed in certain areas deemed critical during a fire protection evaluation carried out in
accordance with NFPA-59A.
Generally, structural supports will have concrete foundations above grade elevation, which provide
sufficient protection from exposure to LNG.
Page 30
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.2.13 Water Supply

2.2.13.1
Freshwater
Building Utilities
Potable water supply for the facility will be obtained from the domestic supply of the Town of Arnolds
Cove, via a pipeline connecting directly into the Town system. Final permission will have to be obtained
from the Town, but preliminary indications are that the domestic consumption quantities are within the
Towns capacity. The average daily flow estimated for domestic consumption is 11,400 l/day, at a
maximum. A potable water storage tank will be constructed on site to maintain adequate water
supplies during periods of low capacity (i.e., during peak fish plant operations). The water pipeline will
be routed along the access road and will not require additional trenching.
Water/Glycol Heating System
Water will be required to initially fill the hot water/glycol system. The estimated total volume of the
heating system is 75 m3, of which approximately 50 percent is water for a total water volume of 38 m3.
The rate to initially fill the piping system is 150 l/min. An independent supply of water will be obtained
off-site for the charging of the heating system during commissioning. Deionized water is recommended
as glycol dilution water.
Closed Loop Water/Glycol Cooling System
Water will be required to initially fill the cooling water/glycol system, which has a total capacity of 75 m 3.
The water requirement for this system is 38 m3, approximately 50 percent of the total volume. Similar to
the heating system, the estimated rate to initially fill the cooling piping system is 150 l/min. This water
will be obtained off-site for the initial commissioning of the cooling system. Deionized water is
recommended as glycol dilution water.
2.2.13.2
Seawater
Cooling Water Intake

Seawater will be used for the cooling water requirements of the LNG facility. The water will flow through
a closed loop heat exchange system where the water will be used to dissipate heat from the cryogenic
facilities used to cool the LNG. The anticipated temperature differential of the influent seawater and the
effluent seawater varies between seasons (-0.5C to 16.5C) based upon typical ambient seawater
temperature. Consequently, it is estimated that the influent seawater flow requirements will vary from a
minimum of 3,359 m3/hour in the winter to a maximum of 7,351 m3/hour during the summer. There will
be no chemical change or salinity change to the seawater used for this purpose.
The seawater supply will be obtained from the south end of the Project site as shown on the layout
drawing (Figure 2.2). The seawater obtained through the intake will flow into a wet well at or near the
shoreline where it will be pumped into a pressurized seawater line to the heat exchange units.
The seawater intake will consist of two 1.2 m diameter high-density polyethylene pipes that will extend
from the intake wet well at the shoreline to the seawater collection point approximately 475 m from
shore at 30 cm above the seafloor. The depth of the end of the intake pipe will be between 15 and 18 m
below LNT. Figure 2.10 illustrates the detail for the seawater intake pipe.
Page 31
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In order to reduce the velocity of the seawater entering the intake, a wedge-wire or V-wire screen
(Johnson Screen ) will be used at the end of the intake pipe to maintain the velocity below 0.15 m/s.
The reduced inlet velocity protects the surrounding aquatic species from entrainment and also serves to
prevent debris from clogging the screen. The screen will be equipped with a pressurized air cleaning
system in which a periodic blast of compressed air is backwashed through the screen assembly to
remove any accumulated debris. The screen material composition will be selected specifically for this
type of saltwater application.
Fire Protection Water
Water required for fire protection will be obtained from a separate supply. It will be pumped directly from
a dedicated intake at the jetty, directly mounted on the face of the pier structure. Specific details of the
fire protection system and water requirements are addressed in Section 2.2.12.
2.2.13.3
Discharges
Cooling Water Outfall

The seawater that is used on-site for cooling purposes must be discharged back into the environment.
This will be accomplished through the use of a seawater discharge diffuser designed to disperse the
heated water and to minimize the thermal plume.
One 1.2 m diameter outfall pipe will be installed to a minimum depth of 15.0 m below LNT or
approximately 180 m from the shoreline (See Section 2.3.5.6). The cooling water from the Project site
will be discharged through a series of diffusers located on the top of the pipe that will project up into the
water column. These diffusers will be in the form of duckbill check valves mounted on the surface of the
outfall pipe at a spacing of 1.0 m. The outfall pipe will have a section of diffusers 50.0 m long at the end
of the pipe. These diffusers have no mechanical parts and are designed to only open under pressure
from inside to release cooling water and then they snap closed preventing the egress of water or
organisms from the receiving environment. They resist the entrapment of debris and sediment, are selfcleaning and are not susceptible to fouling, so they are very appropriate for this type of application. This
type of outfall has successfully been used in the province for wastewater discharge.
Domestic Wastewater
The small amount of domestic wastewater generated at the site will be accommodated first using a
primary settling chamber in the form of a septic tank. Effluent from the tank, after a minimum of 24
hours settling time, will be combined with the outgoing flow of cooling water discharge. The outfall
diffuser system will be designed to accommodate both the small amount of additional flow, an increase
of less than 0.010 percent of the total cooling water flow in the winter and only 0.004 percent in the
summer.
Page 32
Figure 2.10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.2.14 Stormwater Sedimentation Pond

A stormwater sedimentation pond will be located on site to capture rainfall and snow melt from within
the confines of the LNG tank impoundment areas. The pond will capture the stormwater during peak
storm and snowmelt periods and slowly release this water back into the environment. The stormwater
will be directed through piping and drainage ditches to the retention pond. This will prevent washouts
and control sedimentation run-off and maintain the quality of discharge water entering the ocean. The
water will be retained in this pond for a period to allow suspended solids to settle out. A monitoring
system will be implemented to ensure that all stormwater discharge meets Provincial wastewater
discharge standards.
The volume of the sedimentation pond is based upon the 1/10-year storm for a 24-hour duration
(85.4 mm). Based on a total impoundment area of 291,848 m2, the volume required for the
sedimentation pond is 24,892 m3. A sedimentation pond size of approximately 65 x 200 x 2 m will be
required. The final dimensions will be dictated by site conditions and an allowance for standing water in
the retention pond. Ideally a length to width ratio of 3:1 would be appropriate to allow sufficient
settlement time. Baffles can be provided to increase the flow path.
The retention pond can be built into natural depressions or through the construction of embankments.
The embankments should be no steeper than 3:1 to avoid excessive erosion. The embankments will be
constructed of impervious fill material. The use of an artificial (EPDM) liner is optional and would only
be used if sufficient quantities of suitable fill material cannot be sourced. A stabilized inlet will prevent
erosion at the pond entrance. The inlet will consist of a pipe, concrete trench or rock lined ditch. The
outlet will consist of an overflow weir with an emergency spillway to control unexpected storms. The
outlet channel will be rock lined to prevent erosion down gradient of the outlet. Routine inspection of the
retention pond will be required to ensure stability of the embankments and ensure inlets and outlets are
not blocked. Periodic removal of sediment build up may be required.
Precipitation from runoff from parking and buildings will not have to be diverted through the
sedimentation pond.
2.2.15 Ancillary Facilities
The following buildings will be erected at the facility:
administrative office;
warehouse and maintenance building;
guard house;
control room and electrical building;
compressor buildings (two);
nitrogen compressor buildings (two);
nitrogen generation buildings (two);
water/glycol heater and air compressor building;
power generation building;
Page 34
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
fire pump building; and

gas chromatograph building.
2.2.15.1
Administrative Office
An administrative building will be constructed on site to house workers and administrative staff. The
building will be equipped with general offices, washrooms, common areas, document control,
lunchroom facilities and file storage. The building will be constructed of concrete foundation and a steel
structural system. Cladding will consist of metal siding and roofing supported on a secondary structural
system of joists, girts and purlins. The final dimensions of the building will be based on the Project
requirements determined during the detailed design phase of the Project. Approximate building
dimensions are 40 m x 30 m x 4 m.
2.2.15.2
Warehouse and Maintenance Buildings
The warehouse and maintenance building will be constructed of concrete foundations in combination
with a steel frame structural system. Cladding will consist of metal siding and roofing supported on a
secondary structural system of girts and purlins.
The building will be sized to meet the needs of the facility including the storage of spare parts and
consumables. A workshop complete with a small tool inventory will be included.
Approximate building dimensions are 40 m x 20 m x 8 m. The final dimensions of the building will be
based on Project requirements determined during the detailed design phase of the Project.
2.2.15.3
Guard House
A small building will be constructed at the entrance of the site to house site security and provide
controlled access to the site. This building will be constructed of concrete foundations in combination
with timber framing. Cladding will consist of metal siding. The final dimensions of the building will be
based on the Project requirements determined during the design phase of the Project. Approximate
building dimensions are 5 m x 4 m x 3 m.
2.2.15.4
Control Room and Electrical Building
This building will house the main electrical switch gear, control metering, relaying and motor control
centres for the facility, as well as the emergency generator and un-interruptible power supply. The final
dimensions of this building will be determined during the detailed design. Approximate dimensions are
50 m x 15 m x 6m. The building will be constructed of concrete foundations in combination with a steel
frame structural system. Cladding will consist of concrete block, metal siding and roofing supported on
a secondary structural system of girts and purlins.
2.2.15.5
Compressor Buildings
The two compressor buildings will be pre-engineered metal buildings designed and erected in
accordance with codes specific to commercial un-staffed (machinery) buildings. Each building will have
a drop out area at one end for placement of equipment for maintenance purposes, with large
overhead doors for equipment removal. The approximate dimensions of the buildings are 82 m x 35 m
x 8 m and 52 m x 35 m x 8 m. Each building will contain an overhead gantry crane with no more than a
10 tonne rating.
Page 35
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.2.15.6
Nitrogen Compressor Buildings
The two nitrogen compressor buildings will house the compressors and heat exchangers required for
the nitrogen liquefaction process. The buildings will be pre-engineered metal style buildings designed
and erected in accordance with codes specific to commercial un-staffed (machinery) buildings. Each
building will have a drop out area for placement of equipment for maintenance purposes, with large
overhead doors for equipment removal. The approximate dimensions of the buildings are 34 m x 28 m
x 8 m. Each building will contain an overhead gantry crane with no more than a 5-tonnne rating.
2.2.15.7
Nitrogen Generation Buildings
The two nitrogen generation buildings will house the nitrogen generators, buffer tanks and reservoirs
required for the nitrogen liquefaction process. The buildings will be pre-engineered metal style buildings
designed and erected in accordance with codes specific to commercial un-staffed (machinery)
buildings. Each building will have a drop out area for placement of equipment for maintenance
purposes, with large overhead doors for equipment removal. The approximate dimensions of the
buildings are 25 m x 19 m x 5 m. Each building will contain an overhead gantry crane with no more than
a 5-tonne rating.
2.2.15.8
Water/Glycol Heater and Air Compressor Building
The water/glycol heater and air compressor building will be a pre-engineered metal building designed
and erected in accordance with codes specific to commercial unstaffed (machinery) buildings. Each
building will have a drop out area for placement of equipment for maintenance purposes, with large
overhead doors for equipment removal. The approximate dimensions of the building are 32 m x 22 m x
8 m. The building will contain an overhead gantry crane with no more than a 10 tonne rating.
2.2.15.9
Power Generation Building
A power generation building will be constructed on site to house the equipment required for on-site
power generation. The building will be designed to meet all building code requirements for such
building types. The building will be constructed of concrete foundations and a structural steel frame.
Exterior cladding will consist of metal siding. The final dimensions of the building will be determined
during the detailed design phase of the Project.
2.2.15.10 Fire Pump Building
A fire pump building will be constructed on site to house the main seawater pumps used for site wide
fire protection. The building will be constructed of concrete foundations with concrete block exterior
walls and structural steel roof. A 5-tonne overhead crane will be installed in the building for pump
maintenance. The final dimensions of the building will be determined during detailed design of the fire
fighting capacity requirements of the facility.
2.2.15.11 Gas Chromatograph Building
The gas chromatograph building will be situated on site adjacent to the LNG process facility. The
building will house equipment specific to the sampling and analyzing of the LNG product. The building
will be constructed of concrete foundations with concrete block exterior walls, structural steel roof and
metal wall and roof cladding.
Page 36
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.3
Construction and Commissioning
2.3.1
Labour and Equipment Requirements
2.3.1.1 Trades and Training

A majority of the workers on site will be residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
where practicable. Workers with specific skill sets that cannot be sourced locally, or where worker
availability is restricted, will be imported from across Canada or internationally.
The Project will be set up as an Engineering Procurement Construction Management (EPCM) project
and will be managed by personnel experienced in major construction projects.
The worker demand at the site will be a function of the facility build-out schedule. At peak construction,
there are expected upwards of 350 to 450 persons to be working at the site.
2.3.1.2 Worker Accommodations and Shifts
There will be no temporary work camps or accommodations set up at the construction site. Workers will
be responsible for their own transportation to the work site and will be housed at locally-owned facilities
surrounding the Project site. On-site parking will be provided. If necessary, off-site parking areas will be
designated and workers will be bussed to the site from these designated areas.
The specific work shift will be determined by the phase of construction, but in general terms, the work
week will consist of 72 hours per week, based on 12-hour shifts from Monday through to Saturday.
Specific construction phases will require short-term round-the-clock construction (e.g., slipforming, and
hydrostatic testing).
2.3.2
Equipment
A variety of construction equipment will be required during the construction phase of the Project.
Typical equipment is listed in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4
Construction Equipment Description
Equipment Description
Marine Equipment
Crane barge
Piling barge
Cement/grout barge
Tugs
Open boats
Shore Equipment
Dump trucks
Bull dozer
Excavator
Grader
Compactor
Asphalt layer
Cranes
Boom truck
Pick-up trucks
Welding machines
Compressors
Cement trucks
Drill rigs
# of Pieces
1
1
1
2
4
8
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
6
12
4
4
1
Page 37
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.3.3
Capital Cost
The estimated capital cost of the Project for the full build-out scenario is $1 billion (CAN).
2.3.4
Schedule
The objective of the Grassy Point Transshipment and Storage Terminal is to provide a facility for
customers to store and transfer LNG cargos from larger LNGCs to smaller or specialized vessels with
shorter voyages to the receiving terminals. The construction of this facility depends upon the demands
of the customers expected to use the facility. Potential customers have shown the desire to have onshore LNG storage, as well as ship-to-ship transfers. The facility is scheduled to be constructed in three
phases.
2.3.4.1 Phase 1
Phase 1 will be the site preparation for eight, 160,000 m LNG storage tanks and associated process
area one or two berths for LNGCs and the tug basin. It is anticipated that these berths will support sideby-side mooring of the LNGCs for possible ship-to-ship transfer. A control room/administrative building,
guard house, warehouse, access road, security system and fencing, fire protection facilities, and fire
and gas detection systems will also be installed during this phase. On-land construction for Phase 1 is
expected to begin in June 2008 and be completed in March 2010. Marine works for Phase 1 are
scheduled to begin in September 2008 and completed in February 2010.
2.3.4.2 Phase 2
Phase 2 will include up to four 160,000 m LNG storage tanks, LNG transfer arms at all berths, BOG
compressors and blowers, two re-liquefaction trains and associated cooling system, seawater cooling
system, power generation equipment and associated fuel gas system, atmospheric vent stack and
associated heating system, control system, additional fire, gas and low temperature detection systems,
and associated piping and equipment for facility, utilities, and the third berth for LNGCs. Construction of
Phase 2 is expected to begin in February 2009 and be completed in September 2012.
2.3.4.3 Phase 3
Phase 3 will include construction of the additional 160,000 m LNG storage tanks (total of eight for the
facility), additional BOG compressors and blowers, two additional re-liquefaction trains and associated
cooling system, additional seawater pump(s), additional power generation equipment and associated
fuel gas system, additional fire, gas and low temperature detection systems, and associated piping and
equipment for facility, and utilities for the additional infrastructure. Construction of Phase 3 is expected
to begin in May 2011 and be completed in July 2014.
2.3.5
Marine Facilities and Activities
2.3.5.1 Delivery of Materials

The first phase of the Project will see the construction of the tug basin. This will involve constructing an
access causeway/breakwater and a berth. The causeway/breakwater will be constructed from washed
rock material excavated from the site. If appropriate rock size and quality cannot be sourced from the
site, it will be imported from nearby quarries (refer to Section 2.3.6.5 for additional information on quarry
requirements). The concrete caissons used for the berth will be slip-formed on site, launched and
Page 38
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
placed at the specified locations. Once completed, the tug basin can be used as a construction dock for
the import of construction materials. Materials not being received over the construction dock will be
brought to site via the existing highway system.
Many of the smaller components and equipment will be delivered to site via the highway network.
Larger items associated with the handling of LNG product can be delivered by barge. Construction
material such as piles and steel plate for tanks can also be delivered by barge. The selected mode of
delivery will be determined by the contractor, based on their delivery schedule, cost and fabrication
location. The types and number of construction vessels are described in Section 2.3.2. If the piles are
fabricated at the Cow Head in Marystown and barged to the Project site, approximately 36 barge trips
would be required to construct all three berths. Construction vessel traffic will be managed through
normal port procedures and will include Notice to Mariners.
2.3.5.2 Tug Basin Construction
The tug basin will be constructed of rock fill and concrete caissons. The tug basin will require a
minimum of 7 m water depth and will be capable of berthing two or three tugs. A mechanical dredge is
planned to be used to remove the loose material within the tug basins but some rock blasting may also
be required if bedrock is encountered. A geotechnical survey is required to determine the amount of
blasting that may be required. Dredged material will be not be disposed of at sea.
To minimize turbidity, the dredge bucket will be an enclosed clamshell type, which has the tops covered
with a steel plate to minimize overflow of the dredged material. The bucket is also equipped with rubber
vents to allow water to escape during descent (buckets are open during descent) and during the closing
action of the bucket. Best practices will be employed to minimize turbidity. Most of the turbidity occurs
when the bucket hits the bottom so ideally, only a single bite will occur on every cycle.
The material used to construct the tug basin at either location will be washed rock from on site or a
nearby quarry (refer to Section 2.3.6.5). The particular size of each material referenced in Figure 2.11 is
as follows:
shoreline granular fill: 1 to 250 kg;
rock sub-mattress: 1 to 250 kg;
rock mattress: 20 to 75 mm;
filter stone: 100 to 1,200 kg;
caisson mattress scour protection: 500 to 2,000 kg; and
causeway armour stone: 2 to 6 t.
The infill area required is 11,100 m2 and the area required to be dredged is estimated at 15,000 m2, for
a total of 26,100 m2. Figure 2.11 illustrates the tug basin plan and section details.
Page 39
Figure 2.11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.3.5.3 Berth Installation

The berths will be constructed of standard steel pipe pile sections with a pre-cast/cast in place concrete
deck structure. The berths will be located approximately 150 m from shore in water depths of a
minimum of 15 m. No dredging will be required to install any of the pier components.
2.3.5.4 Pile Installation
The installation of the piles will involve a crane barge, piling barge and concrete barge. The piles will be
fabricated on site and transported to the piling barge where they will be installed. Each individual pile
will be placed in a pile driving template and driven into the underlying bedrock. Tension piles will have
anchors installed in the annulus and will be grouted to achieve a bond between the anchor and pile.
The anchors will be installed in pre-drilled holes in the bedrock and grouted in place. After all the piles
for each individual structure are installed, they will be cut off at the specified elevation.
2.3.5.5 Superstructure Installation
After the pile installation is complete, the concrete deck structure will be installed. Typical installation
procedures include placing a pre-cast base over the previously installed piles. This base serves as both
structural support of the overall deck and a form for the remainder of the deck construction. A concrete
form will be placed around the perimeter of the deck to be cast in place and will be filled with concrete
to the specified thickness. The upper portion of the piles that are embedded into the pile cap will be tied
to the pile cap structure with steel reinforcing bars.
Miscellaneous structures, such as roadway girders and access trestles/walkways, will then be installed
between the main marine structures.
2.3.5.6 Seawater Intake and Outfall Pipes
Each pipe will be installed such that it is buried in the inter-tidal zone at the shoreline to a depth of 5.0
m below LNT (approximately 100 m for the intake pipe and 30 m for the outtake pipe) for protection
from erosion and land-fast sea ice. The trench will be excavated by means of a crane mounted
clamshell positioned on a barge as during tug basin construction. The excavated material will be side
cast adjacent to the trench. Once the bedding material and pipes are placed in the trench, the
excavated material will be placed back over the pipes. Additional armorstone will be place over the pipe
area between the shoreline and the 3 m depth. This stone will vary in size from 100 kg to 1200 kg for
the filterstone layer to 2.0 to 3.0 t for the armorstone layer.
Once it protrudes from the trench, each pipe will be anchored with concrete blocks at 3 m intervals over
the entire exposed length to prevent lateral movement and floating. The open space between the
concrete blocks will be 180 cm. Each pipe will be suspended 30 cm above the seafloor. Figure 2.12
illustrates the seawater outfall pipe plan and details.
For installation, the pipes will be floated into position and weighted using concrete anchor blocks. Once
the blocks have been added, air will be evacuated from the pipes and they will be allowed to sink into
the design position.
Page 41
Figure 2.12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.3.6
Land Facilities and Activities
2.3.6.1 Site Preparation

The site is partially tree covered and is covered by shallow overburden. Trees will be cut, merchantable
timber salvaged, and the slash mulched. The site grading will require removal of the overburden by
bulldozer and excavator. This material will be loaded in trucks and removed to the overburden stockpile
sites. The stockpiles will be trimmed and levelled as required. The stockpile will be reclaimed and
redeposited over developed areas in the future, as required.
An access road for equipment, materials and general access will be constructed overland, for a
distance of approximately 1.5 km. The road will be a minimum width of 6 m with 1 m shoulders but
remain on Newfoundland LNG Ltd. owned land. Access will become secure and restricted at the
Grassy Point LNG gatehouse.
Conventional construction methods and practices will be used throughout for site preparation and
construction. Detailed construction methodology will be developed specific to the activities to be
undertaken to ensure that they are in accordance with good construction and environmental practices.
A 15 m buffer will be maintained around water bodies not within the Project footprint. Trees will be
maintained along the shoreline where possible.
An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) will be developed and implemented for all phases of
construction to minimize and mitigate any effect on the environment.
The cut and fill activities for site levelling will involve the application of standard earthmoving
procedures in accordance with the EPP to be developed for construction. These include drilling and
blasting, mechanical busting and mechanical excavation. Unsuitable till material (USM) will be
excavated using conventional mechanical means, including excavators, loaders and dozers.
Site development requires the excavation of rock, which will be deposited in fill areas to complete any
site grading. This work will involve drilling and blasting using pneumatic or hydraulic rock drills as per
conventional rock excavation techniques. Explosives and auxiliary materials will be stored by each
contractor as stipulated in relevant legislation and in compliance with their operations permit and the
EPP. Licensed blasters under direct supervision of a professional engineer will undertake blasting. The
following measures will be implemented to minimize the impact of the use of explosives and blasting:
explosives will be used in a manner that will minimize damage or defacement of landscape
features, trees and other surrounding objects by controlling through the best methods
possible (including time-delay blast cycles) the scatter of blasted material beyond the limits
of activity;
blasting patterns and procedures, which minimize shock or instantaneous peak noise levels,
will be used;
blasting will not occur in the vicinity of fuel storage facilities; and
blasting in or near a water body will be undertaken by following existing guidelines and only
after appropriate regulatory approval has been obtained.
To minimize slumping of excavated surfaces during construction, adequate slopes will be used based
upon the recommendation of soil specialists. Slopes will be routinely inspected for erosion. Any slopes
subject to erosion will be modified to prevent soils and other excavated material from being carried into
surrounding water bodies. Slopes for permanent finished-grade surfaces will be in accordance with the
Page 43
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
recommendations of geotechnical specialists and will be surface-finished accordingly to provide longterm stability.
Dewatering will be undertaken with the objective of preventing drainage-related issues in the area
surrounding the site. Protective measures such as installation of sediment controls will be used to
prevent sediment-laden runoff from precipitation into the surrounding area. Velocity controls, such as
check dams, will be used to assist in the removal of sediment that may be entrained in runoff. Pumps
may be used to assist with dewatering and will be used in such a manner so as to prevent the passage
of sediment-laden water into the surrounding area. Where pumps are used, backup capacity will be
available in the event of a failure to provide secure control of the water flow. Surface water will be
inhibited from entering the work site by using perimeter ditching to redirect the flow into one or more
settling ponds, which will be constructed to remove suspended sediment prior to discharge back into
the surrounding environment. The water will be monitored for compliance with the Newfoundland and
Labrador Environmental Control Water and Sewage Regulations prior to discharge.
Dust generated during construction will be controlled using one or more conventional measures as
applicable to the particular Project component. These include water spraying, wind breaks, spray-on
adhesives and vegetative coverings. Chemical-based solutions will not be used near water bodies.
Watercourse crossing will be constructed in accordance with permit and authorization requirements.
Fish-bearing streams will be crossed in accordance with DFO guidelines and standards.
During the construction period, all activities will comply with the Construction EPP. All required permits
from regulatory agencies will be obtained prior to the start of any construction. Emergency response to
oil or chemical spill procedures and clean up will be in accordance with Emergency Response Plan
(ERP) portion of the EPP and approved by the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of
Environment and Conservation (NLDEC).
2.3.6.2 Electrical Supply
For construction, the grid connection and the switchyard will be completed by Newfoundland and
Labrador Power as early as possible to facilitate the supply of construction power. Newfoundland
Power would run a line extension at 25 KV to a terminal point on Newfoundland LNG Ltd. property.
From there, through sub-contractors, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. would arrange to distribute the power
around the site using wires and cables and appropriate switchgear and protective devices
2.3.6.3 Marshalling Yard and Laydown
An area for laydown and marshalling will be required for the intermediary storage of equipment and
materials during construction, as well as for some preliminary fabrication procedures. This will allow for
staging of equipment and materials to prepare for each phase of the construction and assist in the
timely completion of each task in accordance with the construction schedule.
2.3.6.4 Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Tanks
The intent during construction of the Project is to prepare the site for all tanks and equipment. However,
only those tanks that are immediately required will be completed and the remainder will be phased in as
market conditions necessitate.
The construction methodology used for the erection of the LNG storage tanks will be dependent on the
type of tanks being built. The single containment tank, with the exception of the concrete base, will be
Page 44
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
of all steel construction. A full containment LNG storage tank is similar to the single containment tank
except the exterior walls and roof structure will be of concrete construction.
The foundation for an LNG storage tank will be a reinforced concrete base approximately 1.2 m thick.
The base slab will be heated to prevent frost heave. The base will be supported directly on the ground
or bedrock surface. In locations where the topography and tank elevations dictate that the tank
foundation will bear on both rock and fill material, the base slab over the fill material will be supported
on piling driven to bedrock. This will prevent differential settlement of the base slab from compression
of the fill material. Pile type, spacing and size will be dictated by the final tank design and geotechnical
conditions.
Construction of single containment LNG storage tanks will follow the following process:
prepare base area;
install piling (if required);
form, place reinforcing and pour base slab;
erect outer carbon steel tank shell;
fabricate inner roof structure with suspended deck;
air raise steel roof structure;
complete miscellaneous fabrications;
install base insulation;
install inner 9 percent steel liner;
install wall installation;
install piping, equipment and instrumentation;
hydro test tank, empty, clean and dry;
insulate roof structure; and
commissioning.
Construction of full containment LNG storage tanks will follow the following process:
prepare base area;
install piling (if required);
form, place reinforcing and pour base slab;
slipform exterior tank wall;
install reinforcing and post-tensioning ducts and internal metal vapour barrier;
install both horizontal and vertical pre-stressing cables;
fabricate inner roof structure with suspended deck;
air raise steel roof structure and weld in place;
form and pour concrete haunch and roof structure;
perform partial post tensioning;
complete miscellaneous fabrications and inserts;
Page 45
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
install base insulation;

install inner 9 percent steel liner;
complete post tensioning;
hydro test tank, empty, clean and dry;
install wall insulation;
install piping, equipment and instrumentation;
insulate roof structure; and
commission.
2.3.6.5 Borrow Pits and Quarries
No quarries or borrow pits are planned for this site. The large footprint of the Project site lends itself to
providing borrow materials required for use in construction through cut and fill operations. Site grading
will be designed to maximize the balancing of cut and fill operations and to provide excavated rock
material which can be crushed to supply concrete aggregates and other granular material for
construction use. Any deposits of clean, well-graded materials encountered during excavation
operations will be stockpiled for use on Project components. Crushing equipment will be used to
generate required grades of aggregates and other engineered material from rock excavated from site,
only if sufficient quantities of rock are available from the site. Any supplemental granular material for
road construction, concrete production or engineered fill will be obtained from existing quarries in the
local area.
2.3.6.6 Concrete
On-site concrete requirements will be met from two sources. During initial site development, the smaller
concrete quantities will be sourced from local concrete providers. For construction of the piers, tug
basin, LNG tanks and the various site foundations, a concrete batch plant will be required on site. For
single containment storage tanks, concrete volumes of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 m3 per tank will be
required. Each pier will require approximately 2,200 m3 and the tug basin approximately 2,600 m3.
The batch plant will be located on site to avoid interference with site construction and allow sufficient
space for the stockpiling of aggregates. To protect water bodies around the Project site, concrete will
be prohibited from contact with any water body until it has adequately cured. No tools or equipment
used in the production or placement of concrete will be washed in or adjacent to any water body.
Formwork and procedures for concrete production and placement will be such that they will prevent
spillage into any water body. The handling and production of concrete will be performed in a specific
manner to reduce the effect on the environment. The following site procedures will be implemented:
concrete additives will be stored in approved containers;
settling basins will be provided to control run off from aggregate stockpiles;
wash down water will be contained in settling ponds prior to disposal;
No concrete wash water will be allowed to enter any body of water;
regular inspections of equipment will be performed; and
formwork and concrete placement procedures will be implemented to prevent the spillage of
concrete in to any body of water.
Page 46
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.3.7
Land-based Vehicle Traffic
During the first stages of construction, a variety of earthmoving equipment will be required for the
excavation and material placement. Loaders, tracked or wheeled as required, and excavators will be
used for excavating unsuitable material, topsoil, till and granular material and loading this material into
trucks for removal to an approved landfill site.
Material transport to, from and throughout the site will be accomplished using haulage trucks, primarily
40-tonne capacity and smaller as required. Haulage trucks used at the site and for access road
construction will consist mainly of off-road vehicles due to the existing undeveloped terrain. Upon
completion of the main access road, only highway standard vehicles will be used for transportation to
and from the Project.
Drill rigs and related blasting equipment will be used to prepare bedrock for excavation. Crushing
equipment will be used to generate required grades of aggregates and other engineered material from
rock excavated from site.
Site preparation, tank and equipment installation and building construction will involve the use of
compaction equipment, including both conventional and vibratory rollers. Final site levelling and service
and access road levelling will be done using graders. Concrete trucks will be used to transport concrete
for use on the Project. Cranes will be used throughout the Project site for assembling Project
components. Barge-mounted cranes may be used for the marine site to assist with delivery of materials
and equipment arriving from marine transport routes.
Fuel for equipment and vehicles will be routinely delivered to site by conventional truck tankers. Smaller
fuel transport vehicles will be used to distribute fuel from the temporary on-site storage to the vehicles
and equipment at worksites throughout the Project site.
The route for vehicle travel to the Project site will be from the TCH at Arnolds Cove, along the access
road to the existing Whiffen Head Transshipment facility and then onto the main access road into the
Project site. The intersection at the TCH has been upgraded in recent years and should easily
accommodate the anticipated passenger and equipment traffic during construction.
Service roads will be maintained throughout construction using excavators and graders. Water trucks
will be used for dust control. Trucks with flatbed trailers will be used to float heavy equipment to and
from site along the main access road from the TCH.
Construction at the site will take place in one, 12-hour shift per day. Consequently, construction
vehicles could be operated at the site for 12-hours a day. To minimize Project-related traffic on the TCH
and access roads, wherever possible the delivery of materials and equipment coming overland will be
distributed over the course of the construction phase of the Project. Personnel will be transported to,
from and around the site using passenger vehicles, including light-duty trucks, vans, and buses. No
unauthorized traffic will be permitted at the Project site.
2.3.8
Transportation, Storage and Handling of Hazardous Materials
Temporary facilities will be built for the construction period to provide storage for these materials and to
provide areas for equipment servicing to control waste hazardous materials. The location of hazardous
materials storage will be identified on a construction drawing to provide current information to workers
Page 47
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
present at the site. Permanent facilities will be included in the final design of the Project to provide
storage and handling space for hazardous materials that will be used during operations.
All fuel storage facilities will be registered with the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of
Government Services in accordance with the Storage and Handling of Gasoline and Associated
Products Regulations under the Environment Act.
Bulk storage of hazardous materials that will be used in large volumes will be in above- ground, selfdyked storage tanks. Materials requiring less substantial volumes will be stored in drums with
secondary containment as required specifically for the product. Only those persons trained in safe
materials handling practices will handle hazardous materials. All product storage tanks and drum areas
will be clearly marked as to content and will be located with markers to prevent accidental vehicular
damage, especially where weather conditions can impede visibility. Appropriate firefighting equipment
shall be present at materials storage facilities.
All hazardous materials will be inventoried and monitored, and the inventory will be updated as the
Project progresses, to add or remove materials as required. Workers will be advised of the hazardous
materials that will be used or be present during construction in accordance with the Workplace
Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) Regulations under the Newfoundland and Labrador
Workplace Health and Safety Act.
All transportation and handling of hazardous materials will be in accordance with the requirements of
the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (TDG Act). All commercial vehicles will be inspected and
evaluated to ensure compliance with the placard standards in the Act and Regulations. Appropriate
documentation must be in place with commercial transporters in accordance with the materials being
transported and the required transportation procedures. Drivers of commercial vehicles will be required
to show certification of training in the transportation of dangerous goods, as required under the TDG
Act. Site personnel responsible for security, those responsible for subsequent handling of hazardous
materials and site construction supervisors will be trained in the provisions and requirements of the
TDG Act. Material deliveries that do not conform to the TDG requirements may be refused.
Some potentially hazardous materials that will be used on the Project site include:
propane;
gasoline;
diesel fuel;
grease;
lubricants;
engine oil;
hydraulic fluids;
oxygen and other compressed gases;
acetylene;
form oil;
paints and coatings;
epoxies;
Page 48
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
concrete additives;
glycol/methanol;
cleaners;
solvents;
explosives;
blasting caps;
detonators;
liquid asphalt/tars;
sodium hypochlorite;
sodium thiosulphate; and
batteries.
2.3.9
Freshwater Supply
Water will be required at the Project site for both construction and commissioning activities. Such
activities include hydrostatic testing of the pipe and the tanks, production of concrete and wash water.
Estimates of the amount of freshwater required are outlined below in Table 2.5. All water from off-site
sources will be delivered using water tankers.
Table 2.5
Freshwater Requirements During Construction and Commissioning
Activity
Concrete
Production
Construction
Water
Tank Rinsing
Requirement
Concrete production is estimated at 1200 m3/day. The quantity of water
required is approximately 150 l/m3 concrete; so the resulting flow of water
required for the concrete batch plant is estimated at 125 l/min.
Construction activity will have a miscellaneous requirement estimated at
15 l/min.
Estimated flow for tank rinsing is 190 l/min. The volume of freshwater required
is estimated to range from 1, 025 to 1, 225 m for one tank or 8, 200 to 9,
800 m for eight tanks.
Source
Off-site supply
Off-site supply
Off-site supply
2.3.10 Commissioning
2.3.10.1
LNG Tank Hydrostatic Testing
Hydrostatic testing of the LNG tanks will be conducted using seawater to simulate forces applied by the
design load of LNG per API 620 Appendix Q.8. The fill level will be less than that for LNG due to the
increased density of the seawater, but the hydrostatic head will be equivalent. The required volume of
seawater is approximately 92, 000 m for one tank or 736, 000 m for eight tanks.
Untreated seawater will be used for the hydrostatic test. It will be pumped into the tank per API 620
(Section 5.18), at a rate not to exceed 0.914 m of depth per hour. If necessary, sediment suspended in
the water will be filtered out at the intake. The salinity of the water will be checked to determine a
maximum allowable residence time in the tank to limit corrosion. No harmful levels of regulated
substances are expected to be present. Elevated levels of iron may be found in the discharged water
due to oxidation in the tank. To insure compliance with Section 36 of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits
the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish, the effluent will be tested prior to
discharge and treated, if necessary.
Page 49
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Nine percent nickel steel tanks have been successfully tested using seawater. API 620 Appendix Q
guidelines relating to hydrostatic testing of LNG tanks will be followed, including:
the sea water will be tested for the presence of microbiologically influenced corrosion
causing bacteria, hardness and pH prior to and during the test;
the sea water source will be evaluated for suspended sediment as described above;
the maximum length of time the 9 percent nickel steel will be exposed to sea water will be
determined. A laboratory report will be issued prior to hydrostatic testing;
exposure time will be minimized to limit corrosion of the 9 percent nickel steel. If exposure
time is expected to be greater than what is considered safe, the unprotected steel may be
treated to inhibit corrosion before testing begins; and
fresh water will be made available for testing the process piping network and for a wash
down of the inner surfaces of the tank as the seawater is drained out.
Upon completion of the hydrostatic test, the water will be drained from the tank as quickly as is practical
back in to the ocean via temporary pipe. Any trash or debris that settled out will be removed and
disposed of appropriately. A sufficient quantity of fresh water will be provided by tanker trucks to wash
down the tank interior. All freestanding water pools will be removed and the tank will then be allowed to
air dry.
As per API 620 Appendix C, foundation settlement readings will be taken prior to the start of the
hydrostatic test and at regular time intervals during the entire filling, full liquid height and then draining
process. Settlement of the outer perimeter of the foundation will be measured at equidistant reference
points around its circumference.
The LNG systems will be pre-commissioned after completion of all piping and mechanical work,
insulation work, inspection work and testing (hydrostatic and/or pneumatic). As the system precommissioning is completed, all pipe exposed to LNG and/or natural gas will be purged with nitrogen
gas.
2.3.10.2
Systems Purge and Cool Down
The transition or cool-down process for equipment from ambient temperature to cryogenic temperature
must be done in a careful, controlled manner, requiring an estimated 7 days. Simply introducing large
amounts of LNG into warm piping, tanks and equipment would create considerable stress on the
system which may cause leaks or structural damage. Cool-down is accomplished by carefully
introducing cold liquid or vapour into the system and allowing the cold stream to absorb heat from the
system. Heat leaves the system as the now warmer cooling stream is vented. During cool-down, there
will necessarily be emissions of nitrogen and natural gas vapour (see Section 2.3.11).
If LNG process components are allowed to warm up measurably after the initial cool-down, the process
must be repeated. Repeating the cool-down causes undesirable thermal cycling of the systems
components. The objective is to perform the cool-down operation just before or coincident with the first
LNG carrier arrival and then maintain the system temperature, near -162C (-260F).
The first phase cool-down is accomplished using liquid nitrogen, while the second phase is
accomplished using LNG. By using liquid nitrogen first and LNG second, purging steps are minimized.
Using nitrogen first allows for relatively safe discovery/repair of leaks and lessens the GHG emissions
associated with a complete LNG-based cool-down. The cool-down process will involve passing cold
fluid through the system until the temperature of the LNG process equipment is near normal operating
Page 50
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
temperature. Higher-temperature systems, such as fuel gas piping, will be purged of oxygen using
nitrogen.
The exact cool-down procedure will depend upon the construction and material details of the cryogenic
process systems, especially the LNG storage tanks. The availability of liquid nitrogen to the
construction site will also affect planning and logistics for cool-down.
2.3.10.3
Commissioning Manual
A Commissioning Manual will be prepared prior to commissioning the facility. The manual will provide
detailed procedures for commissioning the utilities (e.g., fire and hazard detection system, firewater
system), for purging the tanks and pipelines, for the storage tank and loading/unloading line cool-down
and for the start-up of the BOG liquefaction system. The Table of contents for the manual is outlined in
Figure 2.13.
2.3.11 Emissions and Waste
2.3.11.1
Air Emissions during Construction
Air emissions during construction will be generated from combustion of fuels in construction equipment
and dust arising from vehicle traffic and construction activities.
Dust generated from construction activities will be controlled by wetting the surfaces of roads and
vehicle traffic areas, where required.
The burning of fuels by equipment during construction are estimated at:
24,500 t/year carbon dioxide (CO2);
40 t/year sulphur oxides (SOX);
225 t/year carbon monoxide (CO);
380 t/year nitrogen oxides (NOx); and
25 t/year particulate matter (PM).
2.3.11.2
Air Emissions during Commissioning
The commissioning process will involve purging lines, equipment and vessels to remove oxygen and
moisture. Leak/pressure tests will be performed, in many cases, using nitrogen. These purging, drying,
and cooling steps will result in gas venting to the atmosphere. The first phase cool-down is
accomplished using liquid nitrogen, while the second phase is accomplished using LNG. GHG
emissions associated with a complete LNG-based cool-down are reduced if liquid nitrogen is used first.
The cool-down process will involve passing cold fluid through the system until the temperature of the
LNG process equipment is near normal operating temperature. Higher-temperature systems, such as
fuel gas piping, will be purged of oxygen using nitrogen.
Page 51
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Commissioning Manual Table of Contents

1
General
Introduction
Overview
Safety Considerations
Special Precautions for Pre-commissioning and Commissioning
Process Controls during Commissioning
Utility Commissioning
2.1 Electrical Power Systems
2.2 Control Systems
2.3 Fuel Gas System
2.4 Mooring System
2.5 Fire and Hazard Detection System
2.6 Communication System
2.7 Instrument/Plant Air System
2.8 Nitrogen System
2.9 Water/Ethylene Glycol System
2.10
Firewater System
2.11
Utility Stations
2.12
LNG Storage Tank Foundation Heating System
Facility Purge
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Source of Nitrogen
3.3 LNG Storage Tank Nitrogen Purge
3.4 Considerations Prior to LNG Tank Nitrogen Purge
3.5 Preparation for Storage Tank Nitrogen Purge
3.6 Sequences for Storage Tank Nitrogen Purge
3.7 System Piping Nitrogen Purge
3.8 Equipment Nitrogen Purge
3.9 Source of Natural Gas Vapour
3.10
LNG Unloading Line Natural Gas Purge
3.11
LNG Storage Tank Natural Gas Purge
3.12
Considerations Prior To LNG Tank Natural Gas Purge
3.13
Preparation for Storage Tank Natural Gas Purge
3.14
Sequences for Storage Tank Product Purge
Ship Transfer
LNG Storage Tank And Loading/Unloading Line Cool-down
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Preparation for Cool-Down
5.3 Sequences for Storage Tank Cooldown
5.4 LNG Unloading Line Cooldown
5.5 Vent Header Use during Cooldown
5.6 BOG Blower and Boil-off Gas Compressor Use during Cooldown
Power Generation and Liquefaction System Start-Up
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Gas Turbines
Boil-off Gas Compressors
Boil-off Gas Blowers
Re-liquefaction System
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
4
5
7
8
9
Figure 2.13
Commissioning Manual Suggested Table of Contents
Page 52
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Since the cool-down process is envisioned to start with cold nitrogen vapour (oxygen removal is
inherent), there should be minimal emissions for simple purging of the systems that will handle LNG or
BOG. However, steps to ensure the piping systems are dry will also be necessary. Drying will also
result in nitrogen emissions. There will be some pressure testing using nitrogen, but the emissions
associated with pressure testing and drying are expected to be very small compared to cool-down
emissions. The systems that do not require cool-down (some heat exchangers, fuel gas lines) will also
require pressure testing or purging, but, as in the cold system purging and pressure testing, emissions
will be small relative to those of the cool-down process.
All nitrogen used for the cool-down will be vented to the atmosphere. Most, if not all, of the LNG used
for cool-down will also be vented to the atmosphere. Once the reliquefaction trains come online, the
venting of LNG vapour will slow and will completely stop once normal operating parameters are
reached. Estimated cool-down emissions approximately equal the fluid usages for the combinations of
liquids being considered are listed in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6
Preliminary Cool-down Fluid Usage Estimates
Combination
Cool-down Fluid
Approximate Mass of Fluid for Cool-down and Purging

Single LNG Tank,
Eight LNG Tanks,
Major Piping, initial coolinitial cool-down
initial cool-down
down
(kg)
(kg)(A)
(kg)
N2
4,350,000
(15C to 156C)
1
LNG to Purge N2 after
12,500
cool-down
N2 (15C to 107C)
2,350,000
2
LNG (-107C to
125,000
156C)
Eight LNG tanks to be built in phases possibly spanning several years.
2.3.11.3
34,800,000
2,250,000
100,000
6,400
18,800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
64,000
Noise
A variety of construction equipment will be operating at the site during the construction phase of the
Project. The level of noise generated by the equipment is dependent on the type of equipment used.
Typical noise levels for the various equipment types are noted in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment
Earth Moving
Front End Loader
Back Hoe
Bull Dozer
Roller
Grader
Truck
Paver
Material Handling
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Crane
Power Units
Generators
Compressors
Impact
Pile Driver
Pneumatic Breaker
Average (dB)
Sound Level at Operator

Range (dB)
88
86.5
96
90
<85
96
101
85 to 91
79 to 89
89 to 103
79 to 93
89 to 103
100 to 102
<85
<85
100
97 to 102
<85
<85
98
106
82 to 105
94 to 111
Page 53
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Equipment

Average (dB)
95.5
109
Hydraulic Breaker
Pneumatic Chipper
Other Equipment
Vibrator
Compresses Air Blower
Power Saw
Electric Drill
Air Track Drill
Noise Standards
OSHA (at workers ear)
Day Time Community (at Property Line)
Source: Labours Health and Safety fund of North America
94.5
104
88.5
102
113
Sound Level at Operator

Range (dB)
90 to 100
87 to 98
78 to 95
Noise Level
90 dB
65 dB
There will be an intermittent increase in noise levels at the site as a result of heavy equipment use
throughout the construction period. All equipment will be fitted with standard and well-maintained noise
suppression devices. To mitigate potential effects to local residents, noise-generating construction
activity will be carried out during daylight hours to minimize disturbances and local municipal
construction by-laws will be followed. The level of noise expected during construction of the Project was
modeled and assessed in Section 10.6.
2.3.11.4
Liquid Waste
The liquid wastes to be generated during construction are generally limited to stormwater runoff and to
equipment fluids including oils, lubricants, and hydraulic fluids. Stormwater will be accommodated
through standard construction practices as described in Section 2.2.13 to prevent them from
unrestricted flow into the surrounding environment. Interceptor ditches and sedimentation/retention
ponds will be constructed to retain stormwater flow and allow any accumulated sediment to dissipate
prior to discharging the water back into the environment. All discharge back to the environment will be
in accordance with the stipulations of NLDEC and DFO. Equipment fluids will be managed in
accordance with standard practices for hazardous waste as described below.
2.3.11.5
Solid Waste
Solid waste is anticipated to be generated during all phases of construction and will include items such
as scrap metals and lumber, used tires, packaging materials and general debris. Wastes generated
during construction will be handled, stored, transported and disposed of in accordance with all
applicable acts, regulations and guidelines. Wastes will be source separated to optimize reuse and
recycling of materials where possible. Migration of wastes from the site will not be permitted, and all
wastes will be collected and properly contained. Domestic wastes will be stored so that animals, insects
or other vectors are not attracted to the site. Wastes that may cause leachate will be stored on an
impermeable pad and contained within a structure that prevents exposure to precipitation and runoff.
Odourous wastes will be treated and stored so that odour problems are prevented. Solid waste that
cannot be reused or recycled will be transported to existing, approved, off-site waste management
facilities by certified contractors. Removal of waste materials will be done on a routine basis to prevent
accumulation at the Project site. Wastes will not be permitted to enter or come in contact with water
bodies or wetlands.
2.3.11.6
Hazardous Waste
As part of routine construction activities, hazardous material will be used and hazardous waste will
consequently be generated. Similar to the solid waste objective for the Project, a program of careful
Page 54
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
product selection and targeting of products that can be recycled will be used during construction to
minimize the generation of hazardous waste. All hazardous materials will be handled and stored on site
in accordance with WHMIS regulations. All hazardous waste generated on-site during operations will be
disposed off-site in accordance with regulatory requirements. Personnel training will be an important
aspect of the waste management plan for hazardous wastes, and all workers will be trained in safe
management practices. Training and worker awareness will result in minimizing accidents such as
spills, improper storage of waste materials and inappropriate disposal techniques.
Temporary facilities will be built for the construction period as required to provide storage for these
waste materials prior to disposal, and to provide areas for equipment servicing to control waste
hazardous materials. The location of hazardous waste storage will be identified on a construction
drawing to provide current information to workers present at the site.
A list of potential hazardous waste expected to be on the Project site is listed in Section 2.3.10.
2.3.11.7
Septic Waste
Portable sanitary facilities will be used for domestic sanitation during construction. Wastes from these
facilities will be collected and disposed by an approved contractor licensed by the province. Portable
toilet facilities will be installed in accordance with the stipulations of Occupational Health and Safety
Regulations of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. No discharge of septic waste will be
permitted on site or in any unauthorized facility.
2.4
Operation and Maintenance
2.4.1
Labour Requirements
Approximately 30 persons will be employed per shift at the LNG site during normal operations. The
facility will operate 24 hrs per day using two 12-hour shifts. Additional contractual labour requirements
will be required during specific facility operations (e.g., vessel berthing and de-berthing, snow clearing,
waste removal). It is anticipated that the contractual labour requirements will be between 50 to 80
personnel.
2.4.2
Exclusion Zones
There is no requirement for a marine exclusion zone around the jetties or tug basin during operation of
the facility.
On land, site access will be restricted to Newfoundland LNG employees and contract personnel.
Access to the Bordeaux Trail and Bordeaux Island will therefore be restricted.
Page 55
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Grassy Point facility has been designed and located to comply with the CSA Z276-07 in order to
provide protection of the general public and property adjacent to a LNG facility (Quest 2007). Exclusion
zones for certain activities are determined based on vapour dispersion and thermal radiation models.
Environmental conditions such as temperature, relative humidity and wind speed and the proposed
LNG facility layout are considered. Design cases such as malfunctions and unplanned events are
modelled using techniques specified by CSA Z276-07. The following release scenarios are required to
be analyzed by CSA Z276.07:
10-minute LNG storage tank release of the largest flow from any single line that could be
pumped into the impounding area, with the container withdrawal pump(s) considered to be
delivering the full rated capacity, if surveillance and shutdown is demonstrable; or for the
time needed to empty a full container where surveillance and shutdown is not approved;
10-minute release for impounding areas serving only vapourization, process or LNG transfer
areas; or less based on demonstrable surveillance and shutdown; and
Loss of LNG storage tank contents into its impoundment area.
Thermal flux levels (5,000 W/m; 9,000 W/m; 30,000 W/m) are also defined by CSA Z276-07 for
different spill scenarios that are used to calculate the exclusion zone. These are:
5,000 W/m2 (1,600 Btu/hr-ft2) nearest point used by group assemblies of 50 or more
persons and not under direct control of the terminal Owner;
9,000 W/m2 (3,000 Btu/hr-ft2) nearest point of a building outside the property line that is a
school, hospital, church, jail, residence (does not include industrial property); and
30,000 W/m2 (10,000 Btu/hr-ft2) nearest point on property or on adjacent property that is or
can be built upon (i.e., can fall upon open water, game lands, farmlands that is not built on).
Dispersion of flammable mixtures of vapour were modeled for these design spills. As described in CSA
Z276.07, consideration shall be given to controlling the possibility of a flammable mixture of vapours
from a design spill of reaching a property line that may be built upon at an elevation above grade, which
would result in a distinct hazard.
2.4.3
Marine Traffic
Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) supplies the services provided by Marine Communications and Traffic
Service (MCTS) Centre at Argentia. The MCTS centre uses state of the art electronic equipment
including a network of radar facilities at Arnolds Cove, Argentia and Cuslett to monitor vessels in
established traffic lanes. Their responsibilities include ship to shore communications and monitoring of
traffic entering Canadian Waters and local zones. MCTS also advise vessels in the zones of other
vessels movements; receives and relay messages between the Pilots, Harbour Authorities,
Government Agencies and ships; monitor and broadcasts information on hazards, weather conditions
and Notices to Shipping; advise on the safety of navigation in the area; and report on non-compliance.
MCTS does not control the movement of traffic, however they can direct traffic within the zones as per
the Regulations and the Radio Aids to Marine Navigation. They may recommend actions to the Masters
of Vessels as required by the situation.
The Grassy Point facility will be designed for LNGCs with capacities of between 87,000 m3 and 265,000
m3. The number of vessels discharging at the facility will depend on the market, capacity of the vessels,
and continued maintenance of the facility. During initial operations of the facility, it is estimated that
there will be a vessel handling cargo at the facility every 3 to 3.5 days or 104 vessels per year and
Page 56
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
when the facility is fully operational, approximately 400 vessels per year may visit the facility, to a
maximum of two per day.
All approach, berthing and departure criteria and methods will be carried out with caution, having due
regard for the circumstances of the case and under the navigational direction of a St. Johns, Holyrood
and Placentia Bay licensed marine pilot. These criteria will be incorporated into the Marine Terminal
Manual.
Tugs will escort LNGCs through the Routing and assist in the berthing and sailing at the terminals. The
number of tugs and the power and bollard pull required for the tugs will be determined in part by the
simulation required for the TERMPOL Review. The same tugs that are to be used to assist in the
berthing and departure of the vessels will be used during the escorted part of the transit.
Line handling vessels will be required to carry the mooring lines from the ship to the quick release
mooring hooks on the jetty and the mooring dolphins.
The operations manuals from the terminal and from the Harbour Authority will be produced during the
construction stages of the Project and reviewed by the (Transport Canada) TERMPOL Review
Committee before a vessel is allowed to berth. It is anticipated that these operations manuals will be
completed and presented to Transport Canada at least six months before the terminal begins
operation.
More information on the expected size, design and features of the LNGCs is provided in Section 2.2.4.
More detail on vessel traffic is provided in Section 10.7.
2.4.4
Land-based Vehicle Traffic
Land-based vehicle traffic will consist of employees, visitors, contractual services (e.g., snow clearing,
maintenance) and delivery service of parts, equipment and supplies. It is anticipated that between 20 to
30 trips per day will be required to meet facility demands.
LNG will be contained to the facility site and will not be distributed via truck to other locations.
2.4.5
LNG Transfer Facilities
The three piers will be designed for double berthing of LNG carriers up to 265,000 m 3. This
arrangement will allow ship-to-ship transfer of LNG at any berth and allow additional berthing should
the need arise. Mooring loads will be based on the ship characteristics and environmental loadings for
the Project site. Thresholds, such as wind speed and wave height, will be specified for vessel berthing
and departure manoeuvres. Critical extremes that require the vessels to depart the berths will also be
determined during the TERMPOL process.
The berths will each contain four 50.8 cm (20) articulated LNG transfer arms that will connect the LNG
carriers piping system to the onshore piping system. The LNG carriers cargo pumps will pump LNG
from the ships cargo tanks to either another LNG carrier or to onshore LNG storage tanks. The
articulated arms will also receive LNG transfers from other ships and one arm, in each case, will be
used for vapour balance.
The system design transfer rate will be 15,000 m of LNG per hour. The pump-out time for a
265,000 m LNG carrier will be approximately 18 hours (not including docking, hookup and undocking
Page 57
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
times). The turn-around time for an LNG carrier will be 24 to 36 hours depending on the size of the
carrier. LNG carrier cargo tank pressure will be maintained at approximately 14 kPa (2 psig).
The LNG carrier unloading/loading and inter-ship transfer operations will follow specific procedures, will
be closely monitored and will use automatic monitoring, control and shutdown systems. This section
highlights important steps in the dock-area LNG transfer operations. The process of transferring LNG
between carrier and LNG storage tanks or between carriers will include the following broadly
categorized phases:
docking;
electronic ship-to-shore systems umbilical connection and testing;
mechanical connections;
purging and cool-down;
transition from no flow to full flow;
monitoring;
transition from full flow to no flow;
purging and depressurization;
mechanical disconnect;
electronic disconnect;
return to non-transfer operating mode; and
de-berthing.
Many key components will be used to facilitate safe dock-area transfers. Clear and complete written
procedures and ample verbal communication between the terminal operators and ship-board crew will
be used during each dock-area transfer operation. Additionally, electronic monitoring, control and
emergency shutdown device (ESD) systems will be employed to assist operations personnel in the safe
operation of the dock facility. The docks electronic systems will communicate with the ships electronic
systems through an umbilical cord. An emergency shutdown of one will trigger a corresponding
shutdown of the other. The key tools to be used for dock-area transfers include:
written docking, hook-up, communications and operating procedures;
electronic process monitoring, process control, ship-to-shore umbilical, process alarm and
process shutdown systems;
communications equipment;
hazard detection systems (leak, fire);
fire protection systems; and
operator training program.
In the event that an emergency shutdown of the dock operation is initiated, the following systems will be
set to a safe setting for the shutdown scenario:
LNG transfer arm block-in valves;
shoreline valves;
storage tank inlet valves;
Page 58
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BOG system (blowers and valves);

LNG-tank internal pumps;
fuel gas LNG pumps;
LNG vaporizers and inlet/outlet valves;
emergency depressurization of the vapourization process;
power generation equipment;
battery limit valves; and
venting of process equipment and piping where necessary to prevent overpressure.
The following discussion provides more detail and illustrates how the systems listed above will be used
to ensure safe dock-area operations.
2.4.5.1 LNG Transfer Arm Set-up Prior and Transfer
Before LNG can be transferred from the LNG carrier to the facilitys storage tanks, the LNG transfer
arms must be set-up and tested using the following steps:
if the docking facility has not been used in more than 30 days, ESD system will be tested at
least 24-hours prior to LNG carrier arrival;
dust covers will be removed and flow of nitrogen will begin in unloading arms to displace air;
vented gas from unloading arm will be purged until oxygen content is below 10 percent;
communication cables will be connected to the LNG carrier;
LNG carrier and LNG facility will go through go-no-go systems check (i.e., communications
systems, ESD functionality);
after the all systems check has been preformed and the ready for cargo transfer has
been reported, connection of the unloading arms to the LNG carrier will begin;
once the transfer arms are connected, the transfer arms will be pressured to 345 kPa (50
psi) and checked for leaks;
the vapour arm will be tested at 207 kPa (30 psi) and if no leaks are detected, the arms will
be depressurized to less than 7 kPa (1 psi);
the LNGC and LNG terminal will re-test the ESD system; and
the systems will now be ready for transfer.
2.4.5.2 Liquid Transfer
Once the transfer arms are safely and securely connected to the LNG carrier, LNG will be transferred
using the following procedure:
all BOG compressors will be activated and will be operated in automatic pressure control
mode;
cool-down procedure will be initiated, LNGC will flow liquid cool-down using stripping pumps
(should take approximately 30 minutes);
after 30 minutes of liquid cool-down flow, the flow can be increased up to 5,000 m/hr per
arm;
Page 59
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
gas chromatograph will be set up to automatically monitor the outlet LNG and inlet LNG
vapour lines; and
LNG storage tank pressure and capacity will be continually monitored.
This procedure will be reversed when LNG is being transferred from the LNG storage tanks to the
LNGC.
2.4.5.3 Vapour Return
The LNGC will be connected to transfer arms that serve two purposes: loading and unloading. During
the unloading process, it may be necessary for the LNGC to receive vapour (i.e., vapour return). The
process and procedure of vapour return are described below:
the LNGC will inform the LNG terminal once it is available to begin accepting vapour;
the cold gas blower will be initiated to begin loading the LNGC with vapour; and
vapour not required by the LNGC will be directed to BOG compressors and then on to the
fuel gas system or re-liquefaction system.
When loading a LNGC, vapour will be transferred back to the storage facility. The procedure described
above will be applied in reverse. All excess vapours, whether loading or unloading a LNGC, will flow to
the fuel gas system or to the re-liquefaction system.
2.4.5.4 Termination of Tanker Transfer
When the LNG storage tanks (on-shore or on tanker) near capacity or transfer nears completion, the
transfer flow rate (both LNG and vapour) will be reduced and eventually stopped. After termination of
transfer, the LNG facility will follow the shut down procedures listed below:
Liquid Arms
the shore side block valves will be closed;
the transfer arms will be pressured to 345 kPa (50 psi) with nitrogen;
the by-pass valves around the shore block valves will be opened, allowing LNG to be
displaced into the transfer line;
process will be repeated twice and the by-pass valves will be closed;
the lines will be pressurized to 345 kPa (50 psi) and the ship will open the by-pass valves on
their block valves; and
once the transfer arms are disconnected, the LNG circulation in the transfer line will be
maintained in the cooled down condition.
Vapour Return Arms
all vapour blowers will be stopped;
the vapour return unloading arm will be purged with nitrogen until the methane level is below
10 percent LFL;
the vapour transfer arm will be disconnected; and
communications cable will be disconnected prior to LNG carrier departure.
Page 60
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.6
LNG Storage
The LNG storage tanks will be designed to hold, receive and discharge LNG. LNGCs will unload LNG
into the storage tanks. The storage tanks will hold LNG until other smaller or specialized LNGCs arrive
and load the LNG from the storage tanks for transport to re-gasification terminals.
Up to eight, single-containment, double wall, 160,000 m LNG storage tanks will be installed on shore.
These tanks will have a steel-nickel alloy inner tank suitable for LNG service, an insulated annular
space to limit heat in-leak, and a carbon steel outer tank.
Much of the LNG tanks operation will be automated or automatic. Some systems will be electronic and
some will be mechanical. Ultimately, the goal of the storage tank and all process systems is
containment of the process. Therefore, where warranted, redundancy is incorporated into the design
and operation of the systems. For example, level instruments will report level readings to the distributed
control system (DCS), which will alarm if the level exceeds normal operating limits. Further, pressure
safety valves (PSVs), a mechanical system, will vent overpressure if the tanks electronically-controlled
pressure control system malfunctions. Finally, the most failsafe system will be the dike impoundments
that will surround each tank.
The tanks will have no below-liquid-level penetrations. Pumps will be column-mounted, internal and
submerged in the tanks. The pump columns will each have a foot valve at the bottom and nitrogen
purge capability that will enable pump removal without the need for emptying the entire LNG tank.
Stratification of LNG due to composition and, therefore, density differences, can lead to rollover.
Rollover refers to the rapid release of LNG vapours caused by stratification in the tank. Density
variation can be caused by two things:
the tendency of light components like methane to preferentially boil off near the top of the
liquid; and
the filling of a partially filled LNG tank with considerably higher or lower density LNG.
Either can make the top layer heavy relative to the bottom layer, which does not boil off as much of its
light components due to increased pressure at locations well below the liquid surface. Rollover can
result in high vapour generation rates. This Project will install liquid level, temperature and density
monitoring devices to prevent, detect and mitigate LNG stratification inside the LNG storage tanks. The
tanks will be equipped with top and bottom filling capability, as well as mixing/circulation capability.
Heat in-leak will be removed by BOG, which will be collected by the BOG vent system and forwarded to
either the liquefaction system or to the plants gas turbine-driven power generation equipment. If the
BOG vent system is down or overloaded (it will also be designed for foreseeable loads), excess BOG
will be vented to the atmosphere via a heated vent system.
LNG storage tanks, like all large low-pressure tanks, cannot withstand vacuum conditions (negative
gauge pressure). The per-square-metre force on a tank under vacuum is very large and can cause tank
damage and partial collapse. Therefore, each tank will have a vapour make-up system and vacuum
breaker valves to protect the tanks from vacuum conditions.
2.4.7
Reliquefaction
BOG that is not used for fuel or returned to a vessel as displacement vapour is compressed by the
BOG compressors and sent to a plate-fin heat exchanger, where the BOG is cooled and condensed to
Page 61
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LNG. The LNG then goes through a pressure reduction and into the transfer line to the LNG storage
tanks or to a LNGC. The refrigeration for the re-liquefaction system is provided by a nitrogen refrigerant
system, which consists of a three-stage nitrogen compressor operating at ambient temperature and an
expander operating at the cold end. Nitrogen passes through the plate-fin exchanger so that the platefin exchanger effectively has three zones:
a warm zone in which warm nitrogen is cooled down against cold nitrogen returning to the
compressor suction;
a zone in which hydrocarbon gas (boil-off vapours) and nitrogen are both cooled (in
separate passages), against cold nitrogen; and
a cold zone in which hydrocarbon gas (boil-off vapour) is cooled and condensed against
cold nitrogen, which typically will enter with a small amount of liquid present.
2.4.8
Power Supply
The estimated continuous electrical power requirement for the proposed LNG facility is between 18 MW
with four tanks in operation and 21 MW with eight tanks in operation. During transshipment, the peak
demand increases to approximately 66 MW for a single transfer operation and 121 MW for two
simultaneous transfers.
Three (3) alternatives are possible to supply electrical power and energy. These are:
have all power supplied by interconnecting to the existing Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro (NLH) 230 kV grid;
construct a simple cycle, natural gas fired, on-site generating facility; or
provide a combination of grid interconnection and on-site generation.
The latter alternative is clearly deemed the most practicable and cost effective. The referenced base
load power can be supplied best by purchase from NLH through a 230 kV grid interconnection. Peak
load power is driven by transfer operations and its attendant reliquefaction requirements. Furthermore,
the Project will be developed in stages. This means peak demand with less energy draw in initial stage
development but moving to high energy draw in full build-out when cargo transfers are frequent.
The nature of such a power and energy load requirement leads to peak power being practically and
cost effectively supplied by a simple cycle, natural gas fired, on-site generating facility.
2.4.8.1 Energy Back-Up Supply
An un-interruptible power supply, by nature of safe and practicable operation, will be required. This will
be a direct current battery bank system in combination with a diesel generator. The capacity of each will
be determined by codes and sizing of critical loads. Critical loads would be for control power to safely
shut down equipment if deemed necessary; for emergency lighting loads; and for black start capability
for the gas turbine generator.
2.4.9
Emissions and Waste
2.4.9.1 Marine Tankers

For the air emissions estimate, it is assumed that 400 LNGCs will visit the facility each year and be
assisted by two tug boats for an assumed three-hour period to dock at the pier (the time required will
Page 62
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
likely be less). Following docking, each vessel will require approximately 12 to 20 hours to offload or
load the LNG, and then are assumed to be assisted by two tug boats for a three-hour period to leave
the facility. Each LNG vessel is assumed to remain in the area for a total of up to 24 hours. A summary
of the resulting emissions from diesel fuel is presented in Table 2.8. A detailed ship emissions inventory
for the proposed project is provided in Section 10.6.
Table 2.8
Estimated Emissions by Project Vessels during Operation

Vessel
400 LNG Carriers

2 Tugboats for each LNGC visit
Total
NOx
165.23
29.64
194.87
Emission Type (tonnes/yr)

SO2
CO
76.81
13.93
1.44
5.70
78.24
19.63
PM10
9.48
0.68
10.16
2.4.9.2 Electrical Supply

Electrical power for the facility will come from the provincial power grid and from on-site generation from
LNG BOG. The natural gas fired generating facility demand will be approximately 45 MW for single
transfer operations and 100 MW for two simultaneous transfers, assuming approximately 21 MW will be
supplied from the existing grid.
The burning of natural gas produces nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxides and sulphur dioxide. Based on
US EPA research the average emission rates in the US from natural gasfired generation are
(www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/natgas):
Carbon dioxide = 1135 lbs/MWh
Sulphur dioxide = 0.1 lbs/MWh
Nitrogen oxides = 1.7 lbs/MWh
In the event of a power outage, most facility operations would be temporarily terminated. With the
combined effect of the large LNG volume and the tank insulation, it is anticipated that power outages up
to 12 hours would have minimal effect on the LNG storage and therefore minimal emissions. Should a
power outage go beyond 12 hours, a back-up power supply would be required to power blowers and
compressors required to handle vapour losses. It is anticipated that, in stand-by mode, with an eight
tank configuration, a total of 21 MW will be required as back-up power requirements. This back-up
power would be provided by a combination of diesel generator and LNG generation. The diesel
generator would power the pumps and compressors required to start the LNG power plant that provides
power to the facility during LNG transfer operations. Fire protection will be provided by means of diesel
water pumps.
Diesel generators and firepumps will only be used in case of emergency so negligible emissions are
created.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has recently retained Jacques Whitford to perform a baseline assessment of
their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventory (also referred to as its Carbon Footprint) and to
provide recommendations with respect to a climate policy for the company, and the development of a
GHG management plan.
The GHG emissions inventory will include all direct and indirect GHG emissions (as Scope 1, 2 and 3
emissions where appropriate) resulting from shipment (limited to docking activities only), natural gas
transfer and electricity requirements for storage. This will allow for the identification of major GHG
Page 63
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
sources, sinks and reservoirs and will provide the baseline for the development of a GHG management
plan.
This Carbon Footprint study will form the baseline for developing strategies to manage risks associated
with the climate change issue generally, and specifically including approaches to managing public and
regulatory risk, customer risk, supplier risk and competitor risk. This commitment to a Climate Change
Policy and a GHG Management Plan, including options to reduce the companys Carbon Footprint, will
be incorporated into Newfoundland LNG Ltd. policy for operations of potential projects. Ultimately,
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will explore the feasibility of becoming a Carbon Neutral facility.
2.4.9.3 Noise
Noise related to operation can be generated by:
land-based vehicle traffic;
marine traffic;
power generation; and
process equipment.
Process equipment (i.e., compressors) will be enclosed in buildings that will be constructed to minimize
noise transmission. Isolated pieces of equipment not housed in buildings will be covered with
enclosures to reduce noise levels. Vehicles operating on the site will be equipped with mufflers or other
noise suppression equipment.
A discussion of marine and land-based traffic noise is provided in Section 10.6.
2.4.9.4 Liquid Waste
The liquid wastes to be generated at the facility are limited to the sanitary wastewater from operations
staff and heated water from the seawater cooling system. There are no other processes at the facility
that contribute wastewater to the effluent stream.
The wastewater from the operations of the plant is limited to that produced by the domestic use from
staff. The total anticipated flow is approximately 7,600 l/day (0.000088 m3/s). This flow will be directed
into a primary settling chamber or septic tank for removal of solids and the effluent will be discharged
through the seawater outfall back to the marine environment. Concentrations of the effluent will be in
accordance with Schedule A of the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and
Sewage Regulations 2003. Domestic wastewater that may be generated from potentially hydrocarboncontaminated operations will be channelled as necessary through oil/water separators. This will apply
to garage and equipment areas, where drains may be a source of hydrocarbon contamination. The
effluent from the separators will be directed into the primary settling chamber for treatment and
eventual discharge. The oily fraction will be removed by an approved contractor using appropriate liquid
handling equipment and vehicles, and treated off-site at an approved facility.
The seawater cooling system will have no net chemical changes from the intake water. Only a thermal
change will occur. The discharge seawater will be limited to a maximum temperature of 32C, in
accordance with the stipulations of Schedule A of the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental
Control Water and Sewage Regulations, 2003. To provide for adequate mixing and rapid dissipation of
the additional thermal energy, a diffused outfall will be used to discharge the seawater into the marine
water column in a minimum depth of 15 m below LNT. Modeling of the thermal plume indicates that
Page 64
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
temperature of the discharge will be within 1 C of ambient at less than 60 m from the diffuser (see
Section 10.1).
2.4.9.5 Solid Waste
Solid wastes will be sorted at the facility and material not deemed acceptable for re-use or recycling will
be disposed of in an acceptable manner at an approved landfill site. Certified contractors will be
retained for the safe transportation of solid waste to the approved facility.
Waste management strategies for operations for the Project will be outlined in a Waste Management
Plan that will be prepared for review by regulatory authorities. The Plan will be prepared in accordance
with the new Newfoundland and Labrador Waste Management Strategy. During operations, waste
minimization will be a prime objective to prevent the generation of waste wherever possible and reduce
the need for waste diversion and landfilling.
Non-hazardous solid wastes that may be generated during operations include:
domestic refuse;
food waste;
clean tanks, drums and containers;
packaging materials;
used oil filters;
broken fittings and tools;
plastic, metal, concrete, asphalt and wood;
non-Hazardous electronics;
uncontaminated soils, rock and vegetation; and
bulk items including structures and machinery.
2.4.9.6 Hazardous Waste
Similarly to the solid waste objective, a program of careful product selection will be used during
operations to minimize the generation of hazardous waste for the Project. However, as part of the
routine operations, hazardous materials will be used and hazardous waste will consequently be
generated. All hazardous materials will be handled and stored on site in accordance with WHMIS
Regulations. All hazardous waste generated on site during operations will be disposed of in accordance
with regulatory requirements. Personnel training will be an important aspect of the Waste Management
Plan for hazardous wastes and all workers will be trained in safe management practices. Training and
worker awareness will result in minimizing accidents such as spills, improper storage of waste materials
and inappropriate disposal techniques.
Hazardous solid wastes that may be generated during operations include:
used oil, lubricants and coolants;
contaminated or expired fuels;
waste batteries;
chemical solvents and additives;
Page 65
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
light bulbs that contain mercury;

electronics;
oiled materials;
wastewater treatment sludge;
fungicides, herbicides and pesticides;
materials such as soils and debris that contain hazardous substances;
parts from machinery; and
contaminated soils, rock and vegetation.
2.4.10 Maintenance
Maintenance programs will ensure safe and efficient operation of the facilities. The facilities related to
LNG do not produce any toxic or environmentally hazardous waste. Waste-oils, from maintenance of
equipment, will be recycled through local recycling programs. General non-industrial refuse will be
disposed of through local garbage-waste programs. All maintenance activities will be carried out in a
responsible manner and in accordance with the EPP which will be developed for the facility.
A proactive maintenance program will be designed so that all components of the facility are maintained
in a safe and operational condition.
Safety system components will follow strict adherence to manufacturer, industry, and provincial
standards and requirements. These include but are not limited to relief valves, fire and gas detection
systems, smoke and thermal sensors, fire extinguishers, emergency plant shutdown systems,
emergency dock shutdown systems, emergency alert systems, and firewater pump systems. Firewater
systems will be tested in accordance with federal and local regulations and NFPA 25.
LNG tanks are the largest component of an LNG facility and require maintenance as well, including
pressure wash or painting. These activities will be performed in accordance with the facility EPP.
Process equipment will be inspected and maintained as per manufacturer instructions. These include
routine inspections, adjustments, calibrations, alignments, lubrications, and general driveline
components to the compressors, pumps, heaters, coolers, and other process equipment.
Maintenance and operations activities to marine terminal activities are important to provide an
environmentally safe shipping facility. The terminal will follow strict adherence to industry standards and
provincial requirements. Mooring and navigational systems will be inspected, maintained, and tested
routinely for safe operation. LNG loading and unloading systems will be inspected for operation,
hydraulics, and emergency release operation.
2.4.11 Operations Schedule
Phase 1 of the facility is scheduled to begin operations in the form of a ship to ship transfer in June
2010. Construction of the LNG storage tanks will depend on market demand for LNG storage, but the
anticipated date for the start of Phase 2 operations is December 2012. The life of the Project is an
anticipated 50 years.
Page 66
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.5
The proposed Grassy Point LNG Transshipment Facility has an anticipated life expectancy of at least
50 years during which time this facility will be maintained to operate safely and efficiently. At some point
in the future, upon completion of its operating life, the facility will be decommissioned and abandoned.
All procedures developed for the decommissioning and abandonment of the Grassy Point
Transshipment Facility shall be in accordance with all legislation and regulations applicable at that time.
Prior to decommissioning and abandonment of the facility, a Decommissioning and Abandonment Plan
will be developed. The plan will focus on protecting public health and safety, improving or eliminating
environmental damage and liabilities, and allowing the land use to be similar to its original use or an
acceptable alternative.
The management strategy for decommissioning activities is outlined in the following sections.
2.5.1
Facilities Removal
2.5.1.1 Removing Liquid from the LNG Storage Tank

Prior to decommissioning, LNG pumps will be used to pump as much LNG out of the storage tanks as
possible. The net positive suction head required for the LNG pumps will determine the lowest level to
which the tanks can be pumped down. It is estimated that this level would be approximately 1 m of
liquid remaining in the tank. During this process, the pumps would be carefully monitored for cavitation.
Once the LNG can no longer be pumped out, the remaining LNG must be vaporized by adding heat into
the tank. This is usually done by heated fuel gas or nitrogen.
2.5.1.2 Isolating the LNG Storage Tank
The objective of isolating a storage tank is the prevention of any re-entry of LNG or hydrocarbons. This
is usually accomplished by providing a physical gap (air gap) between the tank and any piping
containing hazardous fluid or gas. If the purpose of isolating the LNG tank is for inspection by
personnel, maintenance, or entry, the storage tank isolation shall comply with all applicable facility and
regulatory safety procedures.
2.5.1.3 Sampling
Before purging can begin, the initial tank pressure and temperature are recorded. After the purging has
begun, the following data are collected:
storage tank pressure;
purge gas flow rate;
percentage of combustible gases in the vent gas; and
quantity of purge gas used.
2.5.1.4 Purging of Tanks
After the LNG has been removed, the tank warm-up and inert gas purge is initiated. The tanks will then
be heated to temperatures above that of the atmospheric dew point. Raising the storage tank
temperature above this level prevents moisture in the air from forming condensation in the insulation
and on the tank surfaces.
Page 67
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
During the inert gas purge, additional heat may be required to reach the desired warm-up in a
reasonable time. The vent gas will be monitored during the purge for combustible gases. The end-point
for the inert gas purge will be when the venting gases are below the combustible threshold.
Vapour from the LNG storage tank will be vented to the atmosphere. The inner tank, dome and annular
space between the inner and outer tanks will be purged of combustible gases with an inert gas. If
personnel entry is required, after the combustible gases are purged out of the tank, a purge process will
begin to purge the inert gases out using air. Detailed procedures will be developed for this process, if
necessary.
2.5.2
System Decommissioning
The decommissioning of facility systems is necessary whenever inspection, maintenance, or

dismantling is to occur. System decommissioning procedures will be written specifically for each system
and piece of equipment. Each procedure will address necessary safety and environmental activities
such as purging (similar to tanks), electrical isolation (lock out/tag out), air gap isolation, piping valves
to be locked and tagged out, safety and environmental monitoring, among others.
2.5.3
Facility Abandonment
Prior to abandonment, a review of the site infrastructure will be carried out to address items to be
decommissioned and abandoned and items to remain for use by the community. The following items
will be addressed during abandonment process:
hazardous chemicals, reagents and materials will be removed for re-sale or proper disposal;
equipment will be disconnected, drained and cleaned, disassembled and sold for reuse or to
a licensed scrap dealer. This includes tanks, mechanical equipment, electrical switchgear,
pipes, pumps, vehicles, laboratory equipment and office furniture;
any equipment deemed potentially hazardous will be removed from the site and disposed of
in accordance with government regulations;
buildings, surface structures and other infrastructure that will no longer be required by the
authorities or the community will be properly dismantled, demolished and removed;
concrete foundations will be demolished to or near surface grade and the concrete debris
disposed of in an appropriate landfill. Buildings or foundations to be retained will be
examined and passed as fit for occupation, failing which, they shall be dismantled and
removed as described above;
an assessment of soil contamination in the location or vicinity of the buildings and other
facilities will be completed and appropriate remediation measures will be implemented to
treat or excavate and remove contaminated soil as required;
where possible, any sheer slopes or sharp elevation changes will be graded or fenced in
consultation with the authorities and the local community. Fencing will remain in place to
protect the public where sheer slopes exist or there are sharp elevation changes; if not, the
fences will be removed and the posts excavated;
access and site roads deemed no longer required will be reclaimed by removing the wear or
asphalt surface and scarifying the surface. Where erosion and sedimentation is a potential
concern, suitable plant species will be established along the prepared roadway surface. For
areas where erosion and sedimentation are not a concern, the scarified surface will be left to
Page 68
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
re-vegetate naturally. Culverts will be removed and natural drainage patterns will be
restored wherever practical;
re-vegetation will be systematically assessed and implemented where practical, including
seeding and reforestation through the introduction of indigenous vegetation and organic
material;
removal and disposal of all insulation from tanks;
removal and disposal of tank superstructures and foundations;
power to the site will be terminated and the service disconnected at the source. The
electrical lines along with the poles will be removed;
the equipment associated with the water supply will be removed and any drilled well holes
will be plugged with concrete. The underground water line will also be removed and the area
graded;
the sewage holding tank and associated underground piping will be removed from the site;
site lighting will be removed, along with all lighting hardware and poles. Underground pipes,
conduits and cables will be terminated to a minimum depth below the surface grade and
allowed to remain unless there is a regulatory stipulation to remove them, in which case,
they will be removed and the areas graded and rehabilitated;
the jetty structures will be removed from site; and
the tug basin will likely remain in place after abandonment.
2.5.4
Air Emissions
Although the potential exists for environmental effects on air quality from activities such as purging of
the LNG tanks and equipment, operation of heavy construction vehicles, vehicle traffic to and from the
site, and from dust generated from vehicle traffic on site, these activities are expected to be of limited
duration.
2.5.5
Wastes
Wastes include all solid building materials and equipment. All waste material will be sorted and material
not deemed acceptable for reuse or recycling will be disposed of in an approved landfill site.
Government agencies will be consulted on waste disposal matters during facility decommissioning and
abandonment.
2.6
Safety, Health and Environment
Standard practices in the construction and shipping industries now incorporate health, environmental,
safety and emergency response measures and this Project will conform or exceed industry standards.
Good health, environment, safety and emergency response practices will be incorporated and followed
throughout the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will be proactive in implementing procedures to prevent pollution and to
continually improve environmental performance. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. and its contractors will
manage environmental issues as a priority. All aspects of construction and operation will comply with
relevant legislation, license conditions and accepted good practice, and the mitigative measures
Page 69
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
outlined in this environmental assessment report and the Environmental Protection Plan to be issued to
the province for review prior to construction.
2.6.1
Environmental Protection Plan
In addition to incorporating environmental features into Project design, an EPP will be developed for
construction and operations of the Project in accordance with applicable federal and provincial
regulatory, permitting and licensing requirements.
The EPP is the foundation for implementing environmental protection measures during the construction
and subsequent phases of the Project. It will provide documentation of general and site-specific
environmental protection procedures, allowing performance to be readily assessed. If required,
additional corrective measures will be implemented. The EPP is a working document for use in the field
for Project personnel and contractors, as well as at the corporate level. The EPP ensures that the
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. commitments are implemented and monitored. It is intended to provide a quick
reference for Project personnel and regulators to monitor compliance.
The EPP will outline all environmental protection measures to be implemented during each phase of
the Project. It will be used on the Project site and will contain the following information:
environmental responsibilities of Newfoundland LNG Ltd. and all site personnel;
purpose, organization
subcontractors;
and
maintenance
of
the
EPP,
including
contractors
and
specific mitigation measures to be implemented during routine and non-routine construction,

and operations activities;
contingency plans for accidental events; and
list of permits, approvals, authorizations and key personnel to be contacted in the case of an
emergency.
The EPP for decommissioning and abandonment of the facility will be developed prior to the end of
operations and would be subject to regulatory review and approval at that time.
2.6.1.1 Implementation and Training
An EPP will be implemented for each phase of the Project, including construction, operations and
decommissioning and abandonment, to deal with environmental issues specific to each individual
phase. Revisions and additions to the EPP will be made to reflect new and site-specific construction
sequences, work methods and environmental protection requirements and responsibilities. The EPP
will be prepared to allow for updates and revisions as engineering design and work methods are further
defined. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will review and approve each EPP and revision.
All Issued for Construction (IFC) drawings will contain environmental considerations and/or EPP
notation boxes, identifying specific sections of the EPP to be consulted by contractors/field personnel
when carrying out activities in the area defined by the IFC drawing. EPP notation will be used on
drawings to highlight important environmental protection measures relevant to given construction
activity (e.g., buffer zones, stream crossings).
Environmental awareness training for employees will be required and documented in the EPP.
Employee environmental awareness training will be developed and all employees, other site personnel,
contractors and subcontractors will receive appropriate training reflective of their duties and
Page 70
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
responsibilities, with areas and equipment. Awareness training will occur prior to the commencement of
work and evaluated and updated as required through various work performance evaluations and
activity procedures.
2.6.1.2 Environmental Protection Plan Content
The EPP will be designed for use in the field to provide an important support document between the
overall approach to environmental protection planning and the specific requirements contained in
various permits, approvals and authorizations issued for Project development and activities. The
following is a generic contents list of the Project EPP.
Section 1 of the EPP will provide an introduction, responsibilities of Project personnel and
implementation procedure.
Section 2 of the EPP will provide an overview of environmental concerns and standard environmental
protection measures associated with a variety of specific activities anticipated to occur in relation to
each specific phase. Standard environmental protection procedures will be developed for, but not
limited to, the following activities:
clearing of vegetation;
grubbing and disposal of related debris;
excavations, embankment and grading;
installation of LNG pipeline from pier to storage tanks;
watercourse crossings;
blasting;
stringing, ditching, pipe installation and backfilling;
hydrostatic testing;
access management;
fisheries protection;
erosion prevention;
waste management plan;
handling, storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials;
buffer zones around water;
dust control;
trenching;
dewatering - work areas;
marine vessels;
pumps and generators;
noise control;
concrete production;
linear developments;
Page 71
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
vehicular traffic;
works in/around marine environment;
surveying; and
equipment operations.
Section 3 of the EPP will reference key sources of information for the purposes of Health, Safety and
the Environment performance including, for example, DFO fact sheets and a list of mitigations compiled
during the environmental assessment.
Section 4 of the EPP will provide contingency plans for:
fire contingency plan;
spill contingency plan;
wildlife encounters;
discovery of historic resources;and
vessel accidents.
Section 5 of the EPP will provide the names and numbers of key contacts for the Project.
Section 6 of the EPP will contain the site-specific EPPs for the principal work areas for construction.
These areas will include:
marine facilities;
LNG storage tanks;
access and service roads; and
site utilities (water supply, firewater, power).
Site-specific EPPs will be updated as needed throughout the various phases of the Project as
engineering design, work methods and overall schedule progress. The site-specific EPPs will contain
information on local environmental issues and concerns; potential effects and sensitive areas/periods;
general environmental protection measures; relevant drawings and documents; and a listing of
applicable permits, approvals and authorizations and associated compliance monitoring requirements.
2.6.2
Emergency Response Plan for Operations
The purpose of the Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is to document the procedures to be used in an
emergency. The ERP will be developed with input from employees and local, provincial and federal
authorities and finalized before commissioning. The ERP will meet the requirements of Canadian
Standards Association CSA-Z276-07 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) - Production, Storage and Handling,
and will be consistent with the Environmental Emergency Regulations of the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. The ERP will include but not be limited to the following:
procedures for responding to controllable emergencies;
procedures for recognizing non-controllable emergencies; and
procedures for coordinating with appropriate local emergency and government agencies in
preparation for emergency responses to protect the general public.
Page 72
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Subject to discussions with the Arnolds Cove Fire Department, Newfoundland and Labrador
Department of Municipal Affairs Emergency Measures Organization (EMO) and the Newfoundland and
Labrador Office of the Fire Commissioner, the following ongoing activities will be proposed to ensure
operational effectiveness of the ERP implementation:
annual training with local agencies with regard to emergency response to LNG spill and/or
fire (this will include a tour of plant facilities and familiarity of fire protection equipment);
emergency protocols regarding notification, communication, staging area, available
resources, community evacuations;
coordination of command and control for first response; and
annual orientation/pre-planning training sessions for first responders at local fire stations
and on-site emergency response personnel.
The ERP will be a crucial planning and training tool for the LNG facility, as it documents the procedures
to be used in an emergency. The objective of the procedures will be to protect human health,
environment and the facility. The ERP will include a notification list, summary of reporting and inventory
and location of spill kits and safety equipment.
2.6.2.1 General Response to Emergencies
During an emergency, there is no replacement for the judgment of the first responder(s). In general, the
priorities for the first responder(s) will include:
evaluate the situation;
notify others that may be in immediate danger;
notify the control room/shift supervisor;
take immediate mitigating steps if such steps can be performed safely;
activate the appropriate ESD if necessary;
remove and attend to injured personnel; and
call for outside help/equipment if needed.
2.6.2.2 Control Room Personnel Response
Control room operators will be capable of monitoring large amounts of process information
simultaneously due to the instrumentation and computer systems at their disposal. They will also
monitor hazard detection instruments and remote cameras. The operator, along with the shift
supervisor if immediately available, will be required to quickly evaluate an abnormal or emergency
condition and either shutdown the system or take other appropriate action. An emergency shutdown
down device (ESD), which will quickly shutdown the process and set the systems to a safe state, will be
included among the facilitys engineering controls. Control room personnel will also make notifications
as appropriate to emergency and government agencies.
2.6.2.3 Responding to a Minor Spill or Leak
LNG leaks can be very small (e.g., fugitive emissions from a flange) to very large leaks. Generally,
operations will be shutdown if a leak is large enough to create a flammable vapour zone near a
Page 73
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
potential ignition source. Some hazard detection instruments (e.g., ESD) will also shut down the
process upon detection of a leak.
LNG in liquid form will not burn, but the vapour that emanates from a spilled pool of LNG will have a
flammable region. The size of the flammable region will depend on the spill rate, pool surface area,
underlying surface and atmospheric conditions. If there is an ignition source downwind of a spill, this
adds urgency to and elevates the potential seriousness of an LNG spill. If time permits, portable flame
detectors should be used to determine the extent of the flammable zone. All fire equipment in this
facility will be equipped with ESD capability.
If an ESD is initiated, preventive fire protection measures will be taken and the plant will not be restarted until the situation has been rectified and deemed safe for start-up.
2.6.2.4 Responding to an Uncontrollable Liquefied Natural Gas Spill
If a very large spill occurs, the facility will activate the ESD system and evacuate. The ESD system will
isolate and purge necessary equipment and systems in the facility. The LNG tanks will be surrounded
by dike impoundments capable of holding the entire tanks contents. If an evacuation is necessary, the
risk to the people near the facility will be mitigated by the automated and fail-safe systems.
High wind speeds help dissipate gas vapours in shorter distances than low wind speeds. However, if
vapour within the flammability range reaches an ignition source, the gas will be ignited and will burn
back to the source.
In the event of an uncontrollable LNG spill, plant personnel will activate the ESD, evacuate the plant,
take head count, notify local emergency and government agencies, coordinate an appropriate response
for the local community with local emergency agencies and establish a command centre outside of the
hazardous area.
The LNG terminal will be designed to shutdown in a failsafe manner due to upset conditions. The
terminal will be designed to protect against high pressure, high and low temperatures and low flow
conditions as necessary to ensure safe operations. Terminal siting and LNG impoundments will
minimize effects to adjacent properties in the event of major failures. The control system will provide for
nearly automatic operation once the system is in a normal operating mode. Instrumentation that
monitors process conditions (temperature, level, flow, pressure) will feed back information to the
facilitys computerized control system.
When process conditions vary from set-point or approach operating limits, the control system will make
adjustments via process control elements (most often control valves, variable-speed motors, or
start/stop motors) to correct the deviation or warn the operator via an alarm so that corrections can be
made. It rarely occurs, but control system components can fail or be misused. If the control system
malfunctions and conditions warrant, the terminal will be shutdown manually by activating the ESD
system and control valves and motors will go to a fail-safe mode due to loss of control signal. The
incident would then be investigated and corrective action taken before the system is re-started.
2.6.2.5 Forces of Nature
The design codes and standards applicable to an LNG facility are numerous. The structural,
mechanical and civil designs will incorporate seismic requirements based on the areas seismic and
geologic history. The facility will be designed for an operating basic earthquake (OBE) and a SSE. The
OBE is of lower magnitude than an SSE. The OBE is an earthquake for which the plant will sustain no
Page 74
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
measurable damage and can be safely operated after the event. The SSE is an earthquake for which
all containment systems must maintain process containment. If an earthquake greater than the OBE
occurs, the facility will have to be inspected and evaluated before re-start.
Wind forces or snow loading on a large structure such as an LNG tank or ship can be critical. Codes
and standards, such as the National Building Code of Canada, list design wind speeds specific to
geographic area. The 100-year mean recurrence interval should be used to determine design wind
speeds. The LNG tanks and other equipment, structures and buildings will be designed according to
the National Building Code of Canada, American Petroleum Institute recommended practices,
Canadian Standards Association standards, American Society of Mechanical Engineers codes,
American Concrete Institute standards, and others as applicable.
2.6.2.6 General Fire Fighting Technique
Fire protection systems will be installed throughout the LNG transshipment facility. The extent and
content of the systems will depend on an evaluation based on sound fire protection engineering
principles. All operating, maintenance and other personnel (as appropriate) will receive firefighting
training with emphasis on the special requirements for LNG fires. Some of the topics likely to be
covered in that training include, but are not limited to:
water - water can be used to help disperse a vapour cloud or to cool adjacent equipment
during an LNG fire. However, water should not be sprayed into a pool fire since this will only
serve to increase the evaporation rate of LNG and increase the fires intensity;
foam - foam generators can be used on pool fires to reduce thermal radiation, or on large
spills to inhibit vapour generation;
portable extinguishers - dry chemical extinguishers are effective on small LNG fires; and
personal protective equipment (PPE) - clothing and other PPE appropriate for fire fighting
will be available at the site and personnel will be trained in its use.
2.6.2.7 Reporting Safety Related Concerns
All employees will be trained in the recognition of unsafe conditions and incident recognition. Unsafe
conditions may involve security vulnerabilities, tripping hazards, unsafe work practices, or mechanical
integrity problems associated with the process equipment. Incidents include; but are not limited to,
accidents, leaks, spills, near-misses, unsafe acts, missed or late calibration/inspection of safety
devices, material failure or defects, operator errors, short-cut of procedures, housekeeping.
2.6.2.8 Offshore Safety and Security Procedures
The LNG shipping industry has an excellent safety record. However, marine safety procedures adopted
by Newfoundland LNG Ltd. and Transport Canada will be developed to minimize the risks of an LNG
carrier spill throughout the life of the facility.
Written by the International Maritime Organization, the International Ship and Port Facility (ISPS) Code
was enacted in 2004 to improve shipping security and to prevent or suppress terrorist attacks. This
code holds that ship and port security is basically a risk management process. Therefore, each
situation requires a security assessment specific to the location and type of shipping activity. The
requirements for ships include ship security plans, ship security officers and specific on-board
equipment. For ports, requirements include port facility security plans port facility security officers and
Page 75
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
specific equipment. The Grassy Point LNG Transshipment facility will comply with the requirements of
this code and national and provincial shipping-related laws and codes.
The final safety and security plan will be developed during the design of this Project. Consideration for
customs and immigration issues, tug operations, weather, and appropriate authority notifications
concerning ship arrivals/departures will be included in the security plan required under the ISPS Code.
Steps to ensure the safe operation of the dock and pier area will be enacted. A Terminal Operations
Manual focused on safe marine operations will be developed and included in applicable operator
training. Operators assigned to or responsible for marine-related transfer operations will also receive
hands-on training for the equipment and electronic systems they will operate. Procedures will include
emergency response, training on the hazard detection and other safety-related systems will be included
in the operator training program.
2.6.3
Terminal Operations Manual
A Terminal Operations Manual will be developed based on national and international regulations and
codes of practice. The manual will outline the safety standards and operational procedures to be used
by vessels using the facility. The purpose of the Terminal Operations Manual is to provide the
necessary information to all whose employment brings them into contact with the terminal, the LNG
Carriers and any operation involving one or both. In developing the Manual, the Terminal Operator shall
include, but not be limited by, the information provided in the:
Safety Guide for Terminals carrying Liquefied Gasses in Bulk (OCIMF);
LNG Arm Protection against Excessive Ship Movement (SIGTTO);
Mooring Equipment Guidelines (OCIMF),
Ship/shore Interface the Communications Necessary for Matching Ship to Berth
(SIGTTO);
Liquefied Gas Handling Principles on Ships and in Terminals (SIGTTO); and
TERMPOL Appendices 1, 3 and 5.
The manual shall incorporate best practices of the industry, and comply with all standards and
regulations. The Terminal Operations Manual will be developed by the Terminal Operator, and
approved by the TERMPOL Review Committee six months before the commencement of operations at
the terminal.
The manual will provide information on the facility, including:
description of facility;
contact numbers;
location coordinates,
bathymetry;
wind directions and speed;
temperatures;
visibility;
Page 76
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
waves, tides and currents;

support equipment and services available;
communication protocol;
navigation and mooring operations;
berth equipment;
safety regulations;
cargo and ballast operations, and
emergency procedures.
Page 77
CEAA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
3.0
An environmental assessment of a project is required under the CEA Act if a federal department is
required to exercise certain powers or perform certain duties or functions in respect to the project for
the purpose of enabling the project. Under Section 5 of the CEA Act, a federal EA may be required
when, in respect of a project, a Federal Authority (FA) proposes to:
be the proponent;
make or authorize payment or any other form of financial assistance to a proponent;
sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land; or
issue a permit, or license or other form of approval pursuant to statutory or regulatory
provisions identified in the Law List Regulations.
These functions are known as triggers. Once a federal department has triggered the CEA Act then that
department becomes a RA. The RA(s) has a responsibility to ensure that an EA is conducted in
accordance with the CEA Act prior to taking any action that could enable the project.
3.1
Identification of Responsible Authorities and Expert Federal Authorities
For the proposed Project, formal notification of the Project was received by the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) through the Newfoundland and Labrador EA
registration process. On November 23, 2006, pursuant to the Regulations Respecting the Coordination
by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements, the Agency
notified FAs of the Project to determine their potential roles in the EA. The notice was sent to Transport
Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, Natural Resources, Industry Canada and Health
Canada. By December 18, 2006, DFO and TC had been identified as RAs and EC, NRCan and HC as
FAs with specialist expertise. In accordance with Section 12.4 of the CEA Act, the Agency is the
Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) for the Project.
TC and DFO have determined that components of the development proposal will likely require specific
regulatory authorizations and/or approvals from each department. Therefore, the decision by these
federal departments triggers the need for an EA under Section 5 of the CEA Act. More specifically:
TCs responsibility to ensure an assessment is conducted is related to: 1) the issuance of a
permit, license, or other approval that is included in the Law List Regulations made pursuant
to the Act; and 2) a portion of the development proposal is located within a federally-owned
harbour administered by TC.
DFOs responsibility to ensure an EA is conducted is related to the issuance of a permit,
license, or other approval that is included in the Law List Regulations made pursuant to the
CEA Act.
Therefore, TC and DFO are RAs due to their decision-making responsibilities relative to the above
components and must ensure that an EA pursuant to the CEA Act is conducted.
An expert FA is any federal department or agency that has determined they have an obligation to
provide any specialist or expert information or knowledge that it possesses with respect to a project.
Page 78
This expertise can be used during any stage of the EA, from the commencement of the EA to the
implementation of the mitigation measures or any follow-up program.
In relation to this Project, EC has participated within this EA process because the Department has
determined that it possesses specialist and/or expert information related to the Department of the
Environment Act, Species at Risk Act (SARA), Fisheries Act (Section 36), Canadian Environmental
Protection Act (CEPA), Canada Water Act, Canada Wildlife Act, and the Migratory Bird Act (MBA).
ECs focus within each of these statutes is primarily on promoting sustainable development, protecting
the environment, conserving certain renewable resources and reporting on environmental conditions.
NRCan has participated within this EA process because the Department has determined that it
possesses specialist and/or expert information related to geological incidents (earthquakes, landslides,
flooding, deep water hazards, tsunamis and geomagnetism), landscape process and stability (coastal,
fluvial Aeolian slope) and their response to climate change, marine environment and marine resource
geosciences.
HC has participated within this EA process because the Department has determined that it possesses
specialist and/or expert information related to minimizing the potential risks to human health that could
arise in relation to the Project.
3.2
Comprehensive Study Process
According to the CEA Act, if the RA(s) determines that a component of the development proposal is
prescribed on the Comprehensive Study List Regulations, then the RA(s) must ensure the
comprehensive study process is conducted. As defined in the Act, comprehensive study means an EA
that is conducted pursuant to Section 21 and 21.1, and that includes a consideration of the factors
required to be considered pursuant to subsections 16(1) and (2) of the Act. Therefore a comprehensive
study is the type of environmental assessment conducted for projects that are likely to have significant
adverse environmental effects.
Upon review of the development proposal, the RAs determined that the proposed Project as scoped
was subject to a comprehensive study under the Act pursuant to paragraphs 13(d) and 28(c) of the
Comprehensive Study List Regulations, which states:
13.
The proposed construction, decommissioning, or abandonment, or an expansion that would

result in an increase in production capacity of more than 35 per cent of
(d)
a facility for the liquefaction, storage, or regasification of liquefied natural gas,

with a liquefied natural gas processing capacity of more than 3 000 t/d or a
liquefied natural gas storage capacity of more than 50 000 t.
And,
28.
The proposed construction, decommissioning, or abandonment of

(c)
a marine terminal designed to handle vessels larger than 25 000 DWT unless
the terminal is located on lands that are routinely and have been historically
used as a marine terminal or that are designated for such use in a land-use
plan that has been the subject of public consultation.
Page 79
Accordingly, a comprehensive study process was initiated for the Project by the RAs. On March 16,
2007, TC and DFO issued a Scoping Document for public review and comment pursuant to Subsection
21(1) of the CEA Act. The purpose of the Scoping Document was to provide information to the public
on the federal environmental assessment process, and to seek public comment on the federal
assessment to be conducted in relation to the proposed development and operation. Public input was
sought on the following aspects:
proposed scope of the Project for the purposes of the federal environmental assessment;
the factors proposed to be considered;
the proposed scope of the factors; and
the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the components of the
LNG transhipment and storage terminal as scoped by the RAs.
The public were invited to submit comments up to April 27, 2007.
Following public consultation and pursuant to Section 21(2) of the CEA Act, the RA(s) must then report
to the Minister of the Environment on the following aspects:
the scope of the project, the factors to be considered in the environmental assessment, and
the scope of those factors;
public concerns in relation to the project;
the projects potential to cause adverse environmental effects; and
the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project.
The RA(s) must also recommend to the Minister of the Environment whether the EA should continue by
means of a comprehensive study or whether the project should be referred to a mediator or review
panel. This report, known as the Environmental Assessment Track Report, was jointly issued by TC
and DFO in June 2007. The RAs, in consultation with the Agency and expert FAs and taking into
consideration public comments received, concluded that a Comprehensive Study can effectively
address issues related to the proposed Project and recommended that the EA process should continue
as a Comprehensive Study.
After considering the Subsection 21(2) report and recommendation, the Minister of the Environment is
required to decide whether to refer the project back to the RA(s) to continue with the comprehensive
study process, or refer the project to a mediator or review panel. If the Minister of the Environment
decides that the project should continue as a comprehensive study, then the project cannot be referred
to either a mediator or review panel at a later date. On September 11, 2007, the Minister of the
Environment announced his decision that this Project would proceed as a comprehensive study.
Based on this decision by the Minister, the EA process has continued as a comprehensive study with
the RAs (TC and DFO) coordinating to prepare a single Comprehensive Study Report (CSR). For this
Project, the RAs have delegated preparation of the CSR to the Proponent (this report). The public has
been and will be given an opportunity to participate during the comprehensive study process (refer to
Section 6.0 for further details). Once completed, the CSR will be submitted to the Minister of the
Environment and the Agency.
As per Section 22 of the CEA Act, the Agency will invite the public to comment on the CSR prior to the
Minister of the Environment making a final EA decision. The Minister of the Environment may request
Page 80
additional information or require that public concerns be addressed further before issuing the EA
decision statement. Once the Minister of the Environment issues the decision statement, the Project will
be referred back to the RAs for appropriate action.
Projects that proceed by means of a comprehensive study or are referred to a mediator or review panel
are eligible for participant funding, which is made available by the Agency to facilitate public
participation. Through its Participant Funding Program, the Agency allotted a total of $50,000 dollars for
individuals/groups wishing to become involved in the EA process for this proposed Project. Three
applications were submitted to the Agency. On September 19, 2007, the Agency awarded $30,000 to
the Sierra Club of Canada-Atlantic Chapter to support its participation in the environmental assessment
review of the Project.
Page 81
SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.0
The scope defines what is included or excluded from the federal environmental assessment analysis.
It focuses the information gathering and analysis activities on the appropriate and important elements
related to a specific project or environmental component. It can greatly influence the outcome of an EA
by defining what will be assessed. Therefore, scoping establishes the boundaries of the federal
assessment. The scope identifies elements of the project to include the environmental components
likely to be affected and focuses the assessment on relevant issues and concerns.
4.1
Scope of Project
The scope of the project is defined as the components of a proposed undertaking relating to a physical
work, or a proposed physical activity not relating to a physical work, that are determined to be part of
the project for the purposes of the environmental assessment (Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency 2006).
TC has determined, based on 1) a potential lease requirement for the waterlot within the harbour of
Placentia Bay that is administered by Transport Canada, and 2) an anticipated Section 5(1)(a) trigger
under the Law List Regulations of the CEA Act, that the scope of the Project for the purposes of TCs
EA will include the construction, operation, modification, decommissioning, and/or abandonment of the
marine terminal (three berths with service platforms, dolphins, trestle/walkway and piles), seawater
intake and cooling water discharge pipes, tug basin, eight LNG storage tanks and associated pipelines.
DFO has determined, based on the anticipated Fisheries Act, Section 35(2) trigger under the Law List
Regulations of the CEA Act, that the scope of the Project for the purposes of DFOs environmental
assessment will be the construction, operation, maintenance, modification, and decommissioning,
and/or abandonment of the marine terminal (three berths with service platforms, dolphins,
trestle/walkway and piles), seawater intake and cooling water discharge pipes, tug basin, and stream
crossings for access road, as well as infilling of water bodies in the footprint of the storage tanks.
TC and DFO have slightly different scopes related to their regulatory responsibilities. However, a single
CSR has been prepared (refer to Section 3.2) and each RA will have decision-making authority
respective to their individual scopes.
In accordance with Section 15 of the CEA Act, the RAs have therefore agreed that the scope of the
proposed Project, for purposes of preparation of this CSR, includes the following Project components;
construction, operation and decommissioning or abandonment of a marine terminal
comprised of three jetties with berthing capability for LNG carriers up to 265,000 m3;
construction operation, modification, decommissioning and/or abandonment of a tug basin;
construction operation, modification, decommissioning and/or abandonment of the seawater
intake and cooling water discharge pipes; and
construction, decommissioning or abandonment of eight 160,000 m3 gross capacity LNG
storage tanks.
Infilling of water bodies within the footprint of the storage tanks is no longer part of DFOs scope as
these water bodies were determined not to be fish habitat after extensive field surveys.
Page 82
4.2
Comprehensive Study Rationale
As described in Section 3.2, the RAs have determined upon review of the development proposal that
the Project as scoped was subject to a comprehensive study under the Act pursuant to paragraphs
13(d) and 28(c) of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations.
4.3
Factors and Scope of Factors
The scope of assessment defines the factors proposed to be considered in the EA and the proposed
scope of those factors. The RAs are required to consider the factors specified in Section 16 of the CEA
Act, taking into consideration the definitions of the environment, environmental effect, and project.
As defined under the CEA Act, environmental effect means, in respect of a project:
a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause
to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as
those terms are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act
b) any effect of any change referred to in paragraph (a) on
i) health and socio-economic conditions
ii) physical and cultural heritage
iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons,
or
iv) any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural
significance, or
c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment whether any such change or
effect occurs within or outside Canada;
Under Section 16 of the CEA Act, the following factors must be considered in an EA conducted as a
comprehensive study:
16. (1) Every screening or comprehensive study of a project and every mediation or assessment by a
review panel shall include a consideration of the following factors:
(a) the environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or
accidents that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that
are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will
be carried out;
(b) the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) comments from the public that are received in accordance with this Act and the regulations;
(d) measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant
adverse environmental effects of the project; and
(e) any other matter relevant to the screening, comprehensive study, mediation or assessment by a
review panel, such as the need for the project and alternatives to the project, that the responsible
authority or, except in the case of a screening, the Minister after consulting with the responsible
authority, may require to be considered.
Page 83
16. (2) In addition to the factors set out in subsection (1), every comprehensive study of a project and
every mediation or assessment by a review panel shall include a consideration of the following factors:
(a) the purpose of the project;
(b) alternative means of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible and the
environmental effects of any such alternative means;
(c) the need for, and the requirements of, any follow-up program in respect of the project; and
(d) the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project to meet
the needs of the present and those of the future.
4.3.1
Scope of the Factors to be Considered
The Environmental Assessment Track Report identified a list of Valued Ecosystem Components
(VECs) which were deemed to have the potential to experience adverse effects should mitigation not
be put in place. These are described in the following Table 4.1 and are further discussed in Section 8
(Environmental Assessment Methods). Upon consultation with DFO and TC, this list of VECs has been
further refined as identified below.
Table 4.1
Valued Environmental Components Recommended in the Environmental

Assessment Track Report (TC and DFO 2007)
Recommended VEC
Water Quality
Freshwater and Marine Fish and Fish
Habitat
Aquaculture/Commercial Fisheries
Migratory Birds
Species at Risk
Marine Mammals
Marine Safety
Human Health and Safety
4.3.2
Final VEC
Potential for adverse effects on marine water quality are addressed under Marine
Fish and Fish Habitat.
As it was demonstrated by the Proponent that freshwater fish habitat will not be
adversely affected by the Project, and no fish habitat exists within the footprint of
the storage tanks, this VEC has been limited to Marine Fish and Fish Habitat.
Commercial and Aquaculture Fisheries
Migratory Birds
Species at Risk
Marine Mammals
As the identified Human Health and Safety Concerns were related to vessel
interactions and air quality and noise effects, these concerns are addressed under
Atmospheric Environment and Marine Transportation and Safety.
Accidents and Malfunctions
The probability of accidents or malfunctions associated with any phase of the Project and the potential
adverse environmental effects of these effects (e.g., accidental spills, contingency measures for
responding to emergencies, risks of facility malfunctions, etc.) has been included in the factors to be
considered.
4.3.3
Cumulative Environmental Effects
The Project also has the potential to generate cumulative environmental effects. The cumulative effects
assessment has evaluated the likely cumulative effects that may result in combination with other
activities in the area as well as those activities that will occur in the foreseeable future.
Page 84
4.3.4
The environmental hazards that may affect the Project and their predicted effects, including natural
hazards such as extreme weather events, seismic activities, extreme tidal conditions, fog events, and
climate change, have been evaluated.
4.3.5
Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
Spatially, the main Project site is located within a 1.25-km2 parcel of land and 2.0-km2 section of marine
environment located on the western portion of Grassy Point, in Placentia Bay, NL. The spatial boundary
has been determined for each factor in order to effectively assess the potential environmental effects of
the Project.
The temporal boundaries encompass the entire lifespan of the Project. The CSR discusses the effects
of the Project on each factor in relation to the construction phase, operational phase (including any
maintenance and modifications), and through to the completion, decommissioning and/or abandonment
phases of the Project.
4.3.6
Follow-Up Program
This EA includes the consideration for the need for and requirements of an environmental monitoring
and follow-up program.
Page 85
PROVINCIAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
5.0
PROVINCIAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
A registration document prepared by the Proponent was submitted to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Department of Environment and Conservation (NLDEC) on November 23, 2006, as required under the
Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Protection Act. This document, Environmental
Assessment Registration: Grassy Point Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Transshipment and Storage
Terminal contained a full Project description, including a depiction of the existing biophysical
environment. The registration document was reviewed by all provincial government departments,
selected federal government departments, and the public for a 36-day period. The comment period on
the development proposal ended on December 29, 2006.
Upon review and consideration of the comments received on the registration document, the provincial
Minister of Environment and Conservation announced on January 19, 2007, that the proposal would be
released from further provincial EA subject to several conditions. These conditions state that the
Proponent must prepare and submit an Employment Equity Plan, a Risk Assessment Study and an
Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) to the Minister of Environment and Conservation prior to start of
construction. To date, the Employment Equity Plan and Risk Assessment Study have been submitted
by the Proponent, reviewed, and approved by the provincial government. The Environmental Protection
Plan will be submitted and approved by the provincial government prior to the start of Project
construction.
Since further provincial assessment was not required, there was no further need for the provincial and
federal EA processes to be coordinated.
Page 86
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION AND CONSULTATION
6.0
Throughout the environmental assessment for this Project, there have been various opportunities for
information distribution and consultation with regulators, stakeholders and the public. Some of these
consultations are prescribed through the comprehensive study regulatory requirements. Others have
been undertaken by the Proponent and its consultants to improve the quality of the assessment and
ultimately the development of the Project and implementation of mitigation. Project-related
consultations are discussed in this section under the following categories:
Consultations with federal and provincial regulators;
Consultation conducted by Proponent;
Public participation under the CEA Act; and
Public consultation required by other federal or provincial regulatory processes.
6.1
Consultations with Federal and Provincial Regulators
6.1.1
Consultations with Federal Authorities
Throughout the comprehensive study process, the FAs have been consulted and provided an
opportunity to comment on the Scoping Document, Track Report and the draft CSR. Each FA was
asked to provide comments specific to their respective departmental mandates. Comments outside the
scope of the Project were not incorporated into the CSR unless the FA agreed to accept responsibility
for the implementation and follow-up of those components outside the legislative mandates of the RAs.
Since the Project was first proposed in June 2005, key government officials and regulators (municipal,
provincial and federal) have been consulted, formally and informally, on an ongoing basis. The
objective of this consultation was twofold:
to provide information and updates on the Project and the EA; and
to receive input and guidance as appropriate regarding the Project and the EA.
The following Federal governmental/regulatory authorities have been consulted on a regular basis
during the pre- and post-registration period:
TC;
DFO;
EC;
the Agency;
Health Canada;
Natural Resources Canada; and
Atlantic Pilotage Authority (APA).
These consultations have involved one-on-one meetings, telephone conversations, email
correspondence and participation at open house sessions. Email invitations were sent to key regulatory
Page 87
representatives regarding open house sessions. Information packages were mailed to the provinces
Federal Members of Parliament and to key regulatory authorities. A member of the Newfoundland LNG
Ltd. team also visited Ottawa to meet with federal regulatory authorities.
6.1.2
Project Working Group
The Agency received confirmation on December 18, 2006, that the federal working group would consist
of TC, DFO, EC, HC and NRCan. TC and DFO would be RAs for the Project, given each departments
Section 5 trigger in accordance with the CEA Act. TC acted as the Principal RA, with the Agency
participating as the FEAC for the comprehensive study process. The remaining departments
participated as FAs for the Project and provided expert and/or specialist information related to their
departmental mandates. Representatives from each department made up the working group that has
met on a regular basis and prepared and/or reviewed all relevant documents including the Scoping
Document, Track Report, and draft CSR.
6.2
Consultation Conducted by Proponent
As part of its EA, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. developed a comprehensive consultation plan to inform and
engage individuals, interest groups, local residents, government and other stakeholders in its proposed
Project. The general public, regulators and stakeholders were consulted throughout the EA process to
invite, identify and consider any issues and concerns they may have. The results of this consultation
were considered in the EA and are presented in Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2.
The objectives of the public consultations were to ensure the following:
the potentially affected public is engaged in meaningful discussion and is well informed of
the nature and extent of environmental effects attributable to the proposed Project prior to
governments decision; and
the values and concerns of the public are incorporated and adequately addressed in the
CSR.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. divided its public consultation plan into two main sections: pre-registration
consultations and post-registration consultations. Key elements of the plan included notification, public
meetings/open houses, an informative website, stakeholder and regulatory meetings and feedback
mechanisms.
6.2.1
Pre-registration Consultation
In the pre-registration stage, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. consulted with several key stakeholder groups,
the provincial and federal government agencies, and the towns of Arnolds Cove and Come By Chance
to inform these groups of the proposed Project, to identify any potential issues and to set the framework
for the post-registration consultation process. The following key stakeholders groups were consulted
during the pre-registration stage:
Fishers groups from Southern and Northern Harbour;
NLDEC;
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture & Recreation (NLDTCR);
Town of Arnolds Cove;
Page 88
Town of Come By Chance;

Town of Sunnyside;
Arnolds Cove Area Chamber of Commerce;
Rotary Club of Clarenville;
Fishers of North Harbour, Come By Chance, Arnolds Cove, Southern Harbour and Little
Harbour;
Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW) Union;
Discovery Regional Development Board;
Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador;
Sierra Club of Canada;
Risk Management Research Institute;
Harbours and Ports Canada;
Canadian Hydrographic Services;
APA;
Placentia Bay Traffic Committee;
Discovery Regional Economic and Development Board; and
Regional Advisory Committee.
Immediately after publicly announcing its intention to proceed with the feasibility assessment of the
Project, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. initiated a comprehensive program of public communication and
consultation to build on existing communications and ensure all stakeholders were informed and
consulted as the Project moved forward.
6.2.2
Post-registration Consultations
All stakeholder groups consulted during the pre-registration were also consulted during the postregistration stage. In addition, the following groups were contacted:
Newfoundland and Labrador Executive Council, Rural Secretariat;
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Industry, Trade and Technology;
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Business (NLDOB); and
ACOA.
The following consultation activities have taken place to support the Projects environmental
assessment:
Stakeholder Database A comprehensive database of approximately 500 stakeholders was
developed, including contacts for organizations and individuals that have attended open
houses and/or have been met with regarding the Project. The database has been
continually updated to include members of the public who have provided comments about
the Project and have agreed to be added to the database.
Page 89
Stakeholder Meetings Numerous stakeholder meetings were carried out in response to

issues raised during the course of the consultation and upon request. These stakeholders
have been encouraged to share their thoughts about the Project, both at the time of the
meeting and by contacting TC, DFO, the Agency, the Projects community liaison committee
or a Newfoundland LNG Ltd. representative.
Direct Mail Information packages were mailed to every elected Member of the House of
Assembly in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the provinces Federal
Members of Parliament and to key stakeholder organizations. These packages provided an
overview of the status of the Project, including information on the site infrastructure, storage
tanks, economic development and employment opportunities, safety and the environment,
as well as information for fishers.
Community Liaison Committee A Community Liaison Committee was established to
provide an ongoing link between the committee and representatives of Newfoundland LNG
Ltd. The purpose of the Community Liaison Committee is to provide updated information to
stakeholders, discuss any issues or concerns they may have with respect to the Project and
explore ways of addressing or alleviating their concerns. The Community Liaison Committee
will continue for the duration of the EA process and may remain in place, depending on the
nature and extent of the issues, throughout the construction and/or operation phases of the
Project.
The Community Liaison Committee consists of a maximum of 10 members from various
stakeholder groups, including terminal area residents, local area interest groups and two
members of the Newfoundland LNG Ltd. Project team. Meetings are held in one of the local
communities. Community members on this committee were introduced to the public during
the May 2007 open house sessions, and local area residents were encouraged to bring any
concerns to these committee members for discussion at future meetings.
If an issue is brought up through the Community Liaison Committee (or another channel),
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will communicate with relevant stakeholders about the issue, study
the issue, make recommendations to mitigate the issue and take appropriate action to
ensure the issue is dealt with in a way that meets the concerns of stakeholders and the
Proponent.
Thus far, the Community Liaison Committee has identified the following five issues and
concerns:
oil spill response capacity in the Placentia Bay area;

fisheries activities within the area of the Project;
economic development;
LNG safety; and
increased marine traffic.
E-Communications The Internet and email are powerful tools in a consultation process.
The following e-communications have been used to foster dialogue and feedback from the
public and key stakeholder groups:
The Project website www.newfoundlandlng.com has been used as a primary means

of informing the public of Project activities as well as a means to receive feedback from
the community. The site is updated regularly with new Project information and
presentations. Visitors are also invited to provide feedback through the site. To date,
over 21,000 visitor hits have been made on the site.
All print materials have email, mail and web information, inviting public feedback.
PDF files of the print materials have been developed and posted on the website. These
files were also forwarded to key stakeholders, when requested.
Page 90
Email invitations to the open houses were also sent to approximately 150 stakeholders
from the stakeholder database.
Media releases and interviews Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has established a positive and
ongoing dialogue with representatives of the media in the Placentia Bay area. When Project
milestones were achieved and when the public was invited to provide comment, media
releases were developed and distributed to provincial media. Newfoundland LNG
representatives also agreed to media interviews when requested. For instance, a media
advisory was distributed regarding the second round of open houses, which in turn received
requests for interviews and positive media coverage from local, provincial and industry
media.
Open Houses/Public Meetings Open houses and/or public meetings have been used to
consult with the general public in the Placentia Bay area on the Project. Since filing its
application in November 2006, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has held two major rounds of public
consultations involving seven open house sessions in the Placentia Bay area that were
open to all interested members of the public. A comprehensive notification/communications
program was developed and implemented to ensure the surrounding communities were
informed. A summary of the comments received at each open house session is provided in
Appendix A.
6.3
Public Participation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
The CEA Act requires that public consultation be conducted a minimum of three times during a
comprehensive study:
during the preparation of the Scoping Document (subsection 21(1));
during the preparation of the CSR (section 21.2); and
during a review of the completed CSR prior to the Minister of the Environments issuance of
an EA decision statement (section 22).
6.3.1
CEA Act Section 21 Public Participation Regarding Proposed Scope of Project
In relation to the Scoping Document (refer also to Section 3.2), the following public consultation and
communication initiatives were undertaken:
Information on the environmental assessment is publicly available on the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR) website. The CEAR reference number for this
Comprehensive Study is 07-03-26546. The CEAR includes the Notice of Commencement,
the notice regarding the opportunity for public comment on the Scoping Document, and the
notice advising on the availability of participant funding.
Notices advising of the public comment period on the Scoping Document were placed in the
following newspapers: The Telegram, The Clarenville Packet, The Placentia Charter and La
Gaboteur. The notices provided information on the public comment period, how to obtain a
copy of the Scoping Document, the availability of participant funding and how to provide
feedback.
Copies of the Scoping Document were also made available for viewing at the Come By
Chance Town Office, Arnolds Cove Town Office, Southern Harbour Town Office and the
Placentia Town Office.
Page 91
In addition to the public notices, copies of the Scoping Document were forwarded to key stakeholders
prior to advertising public notices. These stakeholders included the following:
Town of Come By Chance;
Town of Sunnyside;
Town of Placentia;
Harbour Authority of Arnolds Cove;
Harbour Authority of Davis Cove;
Harbour Authority of Fair Haven;
Harbour Authority of Garden Cove;
Harbour Authority of Mount Arlington Heights;
Harbour Authority of North Harbour;
Harbour Authority of Placentia Area;
Harbour Authority of Ship Harbour;
Harbour Authority of Southern Harbour;
Harbour Authority of St. Brides;
FFAW;
One Ocean;
Sierra Club of Canada Northeast Avalon Chapter;
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (NLDFA); and
NLDEC.
The public and key stakeholders were invited to comment on the following specific points during the
consultation period, which ran from March 16, 2007 to April 27, 2007: 1) the proposed scopes of the
Project for purposes of EA; 2) the factors proposed to be considered in the assessment; 3) the
proposed scope of those factors; and 4) the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues
relating to the Project.
The RAs received 14 written submissions on the proposed scope of the environmental assessment of
the Project. Submissions were received from private citizens, interest groups, municipal councils,
private businesses, the NLDFA, One Ocean and the FFAW who represent fishers in the region. These
comments were considered by the RAs and those comments reflective of the scope of the Project were
incorporated into the environmental assessment.
6.3.2
CEA Act Section 21.2 - Public Participation in the Comprehensive Study
Public participation, as described in Section 21.2 of the CEA Act, was delegated to the Proponent. An
Open House was held on November 15, 2007 in Arnolds Cove, where 39 persons attended. The
Proponent, environmental consultants and RAs displayed posters and talked with attendees at the
open house. Attendees were provided with information on the Project description, potential effects,
baseline surveys, proposed mitigations, public safety and the consultation process. An executive
Page 92
summary of the Grassy Point LNG Storage and Transshipment Terminal Comprehensive Study Report
was also provided as a handout at the open house and people were given two weeks to submit
comments to the RA. No comments were received by the RA. Comments and concerns were recorded
during the open house by recording verbal comments and by offering an Exit Survey. A summary of the
comments received and the section of the CSR where these concerns are addressed is provided below
in Section 6.5.
6.3.3
CEA Act Section 22 - Public Access to the Comprehensive Study Report
Pursuant to Section 22 of the CEA Act, a third opportunity for public input on the Project and associated
EA will occur through a public review period of this report. The Agency will facilitate public access to the
CSR, including administering the formal comment period. All comments submitted will be provided to
the RAs for their responses and will be considered in the Minister of Environments final EA decision.
6.4
Public Consultation Required by other Federal or Provincial Processes
In addition to the public consultation requirements pursuant to the CEA Act, the Proponent has
conducted a public notification period for the construction of the marine terminal required as a condition
of obtaining a Section 5(1) Authorization under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). The
Proponent submitted a set of engineered drawings to the town offices of Come By Chance, Placentia,
Southern Harbour, Arnolds Cove and the Placentia West Development Association for public display
between July 16 and August 20, 2007. In addition, public notices were published in the Canada Gazette
on July 21, 2007, The Telegram on July 14, 2007 and in The Placentia Charter and The Clarenville
Packet on July 16, 2007.
Also, the public had an opportunity to comment on the development proposal throughout the provincial
EA process. The Project registration document was posted on the NLDEC website on November 23,
2006, and the public had until December 29, 2006, to submit comments to the NLDEC Environmental
Assessment Division. The provincial Minister of the Environment and Conservation issued a release on
January 19, 2007, stating that the proposal would be released from further provincial EA subject to
several conditions. These conditions state that the Proponent must prepare and submit an Employment
Equity Plan, a Risk Assessment Study and an Environmental Protection Plan to the Minister of
Environment and Conservation prior to start of construction. These documents will be reviewed and
approved by the provincial government before the operations can commence.
6.5
Consultation Summary
All concerns raised during the various forms of public, stakeholder and regulatory consultation have
been recorded. A summary of these issues and concerns is presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. The
tables also present a response to the issue of concern or indicates the section in which the concerns
have been addressed within this report.
Page 93
Table 6.1
Summary of Public Issues and Concerns Identified at all Open Houses

Issue
Employment:
Number of jobs
Types of jobs/trades/education needed
Proponents Response and/or Section

Approximately 350 to 450 during construction and 30 per shift
during operations.
New specialized training may be required in cryogenics and
welding of nickel alloy.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will work with its primary contractors to
identify training requirements.
The following is a preliminary list outlining the typical courses and
topics that may be required to support both the construction and
operations phases of the Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and
Storage Terminal:
Type/availability of training programs for local

workers (i.e., possibly through College of the
North Atlantic)
Hiring policies (i.e., will there be a preference for

local people)
Need to co-ordinate labour requirements with

planning by the provincial government
Chemical Process Operations (CPO)

Industrial Instrumentation Technology
Power Engineering Technology
Electrical Engineering Technology
Millwright
Steamfitting/Pipefitting
Safety/Environment Management
MED C - Officer Certification Course
Firefighting
Training programs to support the Projects employment equity
plan
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. is currently finalizing a training strategy to
support the construction and operation of the facility. We are
currently consulting with community organizations, the College of
the North Atlantic and the Women in Resource Development
Committee in these efforts. Information will be made public through
the Project website when it is available.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. is committed to hiring residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador for all stages of the Project. It is the
companys intention to employ as many people from the Placentia
Bay region as possible. When the Project is sanctioned, hiring
plans and policies will be put in place to ensure that first
consideration for training and employment opportunities are given
to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have regularly held discussions and meetings with the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador regarding many
Project issues, including employment, training and employment
equity.
Page 94

Issue
Opportunity for workers that have left the
province to return

Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will implement a comprehensive
employment strategy to ensure we have a secure labour pool to
construct and operate the terminal.
Ensure that wage rates and benefits are sufficient to encourage
workers to relocate and to mitigate against a possible increased
cost of living (e.g., increased housing costs in area as a result of
the Project).
We are currently consulting with stakeholder groups to develop a
strategy to attract Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working
away.
We will use multiple means of communications to inform the public
about employment with the Project. These will include the
following:
A recruitment section on the Project website
Ads run in local, provincial and targeted Albertan newspapers
Communication through organized labour organizations
Contractor communications
A Project Information Centre, established in Arnolds Cove for
project, recruitment and employment information.
Proponents approach to Building Trades Council

and Pipefitters union
Proponent needs to consider the aging nature of
work force in the province
Commercial Opportunities:
Timing of tendering for contracts
Requesting contacts early to prepare for
procurement opportunities
Preference for local companies?
Proponent:
Commitment of Proponent to the Project
Certainty of Project proceeding

Is this the first storage facility for Newfoundland
LNG?
Is Proponent in competition with other
companies?
Project Description:
Any treatment occurring or is it strictly a storage
facility?
Informal discussions have taken place with building trade councils

and affiliated unions.
Aware of the aging nature of work force in the province and taking
measures to counteract attrition rates throughout the life of the
Project. This is being considered in the Projects training program.
Will not be available until the first quarter of 2008 or until the
completion of Front End Engineering and Design (FEED).
We have taken measures to deal with long lead items (i.e., tanks
and tugs) and will continue to proceed with other procurement
opportunities upon completion of Front End Engineering and
Design (FEED).
Will continue to demonstrate a commitment and preference to hire
local companies from Newfoundland and Labrador throughout all
phases of the terminal construction and operation.
Since 2005, the Proponent has demonstrated a continued
commitment to the Project by investing in extensive consultation
and regulatory programs.
Project determined by customer demand and overall market
forces; certainty of execution and success is likely
Yes
No. This is a close looped transshipment and storage terminal that
will provide services for third party providers and importers.
Strictly transhipment and storage facility; no commodity treatment
at this site.
Page 95

Issue
Lack of LNG knowledge (i.e., how does it vary
from CNG
Number of tanks, where/when they will be

constructed and will they be prefabricated
Location of the access road
Ship-to-ship transfer technology and whether it
will be approved for use
Could ship-to-ship technology replace the need

for tanks
Construction time Table
Potential for facility to be phased over time
Meaning of long-term LNG storage
Marine Transportation:
Number of additional tankers in the Bay due to
Project
Number of tugs onsite
Size of the safety zone
How will it be different from that required by
other tankers in the Bay?
Timeline for start of tanker traffic and building of
jetty
Whether VTS will be widened to accommodate
the safety zone
When an LNG vessel is being piloted in the
harbour, will all other traffic stop on the bay?
What are the criteria for berthing and double
berthing? Will the project work with pilots in the
area to ensure they understand these
procedures?
From a safety perspective, every fishing vessel
in Placentia Bay should have an AIS. Industry in
area should consider investing in these devices
for local fishers.
Why was there no bay-wide assessment of
shipping in Placentia Bay.
Accidental Events:
Oil spill response capabilities in the whole bay
area

We have implemented an extensive, ongoing public consultation
program. The goal is to educate stakeholders on the significance
of the project, receive public input and to encourage an open
exchange of ideas.
We have held seven open houses and met with over 25
stakeholder groups. Prior to this, we spent the two years meeting
with town representatives and key stakeholders, such as fishers
and the chambers of commerce in the Placentia Bay area.
CNG is compressed gas in its natural state; LNG is super-cooled
gas sustained in its liquid state
Eight tanks will be constructed over a phased-in five to eight year
period. Tanks will be prefabricated
Will be via secondary road off Trans Canada Highway. Refer to
Figure 2.2
STS-transfer HAZOPS and associated approval exercises have
been completed by classification societies since 2005. To date,
there have been a number of commercial STS-transfers. Approval
is anticipated by SIGTTO in early 2008
No. Tanks are a fundamental requirement for isolated cargo
transfer and large volume storage
June 2008 to December 2014
Very likely. Five to eight years
Long term LNG storage is determined by peak shaving
opportunities and need to measure against fluctuations in global
commodity prices
Completion of jetties (2010): 100/year or about two per week. Full
build-out (2014): 400/year or about 7-8 per week
2 or 3
Determined by safe practice of seamanship, collision regulations
and pilot experience
Will not
Jetties completed 2010, at which time, tankers are expected
No
No
Highest standards of securing LNG carriers to jetties and the
operation of double-banking will be administered under strict
protocols. Pilots will be engaged in all operations of securing and
double-banking of vessels and will have complete knowledge of
the safe operation
This Proponent as well as new Proponents and existing Placentia
Bay Operators are reviewing AIS as a mitigative measure.
The effects of shipping are assessed during construction, routine

operations, potential accidents and cumulative effects, in the area
of Placentia Bay, north of Red Island. The scope of the
assessment issued by TC and DFO did not require an assessment
of shipping during routine operations except for docking and deberthing of vessels since shipping is regulated under the Canada
Shipping Act.
Placentia Bay is currently capable of response through ECRC and
Canadian Coast Guard. We will continue to work with these groups
and Placentia Bay Traffic Committee
Page 96

Issue
Properties of LNG when spilled in water
Capacity of tank berms to contain spilled
materials
Socio-economic:
Project will be good for area with lots of spin
offs.
Cumulative tanker traffic impact on the Bay
Impact on fishing industry in Grassy Point
Potential for impact on fish plant workers
Continued access to fishing near Grassy Point
On-going access to the Bordeaux trail
Will Mr. Adams ashes be moved to a burial site

on Bordeaux Island?
On-Going Consultation
Suggestion to hold separate meeting with
fishers
Will consultation be held in areas like St. Brides
and Marystown?
Recommend communication with communities
at Christmas time, when people are home
Is Proponent working with the Smart Bay

project?
Would proponent contribute brochures/posters
to municipal forum in June.
The people are courteous but must be more
straightforward.
Safety and Security
All literature describing how safe and secure
the shipment and storage is of LNG refer to
Coast Guard oversight, intensive and constant,
and tugboats to help large ships avoid
obstacles, etc. The product to be stored by LNG
Newfoundland is for US consumption. Who is
going to provide safety and security for a very
large terminal and many ships in a busy bay with
other industry, all types of fishing, marine ferries,
recreational boating, a famous bird sanctuary
and whale watches?
How would such a terminal and traffic impact on
all of these above, as well as on the population
centres in terms of: health; permanent job
creation vs. community losses due to
infrastructure, insurance rate increases; tourism
(who is studying the potential effects on tourism
and ferry traffic?); freedom to move around the
waters of the bay and on the coast beside it?
Why does LNG Newfoundland say that LNG is
not flammable, when it is extremely flammable if
a vapour cloud is released, meeting any source
of ignition between the LFL and the UFL of 515percent gas mixed with air?

LNG is not a persistent fuel such as crude oil. LNG will vaporize
and dissipate into the atmosphere
Will have capacity to contain total tank LNG volume plus tenpercent overfill due to snow or precipitation
Agreed
Projections for increased traffic are manageable
Fishers will be compensated for economic loss due to the Project
Determined not to be significant
Fishing near Grassy Point may resume upon completion of
facilitys marine terminal.
Bordeaux trail must be treated as an integral component of the
terminal site. This restriction is based solely on the safety of local
residents, employees and site workers.
No disruption of the site is anticipated and will only be considered
upon consultation with next of kin.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has committed to meeting with fishers on
an as-required basis. There have been two Project-specific
meetings with fishers and union representatives to date.
As per the Scoping Document, assessment was required for
potential effects within the immediate footprint of the terminal.
These communities do not reside within the prescribed area.
Committed to favourable and transparent communications
throughout the entire area and will make every effort to
communicate through public meetings, media or Placentia Bay
Traffic Committee meetings.
We are currently reviewing our involvement in Smart Bay initiatives
Yes, upon request
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has been very straightforward in the
information presented o the public.
The safety and security of LNG Carriers is handled differently by
each country. While in Canadian waters, LNG Carriers will be
governed by the Canada Shipping Act and Regulations, the Marine
Transportation and Security Act and Regulations, the Oceans Act,
the Canada Marine Act and Regulations, the Pilotage Act and
Regulations and the Coasting Trade Act.
This document assesses the impact of the Project on ecological

and socioeconomic components as outlined in the Grassy Point
LNG Transshipment and Storage Scoping Document and Track
Report issued by Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada.
LNG is a liquid and is not flammable. Natural gas is flammable

between 5 and 15 percent gas-air mixture.
Page 97

Issue
What nearby large treatment centers could see
to any injured members of the workforce within
minutes, when every minute would count?
What area of land around the terminal and on
the Bay would be permanently off limits to any
traffic unrelated to the project?
Does Canada lose its right to police its own
shores because the product and terminal belong
to extra-national interests? It appears that this
would be the case.
Table 6.2

The nearest medical clinic is in Arnolds Cove, approximately 2 km
from the site. The nearest hospital is in Clarenville, approximately
50 km from the site.
Access to the site will be restricted from land and from water. The
marine terminal will not be restricted to fishing vessels during
operations, only during Project construction.
This is not the case. All Canadian laws and enforcement will apply
to this facility.
Summary of Issues and Concerns Identified by RAs through Public Consultation

on the Scoping Document (Source: Environmental Assessment Track Report
(Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2007)
General Comment
Increased Tanker
Traffic
Loss of Fishing
Grounds (Marine
Infrastructure)
Issue
Safety concerns (i.e.,
collisions);
Displacement of fishers;
Loss of fishing gear;
Impact on aquaculture.
Fish Habitat
Compensation;
Displacement of fishers;
Monetary Compensation
from Proponent
Safety/Exclusion
Zones
Potential interruptions to
existing operations within
Placentia Bay due to the
implementation of safety
or exclusion zone around
LNG carriers and facility.
Potential for Spills
Need for additional spill

response equipment;
Need for better spill
response training.
Potential impacts on
marine environment,
seabirds, traditional
fishing, and aquaculture.
Response and/or Section

The increase in marine traffic is assessed as a cumulative effect
within Placentia Bay (Section 10.7), as required by the RAs.
LNG carriers will adhere to the Collision Regulations under the
Canada Shipping Act, as part of normal operations.
The Proponent will quantify loss of fish habitat and prepare a fish
habitat compensation strategy and plan to compensate for lost
productivity of freshwater and marine fish habitat. This will be
developed and approved before the EA process is completed,
with details of the compensation strategy incorporated into the
final EA document.
The CSR includes an assessment of Project environmental
effects that may impact social and economic conditions.
RAs have determined that the issue of monetary compensation is
outside the EA process and should be addressed directly
between Proponent and displaced fishers.
The Project will undergo a TERMPOL Review Process (TRP).
TERMPOL refers to the Technical Review Process of Marine
Terminal Systems and Transshipment Sites. The TRP focuses on
the dedicated design ships selected route in waters under
Canadian jurisdiction to its berth at a proposed marine terminal or
transshipment site and, specifically, to the process of cargo
handling between vessels, or off-loading from ship to shore or
vice-versa. The TRP will be conducted parallel to the CEAA
process and will provide a key source of information.
The development and setting of Exclusion/Safety zones will take
into account the movement of other vessels and the risk of
collision, the gaseous plume that would occur as the result of an
accidental loss of product, and the safety of the LNG carrier and
other vessels in the operating area.
The Proponent will adhere to the Environmental Emergency (E2)
Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
(CEPA). LNG is a substance listed on Schedule 1 of the E2
regulations therefore a mandatory assessment of environmental
effects is required and should reflect a consideration of plausible
worst-case scenarios and attention to site-specific conditions and
sensitivities. In addition, an environmental emergency plan will be
required.
Potential for spills is considered in the Accidents and Malfunctions
analysis that is included in this CSR as required by the CEA Act.
LNG carriers will adhere to the Oil Pollution Prevention
Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, as part of normal
operations. Sections 660.2 and 660.3 of these regulations detail
the required equipment, need for response organization and oil
Page 98

General Comment
Lack of adequate
equipment in
Placentia Bay
Introduction of
Alien Invasive
Species
Other Comments
6.6
Issue
Need for larger tugs able

to handle larger vessels;
Need for additional pilots
and pilot boats to
manage increase in
traffic.
Extraction of ballast
waters and hull cleaning
procedures.
Need for baseline

monitoring program to
establish the
environmental conditions
at the proposed project
site.
Potential ignition of LNG
and resulting explosion.
Cumulative
Environmental Effects

Response and/or Section
pollution emergency response plan, and an oil pollution
prevention plan.
The need for additional infrastructure in Placentia Bay is
considered in the CSR considering existing legislation/regulations
and in relation to the cumulative effects of the Project.
It is also considered in the Accidents and Malfunctions analysis
in the CSR, as a requirement of the CEA Act.
Any dumping of ballast water will be conducted in accordance
with the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations
under the Canada Shipping Act, which include measures to
protect against harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens.
LNGCs will comply with these regulations as part of normal
operations.
The Proponent has undertaken several baseline studies and
sampling programs at the Project site to ensure an accurate
description of the existing biophysical environment. The results of
these studies are included in Section 9 of this CSR.
The Proponent has conducted a risk assessment associated with
the facility that has been referenced within the accidents and
malfunctions section of this CSR.
In accordance with the CEA Act, the CSR takes into account the
local circumstances and any cumulative environmental effects
that may result from the Project in combination with other projects
and activities that have been, or will be carried out.
Letters of Support
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has received numerous letters of support for the proposed Project from the
following organizations:
Arnolds Cove Chamber of Commerce;
Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association (NOIA);
Discovery Health Care Foundation;
Residents of Arnold's Cove;
Town of Sunnyside;
Canadian Marine & Industrial Inc., Frederick J. Framp, President;
Voisey's Bay Nickel Company;
Women in Resource Development;
SNC-Lavalin; and
Newfoundland Power.
These letters can be viewed by visiting the Project website: www.newfoundlandlng.com.
Page 99
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
7.0
As required under Section 16(2)(b) of CEA Act, Project alternatives must be considered for a
comprehensive study level assessment. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. considered technically and
economically feasible alternatives to the LNG Project as well as alternatives for several Project
elements. These included Project site, LNG transfer methods, storage tank type, and re-liquefaction
methods. The alternate locations for the tug basin and Berth 1 are considered options for the Project
and are therefore fully assessed within this CSR.
If an alternative was deemed to be technically and economically not feasible, further assessment of the
alternative, including safety and environmental factors, was not considered. If the alternatives are
considered technically and economically feasible, they are assessed within this CSR (Section 7.3).
7.1
Alternatives to the Project
Newfoundland LNG Ltds proposal to construct the Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage
Terminal is for the purpose of providing LNG services to the northeastern United States and Canadian
LNG importers and providers. LNG is of critical importance in an effort to meet the long term North
American energy demand as well as the need for a secured, diversified and strategic energy supply
including cleaner burning fuels. Newfoundland and Labrador is exceptionally well positioned along the
LNG supply-delivery route to facilitate the supply of LNG. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. therefore considers
alternatives to the proposed Project, as not meeting the basic Project objectives, which also includes a
reasonable return on investment for company shareholders, and is therefore considered not feasible.
7.2
Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project
7.2.1
Alternative Site Evaluation
During 2000-2001, North Atlantic Pipeline Partners L.P. assembled a technical team that conducted an
initial site selection study to identify potential Newfoundland and Labrador locations for transshipment
and storage terminals to supply local requirements and service northeastern US markets. The study
was further updated in the Spring of 2005 to include potential Nova Scotia sites. The key requirements
for the Project are provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1
Key Requirements for LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal
Terminal Component
Tanker Sizes to be Accommodated
Tankers per Year
Number of Berths Needed
LNG Storage Volume Required at
the Terminal
Marine/Navigation Needs
Key Requirement
Up to 265,000 m3.
Up to 400, depending on vessel sizes used.
Three in total. Able to accommodate ship-to-ship transfers.
Up to 1.3 million m3.
Unobstructed movement during normal winter ice conditions; minimum 15-m depth
throughout shipping channel manoeuvring area and at berth. A wide straight
approach to the berth, berth sheltered from prevailing weather conditions; at least
two ship lengths turning basin near berth.
Seven potential locations were identified that met the initial screening criteria required for the Project:
Point Tupper-Bear Head, Point Tupper-Flat Head, and Goldboro in Nova Scotia; Admirals Beach, St.
Page 100
Marys Bay; Long Harbour, Come by Chance and Grassy Point, Placentia Bay in Newfoundland and
Labrador. These potential locations all possess the following characteristics:
an area free of ice under normal winter conditions;
sufficient water depth to permit safe transit to and from the location by the largest tankers;
an area with harbour potential; that is, a harbour that is generally sheltered from the effects
of the prevailing weather conditions; and
an area accessible from the existing road system without major road construction.
These locations were also evaluated as potential harbours in the next stage of screening. This involved
assessment with respect to:
marine access (the relative ease or difficulty of navigating a LNG carrier to the proposed
jetty location);
harbour potential (shelter, availability of a suitable turning basin immediately adjacent to the
jetty);
land access;
land area (the availability of sufficient Crown land or municipally-owned land for facility
development adjacent to the marine facilities); and
land elevation (approximate mean of 10 m but 30 to 40 m above sea level on the western
shore).
These seven potential sites were then evaluated with respect to:
marine operations;
physical and biological environment;
regulatory and socio-economic environment; and
cost and schedule.
All sites with the exception of Grassy Point had notable shortcomings in certain areas. The strengths
and weaknesses of each site according to key attributes are highlighted in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2
Site Selection Attributes and Assessment for Potential LNG Transshipment and
Storage Terminal
Site
Ice Free
Come by Chance
Admirals Beach
Long Harbour
Grassy Point
***1
***
***
***
Point Tupper
Flat Head
Bear Head
Goldboro
***
***
***
Water
Harbour
Infrastructure
Depth
Potential
Newfoundland and Labrador
***
**
*
***
*
*
**
**
***
***
**
***
Nova Scotia
***
*
**
*
*
**
***
***
*
Land Area
Environmental
Conditions
*
*
***
*
***
***
*
***
***
***
***
***
Asterisks (*) represent ratings for each of the characteristics considered in the alternative site analysis where three stars (***) indicates most
favourable and one star (*) indicates least favourable.
The Flat Head, Come By Chance and Admirals Beach sites were considered unfeasible primarilty due
to limited availability of suitable land area. Long Harbour was considered unfeasilble due potential to
Page 101
environmental liability. Bear Head was considered unsuitable due to water depth restrictions near
suitable land for this facility. Goldboro was considered not feasible due to competing interest for
available infrastructure.
Based on these characteristics and subsequent business-development assessments, Newfoundland
LNG Ltd. has determined that Grassy Point is the preferred site. The alternative sites to Grassy Point
are considered either technically and/or economically unfeasible. There are considerable advantages
to being close to, but independent from, the two existing and similar marine operations (i.e.,
Newfoundland Transshipment Limited (NTL) and North Atlantic Refining Limited (NARL)). Their
proximity to Grassy Point will allow possible synergies in the areas of bunkering, emergency response,
tugs and markets.
Grassy Point is ideally located because it is less than two days sail from the northeast US where
multiple customers have indicated a need for the proposed LNG terminal facility and where receiving
infrastructure is under development. The Grassy Point site provides:
an area free of ice under normal winter conditions;
sufficient water depth to permit safe transport to and from the location by the largest tankers;
an area with harbour potential, generally sheltered from the effects of the prevailing weather
conditions;
experienced Pilotage Authority in transshipment and movement of petroleum products;
an area accessible from the existing road system without major road construction;
marine access (relative ease of navigating an LNG carrier to the tentative jetty location);
harbour potential (shelter, availability of a suitable turning basin immediately adjacent to the
jetty);
land access;
land area;
proximity to electrical power grid; and
land elevation (approximately 30 to 40 m above sea level on western shore of Grassy
Point).
7.2.2
Alternative Marine Facilities for LNG Carrier Transfer
Two alternatives were considered for the marine facilities to support the transfer of LNG between the
LNG carriers and onshore storage tanks. One alternative is a pier with traditional transfer arms. The
other alternative is a sub-sea pipeline to an offshore platform or buoy.
7.2.2.1 Receiving Pier
The receiving pier for the transshipment facility will consist of a number of berths connected to the
shore via a series of access trestles. The construction of the facility will be phased in as demand
requires. However, for the final build-out, there will be three berths.
The LNG will be transferred from carrier to shore and vice versa through loading/unloading arms that
are mounted on the service platform associated with each berth (Figure 7.1). The transfer arms connect
the onshore LNG process piping system to the shipboard piping system. Pipelines will distribute the
Page 102
LNG and vapour between the carriers and the land-based LNG storage tanks. During transfer, the
carriers will be moored to the piers. Transfer systems and controls will be designed to ensure safe
practices with regard to weather conditions.
Figure 7.1
LNG Unloading Arms
During the initial stages of the facility operations, the LNG will be transferred ship-to-ship. Both carriers
will be moored to a single berth or one carrier to a berth if two berths are built during the initial stages.
The off-loading systems will be designed to operate within the environmental and operational conditions
specified for the site.
7.2.2.2 Sub-sea Pipeline
Alternative means of connecting a ship to shore include sub-sea pipelines to which the ship may
connect while maintaining some distance offshore. Generally, the pipeline originates from a LNG
facility onshore, runs along the seabed, and approaches the surface at an offshore platform or buoy.
Potential benefits of a subsea pipeline include elimination of the need for trestles, increased security
due to no visible piping, and providing greater options for LNG facility locations by enabling offshore
offloading, Maintaining the LNG circulation loop as is normally done with traditional systems will be
difficult with an offshore system. If the circulation loop cannot be maintained, cool down of the transfer
line will have to be completed prior to each transfer.
Sub-sea pipe lines are not considered technically feasible since they do not allow for ship-to-ship
transfer. As well, further offshore, the LNG carrier, sub-sea moorings and an offshore platform or buoy,
could interfere with industrial and commercial fishing vessel traffic within Come By Chance Harbour.
Page 103
7.2.2.3 Preferred Transfer System for Grassy Point

The preferred alternative for LNG carrier unloading/loading facility at Grassy Point is the traditional pier
option since it is the only technically feasible choice of the two alternatives. This will facilitate the
multiple types of LNG transfer (ship-to-shore, shore-to-ship, and ship-to-ship) expected at Grassy Point
with no hindrance to shipping in the area.
7.2.3
Alternative LNG Tank Options
LNG tanks are usually classified as one of three types: single containment tank, double containment
tank and full containment tank. The type of tank chosen depends largely on the remoteness and size of
the site. The choice of tank type affects the location of the facility, impoundment necessity/design, and
vapour dispersion calculations associated with the LNG storage area. Full-containment tanks are of the
heaviest and costliest construction; but are generally unwarranted in cases when LNG storage facilities
are outside communities. For example, in North America, where LNG facilities are usually remotely
located, single-containment tanks are common. In Europe, where it is more difficult to site LNG
facilities remotely, full-containment tanks are prevalent.
7.2.3.1 Single-Containment Tanks
A single containment tank is a double-walled tank where the inner tank is designed for cryogenic LNG.
The inner tank is made of metal alloy and contains the LNG. The outer tank is made of carbon steel
and encloses the inner tank and its insulation. The outer shell of a single containment tank will not
withstand measurable LNG contact; but is designed to contain the vapour associated with LNG storage.
Therefore, secondary impoundments that will contain the tanks entire contents are required for single
containment tanks. Since thermal radiation is a function of LNG pool area and associated fire, and
since the LNG pool is assumed to spread across the entire secondary impoundment during a design
leak scenario, thermal radiation exclusion zones are largest for single containment tanks.
A cross-sectional view of a typical single containment tank is illustrated in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2
Single-containment Tank
Page 104
7.2.3.2 Double-Containment Tanks

A double containment tank is essentially a single containment tank with a full-height concrete wall
surrounding it. If the inner tank is breached, the LNG will be contained by the outer tank but vapour will
leak from the outer tank. If the inner alloy tank breaches and the carbon steel second tank breaches,
the concrete wall will contain LNG, but not LNG vapour. As per CSA Z276-07, the outer concrete tank
of a double containment tank can be classified as a secondary impoundment. Therefore, the surface
area of the secondary impoundment for a double containment tank is much smaller than that of a single
containment tank. As a result, the vapour dispersion and thermal radiation exclusion zones for a
double containment tank are smaller than those for a single containment tank.
Considering the possible siting advantages offered by a double containment tank over a single
containment tank, it might be expected to see the double containment tank design more widely
adopted. However, the negatives associated with the outer concrete wall tend to make the double
containment tank option less desirable. The cost is higher than for a single containment tank with a
traditional impoundment but the major difficulties involve ventilating, equipping and maintaining the
space between the concrete wall and the carbon steel outer tank. Ventilation fans, explosion-proof
equipment, additional instrumentation, access and egress means special operating procedures related
to accessing the confined space are required to operate and maintain a double containment tanks
annular space. A cross-sectional view of a double containment tank is illustrated in Figure 7.3.
Figure 7.3
Double-containment Tank
7.2.3.3 Full-Containment Tanks

A full containment tank is designed so that both the inner tank (metal alloy) and the outer tank
(reinforced concrete) will contain LNG. However, only the outer tank will contain vapour. Like the
double containment tank, the full containment tanks outer concrete tank serves as a secondary
impoundment. However, unlike the double containment tank, the full containment tanks outer tank will
contain LNG vapour. Generally, the full containment tank is capable of higher operating pressure than
either the single containment or double containment tanks.
Page 105
Like the double containment tank, the full containment tank minimizes thermal radiation exclusion and
vapour dispersion zones and, since its secondary impoundment is integral to the tank, its land
requirement is relatively small. Therefore, the full containment tank has the footprint and thermal
radiance and vapour dispersion zones of the double containment tank, but not the operating and
maintaining costs of an annular space inside the concrete outer tank. However, the construction cost of
the full containment tanks is significantly higher than single containment tanks. A cross-sectional view
of a full containment tank is illustrated in Figure 7.4.
Figure 7.4
Full-containment Tank
7.2.3.4 Preferred Option

Each of the three tanks has a metal alloy inner tank in common. They differ according to their means of
secondary impoundment. The single containment tank uses a dike-like system while the double
containment and full containment tanks use a concrete wall. All three secondary containment systems
are effective, but the dike structure of the single containment tank is the most fundamental and
maintainable. While dike systems are typically constructed of earthen material, the dikes for the single
containments tanks at Grassy Point will be constructed of concrete walls. These dikes can be easily
inspected and repaired without undue operational interruptions and with minimum risk to workers. The
Grassy Point site meets the requirements of the CSA Z276-07, for single containment tanks without
compromising safety, but at considerable cost savings. Therefore, single containment tanks are the
most economically feasible for the Grassy Point Facility.
7.2.4
Alternative Re-liquefaction
Heat flow into the cold space is inherent to cold storage. In a LNG facility, the heat in-leak provides the
energy to vaporize a small portion of the LNG (pumping and frictional effects also contribute). To
Page 106
maintain LNG in its liquid state, heat must be removed from the system. Heat removal is accomplished
when BOG is liquefied and returned to LNG storage.
There are numerous licensors and manufacturers of LNG refrigeration/liquefaction processes. Two reliquefaction processes considered for this Project were:
nitrogen Expander System
mixed Refrigerant System
These processes are described below.
7.2.4.1 Nitrogen Expander System
The nitrogen expander system uses a separate, single-component refrigeration loop that uses nitrogen
as the working fluid. Natural gas or BOG is compressed at the entrance to the liquefaction system and
cooled by heat exchange with the refrigerated nitrogen. This process is not as efficient as other options
but it is simpler to operate, contains fewer components, requires no handling of flammable refrigerants,
and is better suited to an intermittent operation like the Grassy Point facility than the mixed refrigerant
system.
7.2.4.2 Mixed Refrigerant System
The mixed refrigerant system mixes refrigerants into a single working fluid and thereby, reduces the
number of compressor trains and other equipment that would be required for multiple refrigerant loops.
The mixed refrigerants ratio of components can be changed so that the temperature difference
between the working refrigerant and the process fluid are more constant throughout the main cryogenic
heat exchanger. Therefore, the mixed refrigerant is potentially more efficient than the nitrogen expander
cycle. If the composition of the BOG feed changes, the refrigerant mixture must be adjusted.
Therefore, multiple hydrocarbon refrigerants must be stored on site, increasing safety and
environmental risk.
7.2.4.3 Preferred Alternative
The expander cycle with a nitrogen refrigeration loop is the preferred option for this Project. The relative
ease of operation, reliability, and the inherent safety associated with fewer components and fewer
refrigerants make the nitrogen expander system a more technically feasible option for the Grassy Point
facility.
7.3
Summary of Alternatives Assessment
The following section summarizes the assessment of alternatives in a tabular format using the criteria
of:
Technical feasibility
Economic feasibility
Safety and
Environmental and/or Socio-Economic Considerations
Page 107
As shown in the Table, alternative site locations and alternative carrier transfer systems were not
considered technically and/or economically feasible. Alternatives for tank design and re-liquefaction
systems are considered technically and economically feasible and are therefore assessed from a safety
and environmental perspective. Note that all of the above criteria were considered in the process of
selecting preferred alternatives. Therefore, the preferred alternative is not necessarily the alternative
with the least potential for environmental effects. If the potential environmental or socio-economic effect
from one option was greater than an alternative, but considered acceptable when weighed against
other economic, technical and/or safety benefits, the option was still selected.
Page 108
Table 7.3
Summary of Assessment of Alternatives
Alternatives
Economic
Feasibility
Technical Feasibility
Safety
Environmental and/or Socioeconomic Considerations
Preferred
Option
Alternative Sites
Come by Chance
(NL)
Admirals Beach
(NL)
Long Harbour
(NL)
Not considered feasible

Considered feasible
Considered feasible
Grassy Point
(NL)
Flat Head (NS)
Bear Head (NS)
Goldboro (NS)
This option is the

preferred option and is
therefore fully assessed in
the CSR.
This option is the preferred option and

is therefore fully assessed in the CSR.
This option is the

preferred option and is
therefore fully assessed in
the CSR.
This option is the preferred option and

is therefore fully assessed in the CSR.

Alternative Marine Facilities for LNG Carrier Transfer

Receiving Pier
Sub-Sea Pipeline
This is the technically preferred

option - will facilitate the multiple
types of LNG transfer (ship-toshore, shore-to-ship, and ship-toship)
This is not considered feasible
since they do not allow for ship-toship transfer.
Considered feasible
Alternative LNG Tank Options
SingleContainment
Tanks
Inner tank is made of metal

alloy and contains the LNG
Outer tank is made of carbon
steel and encloses the inner
tank and its insulation
Outer shell will not withstand
measurable LNG contact; but
is designed to contain the
vapour associated with LNG
storage.
Dikes for the single
containments tanks at Grassy
Point would be constructed of
concrete walls. These dikes
can be easily inspected and
repaired without undue
operational interruptions
Requires a more remote site to
Lowest cost
alternative
Requires the largest

thermal radiation
exclusion zones
Grassy Point site
meets the
requirements of the
CSA Z276-07 for
single containment
tanks without
compromising safety
Maintenance and
inspection of dike
impoundment system
poses miminum risk
to workers.
Requires secondary impoundments

that will contain the tanks entire
contents.
The dike structure of the single
containment tank is the most
fundamental and maintainable,
thereby reducing risk of an
accidental loss of product.
Dyke will contain LNG in the event
of a loss of product but will not
contain LNG vapour resulting in
short-term impacts to air quality
Requires the largest footprint, but
the additional loss of terrestrial
habitat is considered negligible.
The environmental effects of this
option have been assessed in the
CSR as it is the preferred option.
Page 109
Alternatives
accommodate the large
thermal radiation exclusion
zones but this is technically
feasible at Grassy Point
It is a single containment tank
with a full-height concrete wall
surrounding it.
As per CSA Z276-07, the outer
concrete tank of a double
containment tank can be
classified as a secondary
impoundment.
Economic
Feasibility
Cost is higher
than for a single
containment
tank
The vapour
dispersion and
thermal radiation
exclusion zones for a
double containment
tank are smaller than
those for a single
containment tank
Increased safety risk
to workers as this
option requires
ventilating, equipping
and maintaining the
space between the
concrete wall and the
carbon steel outer
tank. Ventilation
fans, explosion-proof
equipment, additional
instrumentation,
access and egress
means special
operating procedures
related to accessing
the confined space
are required.
Significantly
higher
construction
cost then other
alternatives
Does not have
the operating
and maintaining
costs of an
annular space
inside the
concrete outer
tank like the
This option minimizes

thermal radiation
exclusion and vapour
dispersion zones,
therefore can be sited
closer to populated
areas
DoubleContainment
Tanks
Full-Containment
Tanks
Both the inner tank (metal

alloy) and the outer tank
(reinforced concrete) will
contain LNG
Outer concrete tank serves as
a secondary impoundment and
will contain LNG vapour.
Option is capable of higher
operating pressure than other
options
Safety
Requires a smaller footprint than

the single-containment tank thus
disturbing less habitat
Concrete wall will contain LNG in
the event of a breach but will not
contain LNG vapour (similar to
Single-containment tanks).
Construction effects from this
option would include noise,
disturbance and loss of terrestrial
habitat within the footprint of the
storage tanks. These effects would
be short-term, localized and not
significant.
A breach in the tank could release
a cloud of LNG vapour which can
disperse over a large distance. An
un-ignited plume does not pose a
hazard. However, if it were to come
into contact with an ignition source,
it would burn back to its source
resulting in a localized pool fire at
the source and temporary
degradation of the air quality. A
local exceedance of air quality
standards would result in a
significant, though unlikely, effect
on the atmospheric environment.
Requires a smaller footprint than
the single-containment tank thus
disturbing less habitat
Outer tank will contain LNG and
LNG vapour in the event of a
breach, thereby reducing effects on
the atmospheric environment in the
event of a loss of containment.
Page 110
Preferred
Option
Alternatives
Economic
Feasibility
Safety
Preferred
Option
doublecontainment
tank .
Alternative Re-liquefaction
Nitrogen
Expander System
Mixed Refrigerant
System
Simpler to operate
Contains fewer components
Better suited to an intermittent
operation like the Grassy Point
facility
Although not as
efficient, it is still
considered
economically
feasible
Requires no handling
of flammable
refrigerants
Mixes refrigerants into a single

working fluid
Reduces the number of
compressor trains and other
equipment that would be
required for multiple refrigerant
loops
Potentially more efficient than
the nitrogen expander cycle
Considered
economically
feasible
Increased safety risk

during accidental
event, as multiple
hydrocarbon
refrigerants must be
stored on site
Not as efficient, but still negligible

environmental effects during
regular operation.
The environmental effects of this
option have been assessed in the
CSR as it is the preferred option.
Negligible environmental effects
during construction.
Negligible environmental effects
during normal operation
Increased environmental risk
during an accidental event as
multiple hydrocarbon refrigerants
must be stored on site. This could
be mitigated through employee
training, and proper handling and
storage procedures for hazardous
materials.
Page 111
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS
8.0
The EA methods and approach used to prepare this Comprehensive Study have been developed to
satisfy the factors to be considered in accordance with sections 16(1) and 16(2) of CEA Act and the
specific requirements for comprehensive studies under section 21 of CEA Act. The methods and
approach to the environmental effects assessment focused on environmental components of greatest
concern to potentially affected parties. In general, the methods are intended to:
focus on issues of greatest concern;
address regulatory requirements;
address issues raised by the public and other stakeholders; and
integrate engineering design and mitigation and monitoring programs into a comprehensive
environmental management planning process.
The EA methods include an evaluation of the potential environmental effects that may arise from each
project phase (construction, operation, and decommissioning) as well as malfunctions and accidents,
with regards to Valued Environmental Components (VECs). Project related effects are assessed within
the context of temporal and spatial boundaries established for each VEC. The evaluation of potential
cumulative effects with regard to other projects and activities includes existing, approved and proposed
activities that will interact temporally or spatially with the Project.
The following provides an overview of this approach, as applied to this Project.
8.1
Information Considered
Information that has been considered in the scoping and preparation of this Comprehensive Study
Report included:
municipal planning documents for Arnolds Cove;
government databases;
species at risk reports and recovery plans;
peer reviewed literature;
planning and scientific studies completed in Placentia Bay and the surrounding area;
targeted baseline studies completed to support this environmental assessment;
consultant reports prepared in support of environmental assessments and permitting of
industrial facilities in Placentia Bay (e.g., phosphorous plant at Long Harbour, the North
Atlantic Refining at Come by Chance, the NTL terminal at Whiffen Head, and the Bull Arm
Construction and Fabrication Site);
EA documents for the following Canadian LNG import facilities that have successfully
completed the EA process:
Kitimat LNG Terminal Project, Kitimat, British Columbia

Rabaska Project, Beaumont, Qubec
Grande-Anse LNG Project, Saguenay, Qubec
Cacouna Energy Project, Gros Cacouna, Quebec
Page 112
Canaport LNG Project, Saint John, New Brunswick

Keltic Petrochemicals and Maple LNG, Goldboro, Nova Scotia
Bear Head LNG Project, Canso Strait, Nova Scotia
CCG Marine Communications and Traffic Services vessel traffic data for Placentia Bay;
engineering designs and specifications for LNG facilities and vessels;
input of technical experts from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Transport Canada, and Newfoundland Department of Environment & Conservation; and
input of technical experts from Newfoundland LNG Ltd. and its consultant team.
8.1.1
Scoping of Issues and Selection of VECs
An important part of the EA process is the identification of a concise list of those components of the
environment that are considered valued (socially, economically, culturally, and/or scientifically) and
thus of interest when considering the potential environmental effects of a project. Valued Environmental
Components (VECs) are defined as broad components of the biophysical and human environments
that if altered by the Project, would be of concern to regulators, resource managers, scientists and the
public.
VECs for the biophysical environment typically represent major components or aspects of the physical
and biological environment (i.e., atmospheric environment, fisheries, vegetation, and wildlife) or
processes (e.g., hydrological processes) that might be altered by the Project, and are widely
recognized as important for ecological reasons. VECs for the human environment are aspects of the
human environment such as social conditions, economic conditions, infrastructure, land and resource
use, and archaeological resources that might be altered as a result of the Project.
VECs were identified through issues scoping activities that included:
a review of the requirements of sections 2(1) and 16(1) of CEA Act;
discussions with technical experts from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada and the
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment & Conservation;
open house public meetings held by Newfoundland LNG Ltd. in Sunnyside, Clarenville,
Southern Harbour, Come-by-Chance and Arnolds Cove;
a review of listed species and/or species at risk found within the area using existing regional
information and baseline surveys;
a review of recent EA documents for various proposed LNG import facilities in Canada;
a review of past EAs for projects located in Placentia Bay; and
the professional judgment of the study team.
8.2
Identification of Valued Environmental Components
Based on the types of Project activities and probable environmental effects, the following potential
environmental effects considered in this Comprehensive Study are identified in Table 8.1 below. These
were confirmed in the Environmental Assessment Track Report that was submitted to the Minister of
the Environment by Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (dated June 2007). This list
Page 113
of potential effects was grouped into VEC chapters within the CSR for the purpose of this assessment.
Table 8.1 references the section of Chapter 10 in which each VEC is addressed.
Table 8.1
Valued Environmental Components and Potential Environmental Effects to be

Considered in the Newfoundland LNG Comprehensive Study
Valued Environmental
Component
Water Quality
Fish and Fish Habitat
Aquaculture/Commercial Fisheries
Migratory Birds
Species at Risk
Marine Mammals
Marine Safety
Human Health and Safety
8.3
Potential Environmental Effects

potential oil spills and extraction of bilge waters could
contaminate waterbodies.
change in the productive capacity of aquatic systems
harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of
fish habitat including spawning grounds and nursery,
rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish
depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their
life processes.
change/degradation of the productive capacity of
aquatic systems
interferences between bulk carriers, commercial
fisheries, and aquaculture sites
direct or indirect migratory bird mortality
negative interactions between migratory birds and bulk
carriers
Species at Risk in the immediate area that may be
impacted by the project includes: blue whale (Atlantic
Population); the North Atlantic right whale; the red
crossbill (percna subspecies); and the monarch
butterfly.
direct or indirect mortality of Species at Risk
negative interactions between migratory marine
mammals and increased marine traffic
construction and operation of marine terminal may limit
or restrict navigability
interactions between bulk carriers, fishers,
aquaculturists, and recreational boaters
Chapter 10 Section
Section 10.1
Section 10.1
Section 10.2
Section 10.4
Section 10.5
Section 10.3
Section 10.7
Section 10.7
Section 10.2
Section 10.6
Environmental Assessment Boundaries
An important aspect of the EA process is the determination of boundaries, as boundaries help focus the
scope of the EA and allow for a meaningful analysis of potential environmental effects associated with
the Project. The setting of boundaries also aids in determining the most effective use of available study
resources. There are three distinct types of boundaries:
temporal boundaries;
spatial boundaries; and
administrative and technical boundaries.
The temporal boundaries for the assessment are defined based on the timing and duration of project
environmental effects in relation to each VEC. Temporal boundaries for most projects typically include
construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the project. For the Grassy Point LNG
Transshipment & Storage Terminal, construction is expected to take place over six years for the three
development phases of the Project, between 2008 and 2014. Operations are expected to begin after
the first phase is complete in 2010. The facilities have a design life of 50 years and are expected to be
operational indefinitely with proper maintenance and upgrades and ongoing market demand.
Page 114
The assessment of decommissioning of the facilities has necessarily been kept to a higher level as the
information available for this stage of the Project is preliminary, and this phase of the Project is in the
very distant future and subject to modification based on conditions at that time. If and when
decommissioning and/or abandonment are required, it will be completed in accordance with the
regulations and industry standards of the day. If the regulatory requirements at the time of
decommissioning require the completion of an environmental assessment, it is expected that the scope
of assessment will be established based on alternative uses of the facilities and lands and status of the
surrounding environment.
Spatial boundaries for the environmental assessment are established for each VEC to ensure the
effects specific to that component of the environment are fully captured. The primary consideration
used to establish the boundaries of these Assessment Areas was the probable geographical extent of
the environmental effects (i.e., the zone of influence) to the VEC. Therefore, the spatial boundaries (i.e.,
Assessment Area) vary according to the nature and distribution of the VEC. The spatial boundaries for
each VEC are identified in their respective sections of this environmental effects assessment.
Administrative and technical boundaries are used to define the extent of the effects analyses.
Administrative boundaries encompass specific aspects of provincial and federal regulatory
requirements as well as regional planning initiatives, which are relevant to the assessment of the
projects environmental effects on the VEC. Technical boundaries include limitations in scientific and
social information, data analyses and data interpretation, as well as time limitations of the assessment
of environmental effects. Where such technical boundaries exist, they are acknowledged, and
alternative strategies used to characterize VECs and/or environmental effects are described.
8.4
Assessment of Environmental Effects
The assessment of environmental effects involved the prediction and evaluation of changes (effects) to
VECs as a result of the effects arising directly or indirectly from the Project (i.e., project effects) in light
of proposed specific mitigation. This assessment was based on a combination of objective
(measurable) and subjective (deduced) evaluations that were specific to the VEC being considered. As
noted above, potential residual environmental effects were assessed for construction and operation
phases of project only. In addition, the environmental effects of accidents and malfunctions are
assessed in Chapter 11 of this report. The assessment of cumulative effects, including the methods
used for the assessment, is also presented in Chapter 11.
The environmental assessment process consists of identifying potential environmental effects and then
classifying these as adverse or positive. The following includes some of the key factors that were
considered for determining adverse environmental effects:
changes in the health of biota;
loss of rare or endangered species;
reductions in biological diversity;
loss or avoidance of critical/productive habitat;
fragmentation of habitat or interruption of movement corridors and migration routes;
discharge or accidental release of persistent and/or toxic chemicals;
Page 115
loss of current resource use; and

negative environmental effects on human health.
Environmental protection measures, over and above those aspects and modifications in the project
design (e.g., environmental best management practices for construction) were identified to mitigate
adverse effects where appropriate. Types of mitigation measures that were considered included:
environmental protection strategies;
site-specific measures (i.e., timing of activities to avoid biologically sensitive periods, sitespecific mitigation design measures); and
contingency measures to address the possibility of accidental events that could affect the
environment.
As per the requirements established in CEAA, only those mitigation measures considered to be
technically and economically feasible were considered.
Environmental effects assessment matrices are used in each VEC chapter to summarize the analysis
of environmental effects by Project phase (Table 8.2). Supporting discussion in the accompanying text
highlights particularly important relationships, data, or assessment analysis, but does not necessarily
address all items noted in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2
Example Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix
Ecological/Socioeconomic Context
Reversibility
Mitigation
Duration/ Frequency
Potential
Environmental Effect
Geographic Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude
Evaluation Criteria for Assessing

Residual Environmental Effects
Construction
Activity 1
Activity 2
Operations
Activity 1
Activity 2
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of habitat limited to the Assessment Area with
no permanent loss or degradation of critical habitat.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of habitat limited to the Assessment Area
with no loss of critical habitat.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of habitat critical to the survival of rare species
or loss of population or stock.
Geographic Extent:
1 = Environmental effects restricted to Project footprint
2 = Environmental effects extend beyond the Project footprint but remain with
Assessment Area
3 = Environmental effects extend beyond Assessment Area.
Duration:
1 = Short term: Effects are measurable for < 1 year.
2 = Medium term: Effects are measurable for 1 to 5 years.
3 = Long term: Effects are measurable for > 5 years.
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
2 = Occurs rarely and at sporadic intervals.
3 = Occurs on a regular basis and at regular intervals.
4 = Continuous
Reversibility:
R = Reversible
I = Irreversible
Ecological/Socio-economic Context:
1 = Area is relatively pristine or not adversely affected by
human activity.
2 = Evidence of existing negative environmental effects
(e.g., existing stream crossings).
Page 116
8.5
Characterization of Effects
Potential environmental effects on each VEC were characterized using the following six descriptors:
Direction: describes the ultimate long-term trend of the effect (e.g., positive, neutral or
adverse);
Magnitude: describes the amount of change in a measurable parameter or variable relative
to baseline case (as this is unique to each VEC and the measurable parameter for the VEC,
each discipline developed definitions of magnitude and, as required, individual measurable
parameters);
Geographical Extent: describes the area within which an effect of a defined magnitude
occurs;
Frequency: the number of times during a project or a specific project phase that an effect
may occur (i.e., one time, multiple);
Duration: typically defined in terms of the period of time required until the VEC returns to its
baseline condition or the effect can no longer be measured or otherwise perceived (defined
specifically for each VEC, may be a specific period of time); at a minimum, it is divided into
three timeframes: short-term, mid-term and long-term;
Reversibility: the likelihood that a measurable parameter will recover from an effect,
including through active management techniques such as habitat restoration works; and
Ecological Context: the general characteristics of the area in which the project is located;
typically defined as limited or no anthropogenic disturbance (i.e., not substantially affected
by human activity) or anthropogenically developed (i.e., the area has been substantially
disturbed by human development or human development is still present).
Where possible, these characteristics were described quantitatively for each residual environmental
effect. Where these characteristics could not be expressed quantitatively, at minimum, they were
described using qualitative terms that were defined specifically for the VEC or environmental effect.
8.6
Determination of Significance
Under CEAA, the environmental assessment must include a determination of the significance of
environmental effects. Accepted practice in accomplishing this task involves the establishment of
clearly defined threshold criteria or standards beyond which residual environmental effects (i.e., those
that are predicted to occur after all mitigation has been considered) would be considered significant.
Rating criteria were specifically defined for each VEC to provide the threshold for determining the
significance of residual adverse environmental effects. These residual environmental effects rating
criteria or significance thresholds were established:
in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency for a particular VEC (where
applicable);
using information obtained in issues scoping;
using available information on the status and characteristics of each VEC;
using applicable environmental standards, guidelines or objectives where they are available;
and/or
using the professional judgment of the study team members.
Page 117
Where available, standards, guidelines or recognized thresholds were used to evaluate the potential
changes in a measurable parameter or VEC. Where they were not available, guidance from the CEA
Agency (1994; 1999) was used to assist in the determination of significance and to frame specific
definitions for the determination of significance for each VEC. These significance thresholds determine
at which point the VEC would experience environmental effects of sufficient geographic extent,
magnitude, duration, frequency and/or reversibility to affect its integrity. These criteria helped to frame
significance thresholds that reflect the sensitivity of the VEC to perturbation and its ability to recover.
Standards used for significance criteria are recognized government or industry regulations or objectives
for physical aspects such as air quality, water quality, population status, etc. Thresholds reflect the
limits of an acceptable state for an environmental component based on resource management
objectives, community standards, scientific literature or ecological processes (e.g., desired states for
fish or wildlife habitats or populations).
Based on the criteria established for each VEC and consideration of the environmental effects analyses
conducted, a phase-by-phase and an overall rating of significant or not significant is assigned for
adverse environmental effects. The analysis and prediction of the significance of environmental effects
encompasses the following:
determination of the significance of residual adverse environmental effects for the
construction and operation phases of the Project;
determination of the significance of residual adverse environmental effects for the overall
Project (i.e., consideration of all residual environmental effects);
determination of the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly
affected to meet the needs of the present and those of the future;
establishment of the level of confidence for predictions; and
determination of the scientific certainty and probability of occurrence of any environmental
effects predicted to be significant.
These are presented using the residual adverse environmental effects summary Table (Table 8.3). This
Table provides a phase-by-phase and a Project overall residual environmental effects rating.
Page 118
Table 8.3
Example Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix

Phase
Residual Adverse
Environmental
Effects Rating*
Level of
Confidence
Likelihood
Probability
of
Occurrence
Scientific
Uncertainty

Operation
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned
Events
Project Overall
KEY
Residual Environmental Effects Rating:
S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effect
NS= Not Significant Adverse Environmental Effect
P = Positive Environmental Effect
Level of Confidence
1 = Low Level of Confidence
2 = Medium Level of Confidence
3 = High Level of Confidence
Probability of Occurrence: based on professional

judgment
1 = Low
2 = Medium
3 = High
Scientific Uncertainty: based on scientific information,
and statistical analysis or professional judgment
1 = low level of confidence
2 = medium level of confidence
3 =
high level of confidence
*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.
8.6.1
Follow-Up and Monitoring
As part of the environmental effects process for comprehensive studies, appropriate monitoring and
follow-up must be described where warranted. Monitoring programs are intended to confirm whether
the mitigation measures identified in the environmental assessment were implemented. The intent of
the follow-up program is to determine whether the identified mitigation measures were effective. In
developing a follow-up program, the results of the preceding steps help to focus on important
interactions, where there is a high level of uncertainty about environmental effects predictions, where
significant adverse environmental effects are predicted, or in areas of particular sensitivity.
Recommended follow-up and monitoring programs are described for each VEC and/or environmental
effect, as appropriate.
Page 119
GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
9.0
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
9.1
Geophysical Environment
9.1.1
Physiography and Topography
Terrain in the Grassy Point area is characterized by bedrock-controlled ridge and valley topography that
rises to a high of approximately 36 m above sea level (masl) on the western shore of the Grassy Point
peninsula and slopes gently to moderately southeastward towards the waters of Arnolds Cove.
Bedrock ridges and outcrops are a common feature of the area and often divide the low lying wetland
areas. Vegetation in the Grassy Point area is intermixed with discontinuous balsam fir forest separated
by open heathland and bog and fen wetlands in low lying areas.
Along the northwest shoreline, bedrock is exposed in cliffed areas that rise up to approximately
20 masl, on average. Small, low-lying cove-shaped areas with coarse sand and gravel beaches
dominate the eastern shoreline. In the Grassy Point area, surface water drainage occurs through a
network of small unnamed ponds, brooks and streams that originate in upland areas and discharge
directly into Placentia Bay in western areas of the site, and discharge into Arnolds Cove in eastern
areas of the site.
Limited information is available with regards to the hydrogeology of the Grassy Point area. However,
based on the mapped surficial and bedrock geology of the area and observations during a recent
geotechnical investigation (Jacques Whitford 2006), the site is assumed to be underlain by an
unconfined, shallow groundwater system contained within the overburden material and underlying
fractured bedrock. It is expected to be largely controlled by surface run-off and recharge from local
areas of higher elevation. Based on its coastal location, an oceanic island hydrogeological setting is
assumed for the site, with a freshwater aquifer system sitting above a saltwater aquifer assumed to be
present in deeper portions of the bedrock (at some undetermined depth). Saltwater, which is denser
than freshwater, provides a lower boundary to the freshwater aquifer, giving the freshwater body the
shape of a lens. The vertical extent of the freshwater aquifer system beneath the peninsula is unknown.
No groundwater level data are available for the site. However, the direction of shallow groundwater flow
is expected to mimic topography, with radial flow outwards towards the coast from upland regions.
Groundwater elevations at the site can be expected to fluctuate in response to seasonal variations in
precipitation, as well as be influenced by tidal fluctuations in coastal areas.
9.1.2
Soils and Geology
Two primary bedrock groups have been identified at the north end of Placentia Bay, where the Grassy
Point area is located. Bedrock of the Connecting Point Group underlies the shoreline from a point south
of the North Atlantic Refining Limited (NARL) facility to just south of Adams Head. Bedrock of the
Musgravetown Group underlies the NARL refinery site and the head of the Bay at Come By Chance.
Based on available surficial geology mapping, the Grassy Point area consists of a discontinuous layer
(<1.5 m) of glacial till comprised of poorly sorted soils containing a mixture of grain sizes from clay to
boulders that overlie bedrock. Patches of exposed bedrock and thicker soil cover are common. The
soils are generally dominated by sand with less than 20 percent silt and clay. Due to their relatively high
degree of compactness, these soils are deemed to be resistant to low to moderate seismic events.
Page 120
Based on surficial and bedrock geology maps of the area, as well as subsurface data collected during a
previous geotechnical investigation by Jacques Whitford in 2006, the principal natural overburden
material in the site area consists of a discontinuous layer of poorly sorted sand and gravel glacial till,
with varying percentages of silt, clay, cobbles and boulders ranging in depths from 0.1 to 4.9 m below
ground surface (mbgs). Organic soils, including sod, rootmat and peat material, overlie the
unconsolidated glacial till material in many parts of the site, particularly in low-lying areas with poor
drainage where peat deposits up to 3.9 m thick have been identified. Beneath the overburden material,
bedrock comprises Late Proterozoic-aged shale, siliceous siltstone and sandstone of the Connecting
Point Group. Fault zones containing some weak and softer rock may occur at some locations. The
upper bedrock is typically weathered and moderately to strongly fractured with iron staining. The
thickness of this upper bedrock fracture zone is not known for certain; however, thicknesses of up to 11
m have been reported from boreholes completed at the site, and it is assumed that competent bedrock
occurs below this depth.
9.1.3
Natural Hazards
9.1.3.1 Seismology
Seismic activity is the result of large segments of the Earths crust (called tectonic plates) continually
shifting against each other. Over geological time, the Earths crust is subjected to stresses and
distortions that cause mountains to be built and continents to drift apart. As the stress builds, it can rise
to the point that sliding occurs at breaks in the Earths crust, called faults. Also, adjacent tectonic plates
can remain stuck for long periods until sufficient stress is built up to cause slippage between the plates.
At this point, the plates on each side of the fault or plate interface snap into a new position. This snap
creates vibrations, or seismic waves. It is these vibrations that are felt as an earthquake when they
reach the Earths surface, which would impose horizontal and vertical accelerations on foundation soils
and inertia forces on structures (such as LNG tanks). The great majority of the worlds earthquakes
occur in narrow bands along active boundaries where two or more tectonic plates slide past or collide
with each other.
Other than the west coast of British Columbia, the vast majority of Canada (including Newfoundland
and Labrador) lies within a mid-plate tectonic regime. In eastern Canada, the nearest plate boundary is
the mid-Atlantic ridge, located more than 1,000 km beyond Canadas east coast. At this distance, the
mid-Atlantic ridge is too far away to cause direct seismicity in eastern Canada, but it is believed that
ongoing widening of the ridge results in continual high horizontal compressive stress throughout the
eastern North America. Seismic activity has been observed to be concentrated along a series of deepseated rift faults along the St. Lawrence, Saguenay and Ottawa valleys that were formed several
hundred million years ago during early attempts to open the Atlantic Ocean. It is believed that seismic
activity in these areas is caused by fault movement induced by high compressive stresses from the
mid-Atlantic ridge. Seismic activity along the St. Lawrence is too distant to cause any considerable
seismic hazard contribution to northern Placentia Bay. Therefore, the seismic hazard at the Grassy
Point area will be dominated by contributions from local seismicity.
Earthquakes located in a mid-plate region tend to be more diffuse (i.e., less concentrated in clusters)
and infrequent, as they tend to occur in zones of weakness of large crustal extent rather than along
narrow well-defined faults and are typically driven by distant plate interactions (e.g., opening of the midAtlantic ridge). Mid-region earthquakes likely occur in buried crustal faults, as a review of worldwide
data (Atkinson 2003) indicated a very infrequent occurrence of surface rupture, even for large (i.e.,
Page 121
magnitude >7) earthquake events. In eastern Canada, there has been only one observed occurrence of
surface rupture, that being the Magnitude 6, 1989 Ungava, Quebec earthquake.
The nearest known seismically active area is the Laurentian Slope seismic zone located southwest of
Newfoundland. The largest recorded seismic event in the Laurentian Slope seismic zone is the Grand
Banks M7.2 earthquake, which occurred on November 18, 1929 at 44.69 N, 56.00 W, which is
approximately 380 km from Grassy Point. While the resulting tsunami caused local sea level rises
between 2 and 7 m along the Burin Peninsula, only minor effects were felt at the head of Placentia
Bay. Based on the attenuation relationship (Atkinson and Boore, 1995) used in the 2005 NBCC seismic
model, the resulting peak firm ground acceleration (PGA) from this event at Grassy Point would be 0.04
g, which is significantly less than 2,500 year design PGA of 0.09 g.
Based on this review, there is an absence of any information pertaining to the existence of earthquakeinduced surface rupture in Newfoundland.
9.1.3.2 Liquefaction and Slope Instability
The potential for liquefaction and slope instability of the LNG tank site is evaluated based on the 2,500year return period firm-soil peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA), corresponding to a value of
0.09 gravity, considered to be a relatively low level of seismicity.
The results of the geotechnical investigation indicate that the Grassy Point tank site is rugged terrain
characterized by bedrock-controlled topography (Jacques Whitford 2006). Bedrock is sedimentary and
volcaniclastic rocks of the Connecting Point Group with the main rock types consisting of siltstone,
argillite and sandstone. The results of the site investigation indicate that the surficial soil deposits at the
LNG tank site consist of a thin capping of surficial organic soils (sod, rootmat and peat) overlying
compact to very dense till (well-graded gravel with sand to silty sand with gravel). Site preparation for
the tank footprints will include removal of the surficial soil deposits and construction of a level surface
prepared in competent till and bedrock materials. Under these conditions, liquefaction or loss of tank
foundation support during a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) event will not occur. Therefore, no
special ground treatment preparation works would be required. Refer to Chapter 2 for CSA design
requirements.
Based on the distance of the tanks from the slope and cliff areas and the competent tank (till and
bedrock) foundation conditions, there are no concerns of earthquake-induced slope instability of the
tank site under the design PGA (0.09 gravity).
Page 122
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
9.2
9.2.1
Climate
The climate of the Arnolds Cove area is highly dependent upon the airstreams and their fronts and
especially its close proximity to water with Placentia Bay to the south and Trinity Bay to the north.
During the winter months, Trinity Bay is cooler than Placentia Bay due to the effects of the Labrador
Current. This close proximity to water has a mitigating effect on the climate of Arnolds Cove, in
particular, temperature extremes.
9.2.1.1 General Atmospheric Circulation
The general atmospheric circulation is typically the same as the rest of the island portion of the
province. Weather systems (high and low pressure) approach the area from the west to south either
coming across from the New England states to southern Quebec or along the Gulf Stream. The more
intense winter storms travel with the Gulf Stream and once these storms reach the south coast of
Newfoundland, the colder waters cause these systems to rapidly lose energy, resulting in high winds
and significant amounts of precipitation.
The atmospheric circulation varies. In winter, it is mainly affected by the continental Arctic, a cold dry
wind that flows out of the Arctic predominantly from the northwest, transporting cold Arctic air masses
to the area. Variability in the winter atmospheric circulation can either be quantified by the strength of
the Icelandic Low (North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index) or by the surface air pressure gradient across
the Labrador Sea. The onset of spring is delayed by a prevalence of these cool polar air masses and
low sea surface temperature. The retreat of the polar front jet stream to the north, combined with the
shift in prevailing wind direction to southwest, causes a change in the temperature patterns by mid to
late June. In summer, the Maritime Tropical air mass from the south and the Maritime polar air mass
from over the Labrador Current create varying temperatures from day to day. During the fall, the
southern coast of Newfoundland cools relatively slowly, due to the delayed cooling of the ocean and
delayed onset of colder air masses from the north (Colbourne et al. 1997; Prinsenberg et al. 1996; EC
2007; Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage 2007).
9.2.1.2 Air Temperature
Monthly air temperature statistics for Arnolds Cove and Come By Chance are presented in Figures 9.1
and 9.2, respectively. Grassy Point is approximately midway between the two weather stations and will
exhibit similar air temperature conditions. These statistics are based upon all measurements on record
obtained from EC (2007) from 1971 to 1994 for Arnolds Cove and 1971 to 2000 for Come By Chance.
As demonstrated in Figure 9.1, Arnolds Coves mean air temperatures range from -5oC in winter to
15oC in summer. The daily maximum air temperature range from -1.3oC in winter to 19oC in summer
and the daily minimum air temperature is lowest in February at -9oC. Temperatures as high as 11oC
have been recorded in January and February (typically the coldest months) and an extreme maximum
of 28oC was recorded in August. The extreme minimum temperature of -26oC was recorded in
February.
Come By Chance shows similar values of daily and extreme mean, minimum and maximum
temperatures with those of Arnolds Cove (Figure 9.2). However, the minimum and maximum extreme
temperature values in Come By Chance are in general more pronounced than Arnolds Cove 1C to
Page 123
5C. Extreme temperatures reached 11C and 15C in January and February, respectively (typically the
coldest months) and 29C in August. The extreme minimum temperature of -29C was recorded in
February.
Station Active From 1971-1994
Air Temperature
Arnolds Cove
30
20
Temperature (oC)
10
-10
-20
-30
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
Daily Average (C)
-4.4
-5.1
-2
2.3
5.9
9.5
13.8
15.3
12.6
7.9
3.4
-1.5
4.8
Daily Maximum (C)
-0.7
-1.3
1.5
5.4
9.3
13
17.1
18.6
15.9
11
6.3
1.7
8.2
Daily Minimum (C)
-8.1
-8.9
-5.5
-0.9
2.4
10.5
12
9.3
4.6
0.4
-4.7
1.4
Extreme Maximum (C)
11
11
13.9
19.5
20
25
26
28
26
19.5
15.5
14
Extreme Minimum (C)
-21.7
-25.6
-21
-18
-6.7
-1.1
2.2
-1.7
-8
-13.5
-20
Source: EC 2007.
Figure 9.1
Air Temperature (1971-1994) to Arnolds Cove

Air Temperature
Come-by-Chance
30
20
Temperature (oC)
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
Daily Average (C)
-4.6
-5.7
-2.3
2.2
6.1
9.9
14.1
15.4
12.3
7.5
2.9
-1.9
4.7
Daily Maximum (C)
-0.5
-1.4
1.5
5.7
10
13.8
17.8
19
15.8
10.9
6.1
1.7
8.4
Daily Minimum (C)
-8.8
-10.1
-6
-1.2
2.3
10.4
11.7
8.8
4.1
-0.3
-5.5
0.9
Extreme Maximum (C)
10.5
14.5
15
20
20
24.5
27.5
29
26.5
23
16.1
14.4
Extreme Minimum (C)
-25.6
-28.9
-25
-18
-8
-3.3
-1
-8
-15
-24
Source: EC 2007.
Figure 9.2
Air Temperature (1971 to 2000) Come By Chance
Page 124
9.2.1.3 Visibility
Marine coastal visibility is affected by fog, daylight hours, precipitation and blowing snow. While in
Placentia Bay, visibility is mostly affected by fog. Fog occurs when warm air moves over colder sea
water and is therefore of most concern in the spring and summer (April to September). The frequency
of fog in the Bay is related to the frequency of southerly onshore winds. In July, visibility in most of the
Bay is reduced to 0.5 nautical miles or less approximately 30 percent of the time. The isthmus between
the island of Newfoundland and the Avalon Peninsula, with Trinity Bay directly northeast, can increase
the fog at the head of the Placentia Bay, near Grassy Point, by as much as 10 percent (Bowyer 1995).
Reduced visibility statistics are based upon all measurements on record from 1953 to 1983 for Argentia
and summarized in the study by Davidson et al. (1984). The monthly ceiling and visibility statistics as
reported by Davidson et al. (1984) are presented in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1
Occurrence of Reduced Visibility and Ceiling at Argentia from 1953 to 1983
Month
Ceiling <90 m
Mean # of days
Max # of days
Max percentage
Visibility <1.0 km
Mean # of days
Max # of days
Max percentage
Visibility <0.1 km
Mean # of days
Max # of days
Max percentage
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
9.4
16
9.1
8.2
13
8.3
9.0
16
12.6
10.1
17
14.7
13.1
20
19.6
16.3
27
35.3
19.2
27
47.3
14.7
23
36.3
8.5
15
17.2
6.8
17
12.2
5.4
10
10.6
7.1
15
9.9
127.8
8.1
17
9.0
7.3
13
8.8
8.0
13
9.4
7.2
15
8.8
10.8
18
15.7
14.3
24
26.3
17.8
25
35.3
12.1
20
24.3
6.7
14
13.7
5.0
10
7.9
3.9
8
8.3
5.5
11
7.5
106.7
0.7
4
1.6
0.8
5
2.2
0.8
3
0.7
0.8
4
1.1
2.2
9
5.0
3.4
10
5.0
4.9
16
8.3
2.4
12
6.7
1.4
8
3.5
0.9
4
1.1
0.5
3
4.2
0.6
8
3.1
19.4
Source: Davidson et al. 1984.
Reduced visibility at Argentia is common, especially in spring and summer. From May to August,
reduced visibility of less than 1 km occurs for 10 days or more on average per month and up to 25 days
in July, with 107 days being the annual average. Reduced visibility of less than 0.1 km occurs on
average for two to five days a month from May to August and up to 16 days in July, with an annual
average of 19 days.
A limited ceiling of 90 m or less occurs at least five days on average each month up to 19 days on
average in July, with 128 days as the annual average. In summer, on average, approximately 50
percent of the time the ceiling is less than 90 m. From June to August, a ceiling of 90 m or less occurs
for 16 or more days on average per month, with a maximum of 27 days.
9.2.2
Wind
Digital hourly wind speed and direction data have been obtained from the Meteorological Service of
Canada (MSC) for the Arnolds Cove station from 1971 to 1991 (when the climate station was
removed). The data have undergone a quality control process and contain approximately 20 gaps
ranging from 10 to 212 days, for a total of 18 percent missing data in 22 years. Monthly wind speed and
directional data are available in AMEC (2007).
The monthly mean hourly wind speeds range from 5.0 m/s in July to 7.6 m/s in January. The lowest
monthly maximum wind speed is 18.3 m/s in September and the highest is 28.3 m/s in December. In
spring and summer, typical maximum values range from 18.3 to 23.3 m/s, while fall and winter values
Page 125
range from 22.8 to 28.3 m/s. The upper 95 percent wind speed limit ranges from approximately 8 m/s in
July to 14 m/s in December.
The most predominant wind direction is from the southwest in most months. Annually, 25 percent of the
winds are from the southwest while 12 to 13 percent are from the northeast, northwest and south. From
October to March, the winds remain predominately from the southwest, however winds form northeast,
northwest and west are also significant. In spring, winds become predominately from the southwest and
northeast and in summer (Jun.-Aug.) the winds are from the southwest and south. Winds exceed 10
m/s 12.5 percent of the time on an annual basis and 1.7 percent of winds exceed 15 m/s. Over the
1971 to 1991 period, only 11 observations were over 25 m/s with a maximum reaching 28.3 m/s.
The most predominant wind direction is from the southwest in most months. Annually, 25 percent of the
winds are from the southwest while 12 to 13 percent are from the northeast, northwest and south.
Winds exceed 10 m/s 12.5 percent of the time on an annual basis and 1.7 percent of winds exceed
15 m/s. Over the 1971 to 1991 period, only 11 observations were over 25 m/s.
Directional statistics of the wind climate were also derived from MSC50, a hindcast of hourly data
provided by Meteorological Services Canada (Swail et al., 2006). The data covers the years 1954 to
2005, inclusive. Two MSC50 nodes were chosen as representative of the wind climate for Placentia
Bay. They are #11761 in the centre of Placentia Bay (47.1N, 54.5W) and #12549 near Long Island
(47.5 N 54 W). These winds are considered representative of one-hour mean winds at 10 m elevation.
There is little difference in the wind condition statistics between the central Placentia Bay and the Long
Island nodes. For both sites, predominant wind direction over the year occurs almost equally from the
southwest and west. The Arnolds Cove data also shows a predominant wind direction from the
southwest, however not from the west. From November to March, wind direction is predominantly from
the west and northwest. From June to August, wind direction is predominantly from the southwest.
Maximum wind speeds can reach up to approximately 28 m/s (Table 9.2 and 9.3), which can occur
during fall/winter which is consistent with the Arnolds Cove station data. During the rest of the year,
maximum wind speeds can reach up to 25 m/s.
Table 9.2
Speed
(m/s)
25-30
20-25
15-20
10-15
5-10
0-5
Total
11761
N
0.001
0.019
0.381
1.978
3.926
1.822
8.127
NE
0.001
0.031
0.374
1.603
3.069
1.614
6.690
E
0
0.017
0.272
1.503
3.150
1.707
6.649
YEARLY STATISTICS
Direction (from)
SE
S
SW
0
0.001
0.002
0.019
0.013
0.050
0.412
0.419
0.631
1.762
2.464
3.876
3.825
7.032
11.463
2.459
3.876
5.349
8.477
13.805
21.371
W
0.001
0.189
1.652
5.863
9.447
3.840
20.992
NW
0.003
0.067
0.775
4.162
6.405
2.476
13.889
Total
0.009
0.404
4.916
23.211
48.316
23.143
100.00
Page 126
Table 9.3
Speed
(m/s)
25-30
20-25
15-20
10-15
5-10
0-5
Total
11761
N
0
0.014
0.376
2.106
4.258
1.645
8.399
NE
0
0.011
0.276
1.509
3.270
1.478
6.544
E
0
0.006
0.152
1.248
3.290
1.539
6.235
YEARLY STATISTICS
Direction (from)
SE
S
SW
0
0.001
0.001
0.013
0.012
0.043
0.372
0.417
0.621
1.738
2.662
3.895
4.056
7.687
11.902
2.202
3.723
5.174
8.382
14.501
21.635
W
0
0.141
1.440
5.563
9.473
3.632
20.250
NW
0.002
0.064
0.777
4.314
6.685
2.212
14.054
Total
0.004
0.305
4.431
23.034
50.622
21.605
100.00
The MSC50 Hindcast dataset extremal analysis results for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean are available
from Environment Canada's Atlantic Climate Centre (Environment Canada, 2008) for the joint
frequency distribution of the 100 year return period of maximum wind speed. The "joint" refers to the
joint probability computed from both the Tropical and ExtraTropical extremes. A peak is defined as any
event that is greater than the minimum significant wave height threshold and must be separated from
any other peak by at least 48 hours. All peaks were processed using two distributions: Gumbel and
Weibull. In each case, the top 52 peaks (with a minimum of four peaks) were used to produce a fit at
each grid point. Five return periods were computed: 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 years for each of the
following six variables: Significant Wave Height (HSig), Maximum Wave (HMax), Maximum Crest
(HCrest), Associated Peak Period (TPeak associated with HSig), Associated Wind Speed (WS that
occurred at the same time as HSig), and Maximum Wind Speed (WS can occur independently of HSig
but within the storm length as defined above).
The MSC50 extremal analysis results for the 100 year return period of maximum wind speed using half
the peak cut off (52) and the Gumbel distribution shows about 32 m/s at the mouth of Placentia Bay
and down to between 28 m/s and 32 m/s within the Bay. The 50 year return period of maximum wind
speed using the same criteria shows 28 m/s in the entire Bay.
9.2.3
Precipitation
Precipitation statistics are based upon all measurements on record (EC 2007) from 1971 to 1994 for
Arnolds Cove (when the climate station was removed) and 1971 to 2000 for Come By Chance.
The precipitation statistics for Arnolds Cove and Come By Chance are presented in Figures 9.3 and
9.4, respectively. The average annual rainfall at Arnolds Cove is 1,196 mm, with 125 cm of snowfall,
while at Come By Chance the annual rainfall is nearly 100 mm less, 1,094 mm, and the snowfall is
nearly 50 cm greater, at 176 cm. Both locations have similar seasonal precipitation patterns (Figure
9.5), with the average rainfall maximums in June and October and lows from December to April-May
and most snowfall in December to March. Arnolds Cove has a slightly greater rainfall from October
through to February and Come By Chance has a greater snowfall from December to March. At Arnolds
Cove, mean rainfall ranges from 83 mm in December to May to 116 mm in June to November, with a
mean monthly snowfall in winter ranging from 23 to 35 cm. Come By Chance has mean rainfall of 77
mm in December to May and 105 mm in June to November with a mean monthly snowfall ranging from
29 to 51 cm. There is a persistence of rain during the winter months.
Page 127

Precipitation
Arnolds Cove
160
140
120
Snowfall (cm)
Rainfall (mm)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
Average Rainfall (mm)
90.6
72.8
76.6
79.4
91.8
126.2
95.2
103.2
109.2
137.8
123.7
88.9
1195.5
Average Snowfall (cm)
30.5
35
23.9
6.5
0.9
0.2
4.9
22.5
124.5
17
10
Average Snow Depth (cm)
17
62.6
108
66
49.4
46.6
97.2
94.4
60
56.6
73.7
82
46.8
46
152
109
30
18
25
40.6
71
66
30
9.1
5.3
18
25
Median Snow Depth (cm)

Extreme Daily Precipitation (mm)
Extreme Snow Depth (cm)
Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm)
Source: EC 2007.
Figure 9.3
Precipitation (1971 to 1994) - Arnolds Cove

Precipitation
Come-By-Chance
160
140
120
Snowfall (cm)
Rainfall (mm)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Average Rainfall (mm)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
75.9
54.9
76.9
86.3
87.9
119.5
86.1
88
107.9
126.6
101
82.9
1093.9
Average Snowfall (cm)
51.4
47.3
28.2
6.9
0.1
0.2
1.4
7.8
32.3
175.6
Precipitation Equivalent (mm)
127.7
102.2
104.9
93.2
88
119.7
86.1
88
107.9
128.4
108.8
115
1269.9
Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm)
56
101
42
43.2
38
50
71
48.2
51
64.8
50.8
57.7
Extreme Snow Depth (cm)
87
86
85
75
23
53
Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm)
32
38.3
24
16
2.5
15
21
31.5
Source: EC 2007.
Figure 9.4
Precipitation (1971 to 2000) Come By Chance
Page 128

Come By Chance Rainfall
Mean Precipitation Arnolds Cove (1971-1994) and

Come By Chance (1971-2000)
Arnolds Cove Rainfall
160
Come By Chance Snowfall

Arnold Cove Snowfall
Rainfall (mm) Snowfall (cm) )
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Source: EC 2007.
Figure 9.5
Mean Precipitation Arnolds Cove (1971 to 1994) and Come By Chance (1971 to
2000)
For Arnolds Cove, February is the most severe winter month, with the minimum rainfall (73 mm) the
maximum snowfall (35 cm), the highest extreme snow depth (152 cm) and the highest daily extreme
precipitation (108 mm) and snowfall (71 cm). The highest rainfall occurs in October, with 138 mm. For
Come By Chance, the greatest snowfall and extreme snow depth occurs in January at 51 cm and 87
cm respectively, as opposed to February for Arnolds Cove. The minimum rainfall (55 mm) and the
highest daily extreme rainfall (101 mm) also occur in February and the highest rainfall also occurs in
October, with 127 mm.
9.2.4
Extremes
Newfoundland experiences several types of extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones,
extratropical lows and transitional cyclones.
Tropical cyclones are limited in scale and therefore have a smaller impact than the other types of
storms. Their wind maximums are close to the cyclone centre. These tropical storms spawned near
the equator and developed in the Caribbean and most that impact Canada are either dissipating or
going through a post-tropical transition stage. Therefore due to the colder waters in Newfoundland
tropical cyclones are also less likely to affect the island. The Canadian Hurricane Center (2008) reports
on average Atlantic Canada is affected by 4 tropical cyclones each year, Newfoundland 1.4 each year
and 3 have passed in the Placentia Bay region from 1951 to 2000 (Meteorological Service of Canada,
2005). No category four or five hurricane has made landfall in Canada since 1851. Only two category
three hurricanes (Luis 1995 & 1893) and six category one hurricanes have made landfall in
Newfoundland since 1886. Since about 1995 there has been an increase of tropical cyclone activity in
the North Atlantic.
They generally occur from early June to late November with a peak in mid
September and bring windy, wet weather (Meteorological Service of Canada, 2005; Canadian
Hurricane Center, 2008).
Page 129
Transitional cyclones, which are primarily tropical cyclones that have undergone a change, more
frequently affect the south coast of Newfoundland. They also generally occur from early June to late
November. Once tropical cyclones transition they can undergo rapid intensity change of either sign
(Hart and Evans, 2001). According to Hart and Evans (2001) landfall of a transitioning cyclone is more
likely to occur late in the season with a maximum in October in the Atlantic since 1950. Transitioning
type storms especially transition from tropical to extratropical are not as well understood as tropical or
extratropical storms and further modelling studies are required. Hart and Evans (2001) showed that
since 1950 in the north Atlantic 46 percent of all tropical cyclones transitioned from tropical to
extratropical.
The most severe impact in Newfoundland comes from extratropical lows which can have hurricane
force winds. As well as being the strongest winds, they also have the largest radius of maximum winds.
The severity and frequency of these storms is greatest between November and March, although they
may occur at any time of the year. These storms can sometimes bring heavy precipitation, reduced
visibility, very cold wind chills, storm surges and extreme waves. They do most of their damage at the
coast, in the form of beach erosion and flooding. A storm surge (an elevation of sea level)
accompanying an intense tropical cyclone can be as high as 6 m. Hurricane Juan (2003), a category 2
storm which hit Nova Scotia, had a storm surge peak of about 1.5 m resulting in a water level of 2.9 m
above the tidal benchmark (Canadian Hurricane Centre, 2008). The majority of high wave events are
the result of a high degree of synchronicity between moving storms and the waves that they generate.
This wave containment or resonance phenomenon, is referred to as trapped-fetch waves (Bowyer and
MacAfee, 2005, MacAfee and Bowyer, 2005). Hurricane Juan (2003) had buoy data showing significant
wave height of 10.8 m to 14.1 m (MacAfee and Bowyer, 2005). Hurricane Danielle (1998), also a
category 2 storm which passed south of Newfoundland, had buoy data showing significant wave height
greater than 15 m (MacAfee and Bowyer, 2005). Directional statistics of the wave climate were derived
from MSC50 hindcast data for Placentia Bay which showed maximum wave heights occur from January
to March, reaching up to 10.6 m (Section 9.5.2).
Winter storms in the form of extratropical lows are much more frequent in Atlantic Canada than tropical
or transitional storms which generally occur in summer and fall. Storms frequently pass close to Nova
Scotia and cross the southern part of Newfoundland, caused by intense areas of low pressure that
develop off the East Coast during late fall, winter and early spring. Winds blow warm air inland from
over the Atlantic Ocean and cold air moves south over the East Coast. The collision of the cold and
warm air creates an area favourable for storms to develop. The rising air in the storm cools and
condenses into ice crystals or snow flakes. If it is warm enough, the falling snow melts into rain.
Sometimes a layer of warm air above the colder surface produces freezing rain.
Extreme temperatures reach 29C in August and -29C in February. Daily rainfall and snowfall can
reach an extreme of over 100 mm and 70 cm, respectively, and the greatest snow depth on record is
152 cm. All extreme values occur in February.
An average annual fog with visibility <1 km is reported on 29 percent of days, with a monthly maximum
of 25 days in July. Limited visibility (<0.1 km) occurs on average 5 percent annually, with a monthly
maximum of 16 days in July.
At the head of the Bay (north of 47.75N), the earliest arrival of landfast ice is March 19th and for pack
ice is February 26th. At the head of the Bay, landfast ice is unlikely to persist over a week while pack ice
can persist until May 14th. The most severe pack ice event in Placentia Bay occurred in 1961 and 1987.
These events are considered rare and may be expected on the order of once every 25 to 30 years.
Page 130
9.2.5
Air Quality
Newfoundland and Labradors ambient air quality is monitored at stations by ECs Meteorological
Service in conjunction with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as a part of the Atlantic
Region Air Monitoring program. The monitoring network involves seven air quality monitoring stations in
the province that monitor concentrations of some or all of the following: sulphur dioxide (SO2), ozone
(O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), total reduced sulphur (TRS), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter
(PM2.5). In addition, the Cormack station monitors mercury (Hg) levels and stations in Bay DEspoir and
Goose Bay monitor acid rain.
Qualification of air quality is based on the Air Quality Index (AQI), which is derived from hourly pollutant
measures (EC 2004). Details of the AQI are given in Table 9.4.
Table 9.4
Air Quality Index
AQI Value
<25
26 to 50
Category
Good
Fair
51 to 100
Poor
>100
Very Poor
Potential Health Impacts

N/A
May be some adverse effects on very sensitive people.
May have some short-term adverse effects on the human or animal populations; may cause
significant damage to vegetation and property.
May cause some adverse effects on a large proportion of those exposed.
Source: EC 2004.
There are no ambient monitoring stations in the vicinity of Arnolds Cove that are a part of the Atlantic
Region Air Monitoring program. Air pollutant concentrations recorded at the closest monitoring station,
Mount Pearl, show that mean and maximum AQI values during 2006-2007 were less than 25, indicating
good air quality.
Maximum background pollutant concentration values at the nearby communities of Arnolds Cove and
Come by Chance were collected from previous monitoring and air quality modelling studies in the
region. The background air contaminant concentrations in both communities are within air quality
standards (Table 9.5).
Maximum Background Concentrations in Arnolds Cove and Come By Chance
Table 9.5
Pollutant
SO2
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
Time Frame
Ambient Standard
1-hour
3-hour
24-hour
Annual
1-hour
24-hour
Annual
24-hour
Annual
24-hour
Annual
900
600
300
60
400
200
100
50
N/A
25
N/A
Community*
Arnolds Cove
Come By Chance
348
279
220
169
79
74
2
5
100
75
2
10
1
1
14
14
7
7
10
10
5
5
*Source NLDEC
Ambient SO2 and PM2.5 data are also collected at a monitoring station positioned at Tricentia Academy,
in Arnolds Cove. This monitoring station is run by NARL. The maximum background concentrations of
SO2 and PM2.5 collected at this monitoring station between 2006 and 2007 are provided in Table 9.6.
Page 131
Table 9.6

Limited
Pollutant
SO2
PM2.5
Time Frame
1-hour
3-hour
24-hour
Annual
24-hour
Annual
Ambient Standard
900
600
300
60
25
N/A
Tricentia Academy Station*

182
104
35
3
13
N/A
*Source NLDEC
Background SO2 and PM2.5 concentrations at the Tricentia Academy monitoring station in Arnolds Cove
are well within air quality standards. From the ambient air quality data obtained, it appears that the area
of the proposed Project typically experiences good air quality, with air contaminant levels meeting air
quality standards.
Page 132
TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
9.3
Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife
9.3.1
Vegetation
The terrestrial habitat of the island of Newfoundland is characteristic of boreal forests with long, harsh
winters and short and variable summers. There are relatively few tree species, primarily conifers such
as spruce, fir and larch (Larix larcina), with deciduous species such as birch and aspen in some areas.
Also characteristic of the boreal forest is the abundance of bogs, fens, ponds, marshes, rivers and
streams. The proposed Project is within the South Eastern Barrens subregion of the Maritimes Barrens
Ecoregion, which is characterized by cold summers, strong winds and frequent fog (Newfoundland and
Labrador Heritage 2002). The South Eastern Barrens subregion, which covers approximately 60
percent of the Avalon Peninsula and most of the Burin Peninsula, is characterized by extensive barrens
and exposed bedrock. Small stands of forests are found in protected valleys and along some steep
hillsides. Wetlands are scattered throughout the subregion and are reflective of the gentle topography,
poor drainage and cool wet climate of the area.
The barrens (heath) of the subregion are the result of extensive forest fires within the last 100 years.
These barrens are dominated by sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia) and black (Empetrum nigrum) or
pink (E. eamesii) crowberry, with patches of stunted balsam fir (Abies balsamea) and larch, blueberry
(Vaccinium spp.) and partridgeberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea).
The forest stands within the subregion are typically dominated by balsam fir with a ground cover of
mosses.
Prior to the commencement of terrestrial baseline studies, a search was conducted of the Atlantic
Canada Conservation Data Centre Methodology (ACCDC) database for any known occurrences of rare
plant species within the Grassy Point area. Aerial photos of the area were reviewed to assist in the
identification of distinct vegetation community boundaries and to identify any habitats with a high
potential for rare plant occurrence. High potential habitats for rare plant species include such areas as
rich wetlands, unique geology rock outcrops and riparian zones and habitats specific to rare plants
known to occur in the area.
General vegetation community plots were completed in representative areas as identified during the
aerial photo review and during the ground assessment. Plot information included a listing of dominant
plant species, estimate of percent cover, slope position, moisture and nutrient regime, a general habitat
description and representative photographs. A hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver
was used to record the location for each plot.
Rare plant surveys were conducted in the high potential habitat areas identified during the aerial photo
review, as well as those identified during the ground assessment. Rare plant survey information
included a listing of all vascular plant species observed at each site, a general habitat description, GPS
recorded location and representative photographs. Plant species that were not readily identifiable in the
field were collected for later identification.
The vegetation study area boundary is depicted in Figure 9.6 and is based on the limit of potential
vegetation disturbance due to planned Project construction and operation activities.
Page 133
Road Infrastructure
Tank Layout
Study Area Boundary
Vegetation Classes
100% BF
BF
Balsam Fir
EH
Empetrum Heath
WE
Wetland
TU
Tuckamor
OW
Open Water
100% BF
60% WE
40% EH
100% BF
CLIENT:
60% EH
40% TU
1
%
00
100% WE
BF

OW
Wetland #4
100% BF
70% WE
30% EH
BE
AC
H
70% EH
30% TU
OW
OW
PROJECT TITLE:
CH
BE A
60% TU
40% EH
Wetland #5
Grassy Point LNG

Transshipment and Storage Terminal
Wetland #3
60% BF
40% TU
Wetland #6
DRAWING TITLE:
Wetland #2
0
10
80% TU
20% WE
Wetlands and Vegetation Cover Classes of

the Grassy Point Peninsula
Figure 9.6
80% EH
20% WE
70% BF
30% TU
10
0%
OCEAN
Wetland #1
E
OW
Jacques Whitford
100% BF
SCALE:
DATE:
OCT 29, 2007

CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
100% WE
70% WE
30% BF
1:8000
CP
100% BF
OW
100
200
REV. No.
EDITED BY:
CP
Metres
DRAWING No.:
1
MAP FILE:
VegClasses.mxd
A total of four general vegetation community types were identified and mapped within the area: Balsam
Fir Forest (BF); Empetrum Heathlands (EH); Tuckamore (TU); and Wetlands (WE). The vegetation
community distribution within the vegetation study area is depicted in Figure 9.6 and the area of each is
summarized in Table 9.7.
Table 9.7
Area of Vegetation Cover on the Grassy Point Peninsula

Vegetative Cover Type
BF
EH
TU
WE
OW (Open Water)
TOTAL
Hectares
61.6
30.0
25.7
23.1
2.40
144.5
The BF unit is the most extensive community type covering 61.6 ha (43 percent) of the area. This
forested community type is dominated by balsam fir, with lesser amounts of black spruce (Picea
mariana) and larch. Common understory species include bunchberry (Cornus canadensis) and
twinflower (Linnea borealis). The extensive moss layer is dominated by red-stemmed feathermoss
(Pleurozium schreberi), plume moss (Ptilium crista-castrensis) and sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum
spp.).
EH covers approximately 21 percent of the area (30 ha) and is dominated by black crowberry and
sheep laurel. Stunted black spruce and larch are also common within this community type, as is
bakeapple (Rubus chamaemorus).
TU is the stunted (less than 4 m high) forest stands interspersed between the EH and BF community
types. TU covers approximately 26 ha (18 percent) of the study area. The closed canopy of the black
spruce and balsam fir precludes most understory species. However, when openings do occur, sheep
laurel, black crowberry and reindeer lichens (Cladina spp.) dominate.
The WE community type is largely scattered within the EH, forming small patches totalling
approximately 23 ha. Wetlands are described in detail in Section 9.3.2.
A total of 46 vascular plant species were observed within the Grassy Point Peninsula (Table 9.8). None
of the observed species are considered rare or uncommon.
Table 9.8
Vascular Plants Species Observed within the Grassy Point Peninsula
ACCDC Ranking
S3S4
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
Species name
Goodyear repens
Anaphalis margaritacea
Oclemena nemoralis
Campanula rotundifolia
Carex disperma
Chamaedaphne calyculata
Cochlearia tridactylites
Cornus canadensis
Cornus suecica
Deschampsia cespitosa
Eriophorum vaginatum subsp. spissum
Gaultheria hispidula
Kalmia angustifolia
Kalmia polifolia
Linnea borealis
Moneses uniflora
Prenanthes trifoliolata
Common Name
dwarf rattlesnake plantain
pearly everlasting
bog aster
harebell
softleaf sedge
leatherleaf
roundfruit scurvygrass
crackerberry
Sweedish bunchberry
tufted hairgrass
hare's tail
creeping snowberry
sheep laurel
bog laurel
twinflower
One-flowered wintergreen
tall rattlesnake root
Page 135

ACCDC Ranking
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S3S5
S4
S4S5
S4S5
S4S5
S4S5
S4S5
S4S5
S4S5
S4S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
SE
9.3.2
Species name
Photinia floribunda
Prunus virginiana subsp. virginiana
Rhododendron groenlandicum
Rubus chamaemorus
Rubus idaeus
Sanguisorba Canadensis subsp. canadensis
Trichophorum cespitosum
Vaccinium oxycoccos
Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Virburnum cassinoides
Listera cordata
Alnus rugosa
Athyrium filix-femina
Dryopteris intermedia
Empetrum nigrum
Euphrasia randii
Juniperus communis
Myrica gale
Osmunda cinnamomea
Abies balsamea
Drosera rotundifolia
Larix laricina
Maianthemum canadense subsp. canadense
Picea mariana
Sarracenia purpurea
Sisyrinchium montanum
Trientalis borealis
Carum carvi

Common Name
purple chokeberrry
chokecherry
Labrador tea
bakeapple
raspberry
Canada burnet
deergrass
mashberry
partridgeberry
northern wild raisin
heartleaf twayblade
speckled alder
northern ladyfern
evergreen woodfern
black crowberry
Rand's eyebright
common juniper
sweet gale
cinnamon fern
balsam fir
roundleaf sundew
larch
wild lily-of-the-valley
black spruce
pitcher plant
mountain blue-eyed grass
starflower
wild caraway
Wetlands
Acidic bogs comprise most of the wetland cover type on the Grassy Point Peninsula and occur in poorly
drained glacial depressions. Nutrient-poor bogs form the majority of the wetland area and are
dominated by Sphagnum mosses, which form a carpet of water-soaked moss around several openwater bog ponds with minor amounts of deergrass (Trichophorum cespitosum), bakeapple and rushes
(Juncus spp.). A small fen wetland was also identified and was dominated by rushes with a minor
amount of sedges (Carex spp.) and bog aster (Oclemena nemoralis). Total wetland (bog and fen
combined) area covers approximately 23 ha of the Grassy Point Peninsula. Vegetation around the edge
of these bogs is mostly black spruce and eastern larch due to their tolerance of poor drainage.
Wetland 1 is an open wetland of 4.5 m maximum depth with limited water flow and moderate
interspersion. The shores are primarily peat and sphagnum, and the pH is acidic. This pond is
permanent and the edge is comprised of grasses, rushes, sphagnum, leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne
calyculata), crowberry, pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea), Labrador tea (Rhododendron
groenlandicum), scrub spruce, and Eastern larch. The open water of this wetland is 2,625 m2. Yellow
pond lily (Nuphar lutea) covers 20 percent of the pond. This wetland could provide potential habitat for
frog species such as Wood Frog and Northern Leopard Frog. These species were not detected on fish
or wetland surveys and may be deterred from establishment due to the presence of water beetles
(Dytiscus spp.) which feed on tadpoles. This wetland provides potential habitat for waterfowl and
shorebird species such as Greater Yellowlegs (which was observed at this wetland). This wetland
provides foraging habitat for otter and potential habitat for muskrat (an abandoned muskrat mound was
observed). Otters could be feeding primarily on dragonfly nymphs and water beetles. There were no
butterflies or dragonflies observed during surveys of this wetland.
Page 136
Wetland 2 is a floating basin bog with moderate interspersion and some open water. It is a permanent
bog but water depth fluctuates with season. It has many grasses and rushes, sphagnum, Labrador tea,
leatherleaf, and crowberry. The water depth is less than 0.5 m and the water is acidic. The entire bog is
approximately 1,433 m2. Yellow pond lily was the only visible aquatic vegetation covering approximately
40 percent of the pond. This wetland could provide potential habitat for frog species such as Wood Frog
and Northern Leopard Frog. These species were not detected on fish or wetland surveys and may be
deterred from establishment due to the presence of water beetles. This wetland does not provide good
habitat for waterfowl or shorebirds due to its stagnant, shallow and unproductive qualities. This wetland
does not provide habitat for any mammals given its lack of fish and stagnant nature. There were no
butterflies or dragonflies observed during surveys of this wetland.
Wetland 3 has a total area of 745 m2 and is an acidic, open, shallow-water pond. There are no visible
stream inputs or outputs (water is stagnant). Interspersion is low. Water depth ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 m.
Yellow pond lily occurred in low abundance in this pond. This wetland could provide potential habitat for
frog species such as Wood Frog and Northern Leopard Frog. These species were not detected on fish
or wetland surveys and may be deterred from establishment due to the presence of water beetles. The
shallow and stagnant nature of this wetland would not provide much habitat for waterfowl or shorebird
species. It would not provide habitat for any mammal species. There were no butterflies or dragonflies
observed during surveys of this wetland.
Wetland 4 has a total area of 191 m2 and is an acidic, open, shallow-water pond. The maximum depth
is 0.5 m and interspersion is moderate. No inflowing or out flowing streams were present. Buckbean
(Menyanthes trifoliata) was the only visible vegetation in the waterbody, covering approximately 20
percent of the pond. This wetland could provide potential habitat for frog species such as Wood Frog
and Northern Leopard Frog. These species were not detected on fish or wetland surveys. This wetland
could provide habitat for Greater Yellowlegs and stopover habitat for waterfowl, but none were
observed during surveys. This wetland would not provide habitat for any mammal species. There were
no butterflies or dragonflies observed during surveys of this wetland.
Wetland 5 has a total area of 152 m2 with water depth ranging from approximately 1.0 to 1.5 m. No
visible streams enter or exit the waterbody. There is low interspersion. Yellow pond lily occurred
throughout, covering approximately 20 percent of the pond. This wetland could provide potential habitat
for frog species such as Wood Frog and Northern Leopard Frog. These species were not detected on
fish or wetland surveys. This wetland could provide habitat for Greater Yellowlegs and stopover habitat
for waterfowl, but none were observed during surveys. This wetland would not likely provide habitat for
any mammal species due to the lack of productivity, fish (for otter) and streams (beaver and muskrat).
There were no butterflies or dragonflies observed during surveys of this wetland.
Wetland 6 has a total area of 515 m2 with a maximum water depth of 0.5 m. No visible streams enter or
exit the waterbody. No vegetation was present in the pond. There is moderate interspersion. The
wetland consists mainly of organic muck. There is potential for frog habitat in this wetland but none
were observed. There is little potential for bird habitat in this wetland given the shallow nature and lack
of productivity. There is no potential for mammal habitat given the lack of fish or streams. There were
no butterflies or dragonflies observed during surveys of this wetland.
The ecological function of wetland habitat on the Grassy Point Peninsula by species is discussed in the
following two sections.
Page 137
9.3.3
Wildlife (Mammals)
As part of background research, data searches and literature reviews were conducted, officials from the
NLDEC were consulted, and all signs of wildlife were recorded during four site visits in May, August,
September and October, 2006 and in May 2007. From the above sources, there are indications that
moose (Alces alces), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), lynx (Lynx canadensis
subsolanus), northern river otter (Lutra canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), beaver (Castor canadensis),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), snowshoe hare (Lepus
americanus), ermine (Mustela erminea), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), deer mouse
(Peromyscus maniculatus), masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) may
all have seasonal or permanent occurrence within the Grassy Point peninsula.
9.3.3.1 Family Cervidae
Two species of Cervids (Deer Family) are known from insular Newfoundland, moose and woodland
caribou (Rangifer tarandus).
Moose primarily prefer coniferous forests, especially near wetlands and lakes with regenerating
coniferous trees. The summer diet consists mainly of aquatic vegetation, deciduous trees, shrubs and
grasses. The winter diet consists mainly of balsam fir and bark of several tree species. There is moose
habitat (both summer and winter) in the Grassy Point area, and sign in the form of droppings, browse
and trails around the ponds. The proposed Project is in Moose Management Area 44 (Bellevue). This
area had a 48.4 percent hunter success rate in 2005 to 2006 (Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador 2007), which is fairly low compared to many other areas. In 2006-2007, 250 licenses were
issued for the area.
Woodland caribou are not commonly found on the isthmus of the Avalon Peninsula and are not likely
using the Grassy Point area, given the lack of suitable habitat. The nearest suitable habitat for caribou
would be Management Area 64 (Middle Ridge).
9.3.3.2 Family Canidae
Since the first confirmed report in 1987, coyotes have been reported on virtually all parts of the island of
Newfoundland. With the absence of the Newfoundland wolf, which was extinct by 1930, the coyote is
now the dominant predator on the island. Coyotes are generalist in their diet, feeding on small
mammals, snowshoe hare, caribou calves (and sometimes adults), birds and eggs, insects,
amphibians, berries and other vegetable matter. From local trapping data, it is probable that coyote
density is low in the Grassy Point area (M. McGrath, pers. comm.).
Another member of the dog family is the red fox, a native to Newfoundland found across the island,
mostly in semi-open habitats. Its generalist diet consists of small mammals (such as voles, squirrels,
hares and mice), nesting waterfowl, berries, plants, young birds, eggs and trout. Scat evidence
confirmed that there are foxes using the area around Grassy Point, but population estimates are not
available due to insufficient data.
9.3.3.3 Family Felidae
Lynx is the only wild cat species from insular Newfoundland. It prefers old growth boreal forests, but the
lynx will live in other habitats with abundant prey. When snowshoe hare numbers are low, the lynxs
diet is supplemented by various rodents and birds, such as voles, squirrels, grouse and sparrows.
Page 138
Moose and caribou (usually calves) may account for a small portion of the lynxs diet, and they rarely
attack larger prey. From local trapping data, it is probable that lynx density is low in the Grassy Point
area (M. McGrath, pers. comm.). This is likely due to the small amount of mature, contiguous forested
habitat in the area.
9.3.3.4 Family Mustelidae
The North American river otter is known to occur within the Grassy Point area (five individuals were
sighted in 2006). It is a ubiquitous species across North America, inhabiting rivers, lakes, and coastal
areas. The Placentia Bay population is likely to spend a part of the year in the coastal waters and likely
move inland in spring (M. Pitcher, pers. comm.). Otters feed mainly on fish, insects, mollusks,
crustaceans, small mammals and waterfowl. It is thought that the otter family known from the Grassy
Point area was feeding on dragonfly nymphs (M. Pitcher, pers. comm.) and/or water beetles (Dytiscus
spp.) in the bog ponds, which were found in abundance during freshwater fish surveys of the Grassy
Point area. It is also likely that these otters will spend time foraging in the ocean on fish, lobster and
other shellfish (M. Pitcher pers. comm.). Fish bones were found on the coastal shoreline in May 2007,
which were likely remnants from otter feeding. Otters occupy very large home ranges (often tens of
kilometres), so it is likely that the Grassy Point area represents a small portion of their home range.
The American mink is also a member of the weasel family found throughout Newfoundland. It is a
carnivore like the otter and shares a similar diet, but may take a greater proportion of small mammals
and birds. It too may use the coastal shore at times. There was no evidence of mink found in the
Grassy Point area.
Ermine is a smaller weasel that prefers riparian woodlands, marshes, shrubby fencerows and open
areas adjacent to forests or shrub borders. They eat small mammals (e.g., mice, squirrels, rabbits and
hares), birds, insects, carrion and berries. No evidence was found of this secretive species but it is
possible that this species is using the Grassy Point area given the habitat types available.
9.3.3.5 Family Leporidae
Snowshoe hare is found throughout most of the boreal forest (Dolbeer and Clark 1975) including all of
insular Newfoundland. It is one of the most common mammals in Newfoundland and occurs in
coniferous, deciduous or mixed wood forests (Bider 1974; Wolfe et al. 1982; Banfield 1987). Hares
exhibit a 9- to 10-year population cycle (Boutin et al. 1995) in Canadian boreal forests. The range of
foods consumed is dependent on availability but can include a large variety of different plant species.
Evidence of browsing, rabbit trails and scat indicate that snowshoe hare use the Grassy Point area.
9.3.3.6 Order Insectivora
Masked shrew is the most widely distributed shrew in North America. Its diet consists of insects,
worms, snails and small mammals. They are important prey for raptors, owls, foxes and other
mammals. They are found in many moist areas in Newfoundland, and likely occur in the Grassy Point
area.
Little brown bat is ubiquitous in Newfoundland in areas where there are suitable roosting sites. In the
summer they roost in buildings or trees and in winter in caves, mineshafts and unoccupied buildings.
Their diet consists primarily of insects like moths, beetles, mosquitoes and flies. Given their generalist
habitat requirements and the habitat available in the Grassy Point area, it is likely that little brown bats
are using the area.
Page 139
9.3.3.7 Order Rodentia

Beaver occur throughout Newfoundland in rivers, streams, marshes, lakes and ponds. The beaver is
herbivorous and feeds mainly on bark and twigs but will also eat leaves, grasses, herbs, berries and
aquatic plants. There was no evidence of beaver found from surveys in the Grassy Point area.
Muskrat inhabit marshes, pond and lake edges and streams throughout Newfoundland. It feeds
primarily on the roots and stems of aquatic vegetation and sometimes on clams, frogs and fish. An
abandoned muskrat lodge was found in a wetland near a pond that had an otter family present, but no
muskrats were observed. It is possible that otters have taken over the lodge or have deterred
establishment of muskrat in the Grassy Point area. It is also possible that the muskrat(s) have fallen
prey to otters.
Red squirrel is known from all forested areas in insular Newfoundland. It is generally associated with
coniferous forest but also uses mixed wood and deciduous forests (Kemp and Keith 1970; Obbard
1987). It eats a variety of seeds, nuts, berries, fungi, insects, bird eggs and young, juvenile animals,
mice, carrion and tree bark (Klugh 1927). Red squirrels are important prey to many animals such as
marten (Martea Americana), hawks, owls, coyote, weasels, and lynx (Rusch and Reeder 1978;
Soutiere 1979). It is known from the Grassy Point area from observations of individuals and from
evidence of seed middens.
Deer mouse occurs in forests and grasslands throughout Newfoundland. Its diet consists of seeds,
fruits, fungi, insects and spiders. The Grassy Point area is within the distribution of deer mouse so the
species may be present.
The meadow vole is the only native small mammal in Newfoundland and is found across the island. It
inhabits wet meadows and open grassland near streams, lakes, ponds and swamps. Its diet consists of
herbaceous vegetation, grasses, sedges, fruits, seeds, grain and invertebrates. Its distribution includes
the Grassy Point area so it is possible that it is present.
9.3.4
Terrestrial Birds and Waterfowl
A total of four general vegetation community types were identified and mapped within the area. The
terrestrial bird habitat on the Grassy Point area is dominated by wetland bog, ericaceous heath, balsam
fir forest, stunted black spruce trees and grassy fields. Each of these habitats supports bird species of
different terrestrial ecosystem niches, including boreal forest songbirds, wetland, shrub and field
songbirds, habitat-generalist songbirds, woodpeckers, freshwater migratory birds and raptors. Surveys
were completed in May, August, and September 2006 and in May of 2007 to compile a species list of
terrestrial birds using the area. Surveys consisted of 28 point counts (10 minute counts of visual and
auditory observations) and a separate waterfowl survey in all wetland and open water habitats.
Terrestrial birds were also recorded during the waterfowl survey. Counts were conducted from 0430h to
1000h on May 22, 2006 around the proposed LNG infrastructure. Eight of these counts were within the
footprint of the Project and were within various habitat types: wetland plus balsam fir forest (1 count),
balsam fir forest (2 counts), balsam fir plus tuckamore (1 count), heath plus wetland (1 count), and
heath plus tuckamore (4 counts). These point counts gave an indicator of early breeding birds (Table
9.9)
Page 140
Table 9.9
Bird Point Count Totals for Grassy Point 2006 Survey

Latin Name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Actitis macularia
Larus delawarensis
Larus argentatus
Larus Marinus
Rissa tridactyla
Sterna hirundo
Empidonax flaviventris
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus corax
Poecile atricapilla
Regulus calendula
Catharus guttatus
Turdus migratorius
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica virens
Dendrioca striata
Seiurus noveboracensis
Wilsonia pusilla
Spizella passerina
Passerculus sandwichensis
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza giorgiana
Zonotrichia albicollis
Junco hyemalis
Common Name
Bald Eagle
Spotted Sandpiper
Ring-billed Gull
Herring Gull
Great Black-backed Gull
Black-legged Kittiwake
Commen Tern
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
American Crow
Common Raven
Black-capped Chickadee
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Hermit Thrush
American Robin
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
Wilson's Warbler
Chipping Sparrow
Savannah Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Slate-coloured Junco
AOU code
BAEA
SPSA
RBGU
HERG
GBBG
BLKI
COTE
YBFL
AMCR
CORA
BCCH
RCKI
HETH
AMRO
YWAR
YRWA
BTNW
BLPW
NOWA
WIWA
CHSP
SASP
FOSP
SWSP
WTSP
SCJU
#individual birds
observed or heard
5
2
2
81
2
6
6
2
4
3
1
5
2
13
2
8
2
1
2
1
1
16
9
9
11
10
Transect surveys in August supplemented this point count information by compiling data on bird
species that were likely breeding in the area. These surveys were performed with a Breeding Bird
Atlas method by attempting to observe fledgling birds, nests, territoriality, and breeding pairs.
Several of the terrestrial species in the Grassy Point area are residents, such as the chickadees,
woodpeckers, and the Corvid family (jays and crows). Some are Neotropical migrants, coming to
Newfoundland to breed from Central and Southern America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. These
species would include the warblers and thrushes. Other species like the Ruby-crowned Kinglet
(Regulus calendula) and the American Robin (Turdus migratorius) are shorter-distance migrants,
moving into slightly warmer climes in the United States for winter.
Many of the passerine species known from the area are coniferous forest habitat specialists in
Newfoundland. These include Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens),
Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica), Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator), Pine Siskin (Carduelis
pinus), Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia), Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), Blackpoll
Warbler (Dendrioca striata), Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata), Golden-crowned Kinglet
(Regulus satrapa), Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus), Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides
arcticus) and Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca). Other species specialize in wetland habitats and wetlandedge habitats and include: Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris), Northern Waterthrush
(Seiurus noveboracensis), Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum), Wilsons Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla),
Lincolns Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), and Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza giorgiana). Generalists
(species able to exploit a variety of terrestrial habitats) known from the Grassy Point area include
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Common Raven (Corvus corax), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapilla), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American
Page 141
Robin, White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) and Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) (Birds of
North America Online 2006).
The Grassy Point area has open-water wetlands, marshes, bogs and small ponds that may be used for
breeding or as stopover migration habitat for birds that rely on freshwater habitats. The Grassy Point
area is within the distribution range of freshwater-associated birds such as the American Black Duck
(Anas rubripes), Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca), Ring-necked
Duck (Aythya collaris), Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), Common Merganser (Mergus
merganser), Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator), American Bittern (Bitalurus pentiginosus),
Belted Kingfisher (Cenite acyon), Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), Spotted Sandpiper (Actitus
macularia), Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), and Wilsons Snipe (Gallinago delicate).
Breeding phenology varies among bird families and also among species (Table 9.10). Bald Eagle,
American Crow and Common Raven are three observed species that may begin breeding activities in
April. The remainder of the species mostly begins breeding activities in May and June. Months are
inclusive (e.g., May-July represents the breeding period of the beginning of May to the end of July).
Breeding Dates is defined as the time encompassing all breeding activities from courtship and nesting
to the rearing and fledging of young.
Table 9.10
Terrestrial Bird and Waterfowl Species List for Surveys Completed within Grassy
Point Area
Common Name
Greater Yellowlegs
Wilsons Snipe
Bald Eagle
Spotted Sandpiper
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Belted Kingfisher
Hairy Woodpecker
Black-backed Woodpecker
Blue Jay
American Crow
Common Raven
Black-capped Chickadee
Boreal Chickadee
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Cedar Waxwing
Blue-headed Vireo
Hermit Thrush
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
American Robin
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Palm Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
Wilson's Warbler
Chipping Sparrow
Savannah Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Latin Name
Tringa melanoleuca
Gallinago delicata
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Actitis macularia
Empidonax flaviventris
Ceryle alcyon
Picoides villosus
Picoides arcticus
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus corax
Poecile atricapilla
Poecile hudsonica
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Sitta canadensis
Bombycilla cedrorum
Vireo solitarius
Catharus guttatus
Catharus minimus
Catharus ustulatus
Turdus migratorius
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica virens
Dendrioca striata
Dendroica magnolia
Dendroica palmarum
Seiurus noveboracensis
Wilsonia pusilla
Spizella passerina
Passerculus sandwichensis
Passerella iliaca
AOU Code
GRYE
WISN
BAEA
SPSA
YBFL
BEKI
HAWO
BBWO
BLJA
AMCR
CORA
BCCH
BOCH
GCKI
RCKI
RBNU
CEDW
BHVI
HETH
GCTH
SWTH
AMRO
YWAR
YRWA
BTNW
BLPW
MAWA
PAWA
NOWA
WIWA
CHSP
SASP
FOSP
Breeding Dates*
June-July
May-July
April-August
May-August
June-July
June-August
May-July
May-July
May-July
April-July
March-June
May-August
May-August
May-July
May-July
May-August
June-September
June-July
May-August
June-July
June-July
May-September
June-July
May-July
June-July
June-July
June-July
June-July
June-July
June-July
May-August
June-August
May-July
Page 142

Common Name
Swamp Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco
Song Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
Pine Siskin
Pine Grosbeak
Latin Name
Melospiza giorgiana
Zonotrichia albicollis
Junco hyemalis
Melospiza melodia
Melospiza lincolnii
Carduelis pinus
Pinicola enucleator

AOU Code
SWSP
WTSP
DEJU
SOSP
LISP
PISI
PIGR
Breeding Dates*
May-July
May-August
May-August
May-August
June-July
May-July
May-July
* Breeding dates are approximate and adapted and calibrated from the Maritimes Breeding Bird Atlas Breeding Dates Chart.
The Grassy Point area has forested habitat, coastal habitat and open country marshes and fields that
may be used for breeding, foraging, or as stopover habitat for birds of prey. Grassy Point is within the
distribution range of raptors such as Bald Eagle, Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Northern Goshawk
(Accipter genitilis), Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Merlin (Falco columbarius), American
Kestrel (Falco sparverius), Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus)
and Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) (on migration), and owls such as Great-horned Owl (Bubo
virginianus), Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) and Northern Hawk Owl (Surnia ulula). Some of the
raptors and owls in Newfoundland are migratory, while the others are year-round residents. Northern
Harrier, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Rough-legged Hawk, Osprey, Merlin and Short-eared Owl are migratory
(although some Sharp-shinned Hawks, songbird predators, overwinter to exploit abundant food
resources at bird feeders).
Evidence of raptors and owls was sought in 2006. Only Merlin was confirmed as breeding in the Grassy
Point area, with a fledgling found during the August survey near the footprint of the proposed road.
Placentia Bay is one of the most prosperous Bald Eagle breeding areas in Newfoundland with an
estimated 50 to 60 breeding pairs, the majority of which are on the northern end of the Bay on
Merasheen and Long Islands. Some Bald Eagles overwinter in areas of open water and will scavenge
on carrion to supplement their winter diet. Bald Eagles are primarily piscivorous (fish-eating) birds that
scavenge much of their food (Godfrey 1986; Stalmaster 1987). When fish are scarce, they will also feed
on carrion or hunt birds like ducks. Nests are usually located at the tops of tall trees and are comprised
mostly of sticks. Nests are used year after year by pairs. Bald Eagles, which are listed as S4B by the
ACCDC, are known to nest in the area around Grassy Point. S4B represents a breeding species that is
usually widespread, fairly common, and apparently secure with many occurrences, but of longer-term
concern (ACCDC 2006). Bald Eagle is not on the NLESA or SARA lists. Known historical nesting sites
for Bald Eagles within a 5 km radius of the Project are shown below in Figure 9.7. Bald Eagles were
observed several times during surveys in 2006-2007, and it is believed that they are breeding in the
area of Grassy Point.
Ospreys are known from Placentia Bay and their diet consists almost entirely of fish. They may
compete for similar nesting sites and territories with other raptors like Bald Eagles, so they may not be
as abundant. Osprey occurs near rivers, lakes and bays throughout North America.
Page 143
Source: ACCDC 2006.
Figure 9.7
Historical locations of Bald Eagle Nests within 5 km of the Project (1989 to 2001)
Page 144
FRESHWATER AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
9.4
Freshwater Aquatic Environment
9.4.1
Freshwater Habitat and Vegetation
A description of the freshwater environment on the Grassy Point peninsula is derived from field surveys
conducted by Jacques Whitford in the fall of 2006 and spring of 2007 (Jacques Whitford 2007a). All
waterbodies within the potential footprint of the Project were surveyed including six small ponds and
four streams along the access road route. The location of the Project facilities and water bodies that
were assessed are illustrated in Figure 9.8.
The combined surface area of the six ponds potentially within the footprint is 5,661 m2. All ponds are
relatively small, shallow water bodies with no apparent inflow or outflow. All ponds are comprised of
muck substrate and aquatic vegetation consists mainly of yellow pond lily (Nuphar pitysepalum).
All streams to be crossed by the proposed access road are small, first-order streams. The stream
crossings occur well upstream (uppermost extent of the stream), resulting in many of the stream
crossings occurring at intermittent bog seepage. Only one stream crossing (S02) is characterized as
Type II salmonid habitat. All other crossing locations are either intermittent or Type IV salmonid habitat.
9.4.2
Freshwater Fauna
All ponds were sampled for fish presence in 2006 and 2007 by a combination of fishing methods,
including gillnets, angling, electrofishing and minnow traps. No fish were caught in any of the ponds; the
ponds are therefore deemed to be fishless. A summary of fishing effort is provided in Table 9.11. The
absence of fishing activity in any of the ponds within the Grassy Point area, as reported by the local
DFO Fishery Officer (D. Lambert, pers. comm.), supports the fish sampling results.
Table 9.11
Pond
P01
P02
P03
P04
P05
P06
Summary of Fishing Effort Conducted in Ponds in 2006 and 2007

Year Fished
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
Fishing Method
Gillnet
Gillnet
2 Minnow Traps
Angling
Gillnet
Gillnet
2 Minnow Traps
Angling
Gillnet
Gillnet
2 Minnow Traps
Angling
Electrofishing
Gillnet
2 Baited Minnow Traps
Angling
Gillnet
Gillnet
2 Minnow Traps
Angling
Not sampled
Gillnet
2 Minnow Traps
Angling
Fishing Time
4 hours
2 overnight sets
2 overnight sets
1.5 hours
3 hours
2 overnight sets
2 overnight sets
0.5 hours
3 hours
2 overnight sets
2 overnight sets
0.5 hours
30 minutes
2 overnight sets
2 overnight sets
0.5 hours
3 hours
2 overnight sets
2 overnight sets
0.5 hours
Not sampled
2 overnight sets
2 overnight sets
0.5 hours
Fish Caught
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 145
Stream habitat assessment and sampling (electrofishing) was conducted at four streams that will
intersect with the planned facilities access road route. Habitat assessments were conducted according
to methods described by Sooley et al. (1998). Each stream was assessed above, below and near the
planned crossing location, where access was possible. Electrofishing at the proposed stream crossings
confirmed fish presence at stream crossing S01 and S02 (Figure 9.8). Electrofishing at stream crossing
S03 and S04 resulted in no capture of fish; however, fish were observed rising to the surface in a pond
immediately downstream of stream crossing S03. This pond will be outside the Project footprint.
Results of the habitat assessment and fish surveys are summarized in Table 9.12.
Table 9.12
Stream
S01
S02
Stream Habitat and Fish Sampling Summary

Location
Habitat
Type
Flow
Substrate
Fish
Caught
Above
IV
Intermittent
Fines with some

cobble
Not fished
Crossing
IV
Intermittent
Fines with some

cobble
Not fished
6 Juvenile
brook
trout
(4-9 cm)
Below
IV
Steady
Fines with occasional

cobble/rubble
Above
II
Riffle
Unknown
Not fished
Crossing
II
Riffle
Gravel/Cobble
Fish
present
Below
II
Riffle
Cobble/Gravel
Fish
present
Above
Crossing
Below
IV
Steady
Organic with some

fines and little rubble
None
Above
IV
Intermittent
bog
pools/Steady
Crossing
IV
Steady
Below
II
Slow riffle
S03
S04
Mostly organic with

some fines and
occasional
rubble/cobble
Organic, muck, some
Rubble/cobble
Cobble, rubble,
gravel
Comment
Not fished, intermittent
with some still water
depressions
Not fished, intermittent
with some still water
depressions
25-m section fished
Section inaccessible, not
fished; suspected Type II
habitat
Fishing at and below
crossing caught 7 brook
trout (5.5-15 cm) and 1
three-spined stickleback
(4 cm)
No visible stream
No visible stream
25-m section fished (2006)
Fish observed in pond
immediately downstream
(2007)
None
Fished where adequate

depth/width encountered
Not fished
Not fished, Inaccessible
Not fished
Not fished, Inaccessible
Notes: Beak Habitat Types:

Type I - Good salmonid spawning and rearing habitat; often with some feeding pools for larger age classes;
Type II - Good salmonid rearing habitat with limited spawning, usually only in isolated gravel pockets; good feeding and holding areas for
larger fish in deeper pools, pockets or backwater eddies;
Type III - Poor rearing habitat with no spawning capabilities, used for migratory purposes; and
Type IV - Poor juvenile salmonid rearing habitat with no spawning capability, provides shelter and feeding habitat for larger, older salmonid
(especially brook trout).
Page 146
P0X
S0X
Waterbody locations
Stream locations
Road Infrastructure
Tank Layout
S04
S02
NOTES:
1. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING.
2. @ JACQUES WHITFORD, 2006.
S01
Labour's Cove Pond
S03
P04
P05
CLIENT:
Wild Cove Pond
PROJECT TITLE:
P03
GRASSY POINT LNG TRANSSHIPMENT

AND STORAGE TERMINAL PROJECT
P06
P02
DRAWING TITLE:
STREAM AND WATERBODY

SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 9.8
P01
Jacques Whitford
SCALE:
Tank Area
50 100
200
Metres
300
400
1:7000
DRAWN BY:
EDITED BY:
CP
CP
DRAWING No.:
MAP FILE:
1015846_06.MXD
DATE:
FEB 6, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
The potential for harmful, alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat within the streams
along the proposed access road will be avoided by the use of best management practices while
installing culverts at stream crossings. The guidelines for in-stream work, as outlined in Gosse et al.
(1998), will be followed, to ensure that all potential HADDs are mitigated appropriately. A buffer of 15 m
will be maintained between water bodies outside the Project footprint and Project activities.
Results of fish surveys conducted on ponds located within the Project footprint have confirmed the
absence of fish in all ponds within the footprint. Therefore, given that the potential in-stream HADD to
fish habitat will be mitigated, no freshwater HADD will occur as a result of the Project.
The following provides details on how HADD will be avoided when conducting stream crossings for the
Project:
a) In those locations where culverts are required, application will be made to NLDEC and DFO. The
culverts used will be sized to handle the 1-in-50 year return period flood and will be constructed in
accordance with the Environmental Guidelines for Culverts from the NLDEC, Water Resources
Division and DFO. The following measures will also be implemented:
i)
install culvert(s) in accordance with good engineering and environmental practices;
ii) unless otherwise indicated, all work should take place in dry conditions, either by the use of
cofferdams or by diverting the stream.
installation of cylindrical culverts shall be counter sunk only where necessary to protect fish
habitat such that the culvert bottom is one-third the diameter below the streambed in the
case of culverts less than 750 mm outside the diameter; for culverts greater than 750 mm
outside diameter, the culvert bottom shall be installed a minimum of 300 mm below the
streambed;
in multiple (gang) culvert installations, install one culvert at an elevation lower than the
others;
iii) ensure that the natural low flow regime of the watercourse is not altered;
iv) a culvert will not be installed before site specific information such as localized stream gradient,
fish habitat type and species present have been evaluated. Culverts are to be installed using the
guidelines provided in Gosse et al. (1998).
v) riprap outlets and inlets to prevent erosion of fill slopes. Foreslopes should not be steeper than
2 to 1.
vi) use culverts of sufficient length to extend a short distance beyond the toe of the fill material;
vii) roads will be aligned at right angles to watercourses, where practical.
viii) use backfilling material that is of a texture that shall support the culvert and limit seepage and
subsequent washing out;
ix) align culverts such that the original direction of stream flow is not significantly altered;
x) remove fill and construction debris from the culvert area to a location above the peak flow level
to prevent its entry into the stream;
Page 148
xi) confine construction activity to the immediate area of the culvert;

xii) fill material shall not be removed from streambeds or banks; except when installing a culvert
when removal of material is necessary to ensure a flat foundation;
xiii) minimize and restrict the use of heavy equipment in and near watercourses; where possible, an
excavator will be used from shore rather than a bulldozer in the watercourse. Where it is
absolutely necessary to do so, instream work will be performed by rubber tired vehicles only and
will only be done in compliance with approvals from NLDEC and DFO, respectively;
xiv) as required, cofferdams of non-erodible material shall be used to separate work areas from the
watercourse when excavating for culverts and footings; and
xv) cofferdams shall be removed upon completion of construction and the streambed returned as
closely as possible to its original condition.
b) When fording any watercourse, the Environmental Guidelines for Fording from NLDEC, Water
Resources Division 1992 will be applied in conjunction with the following:
i)
areas of spawning habitat will be avoided;
ii) crossings shall be restricted to a single location and crossings made at right angles to the
watercourse;
iii) equipment activity within the watercourse shall be minimized by limiting the number of
crossings;
iv) ensure that all equipment is mechanically sound to avoid leaks of oil, gasoline and hydraulic
fluids;
v) ensure that no servicing or washing of heavy equipment occurs adjacent to watercourses;
temporary fuelling, servicing or washing of equipment in areas other than the main fuel storage
site shall not be allowed within 30 m of a watercourse except within a refuelling site approved by
Anaconda, where conditions allow for containment of accidentally spilled fuels; remove from the
work area and properly dispose of all waste oil, filters, containers or other such debris in an
approved waste disposal site;
vi) stabilize the entire fording area using vegetation mats, corduroy roads or coarse material (125
mm diameter or greater) when such material is available from a reasonably close location within
the right-of-way, and the ford area is not natural bedrock, or is easily disturbed by fording; when
the substrate of the ford area is not subject to easy disturbance by fording, or coarse material is
not easily available within the right-of-way, fording under existing substrate conditions may
occur under the direction of the Project Manager;
vii) ensure that fording activities are halted during high flow periods;
viii) stabilize all bank sections which contain loose or erodible materials; if banks must be sloped for
stabilization, no material shall be deposited within the watercourse; sloping shall be
accomplished by back-blading and the material removed shall be deposited above the high
water mark of the watercourse;
ix) all fording activities will comply with the required approvals from the NLDEC and DFO;
Page 149
x) the flow of water must be diverted around the work area during the installation of a culvert to
ensure dry conditions are prevalent for construction activities; and
xi) culverts must be marked to indicate their position under the snow.
Fording will only be carried out where absolutely necessary and carried out as per the DFO Temporary
Fording Sites Factsheet.
Page 150
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
9.5
Marine Environment
Placentia Bay is a major embayment of the south coast of Newfoundland, bounded on the west by the
Burin Peninsula and on the east by the Avalon Peninsula. The Bay is approximately 105 km along the
eastern shore of Placentia Bay from Cape St. Marys to Come By Chance. The axis of the Bay lies in a
north easterly orientation, with its opening to the Atlantic Ocean at the southwest. The opening at the
mouth of the Bay is approximately 87 km wide with a depth at the middle of approximately 240 m.
Placentia Bay contains numerous islands, the largest of which are Merasheen Island, Long Island and
Red Island. The eastern half of the Bay, where the designated shipping lane is located, is characterized
by a well-defined channel, the Eastern Channel, which runs the length of the Bay. The centre of the
mouth of the Bay and most of the eastern shipping lane has a depth of 200 m, while much of the
remainder of the Bay is roughly 100 m deep (Figure 9.9). While the Bay does not have a sill across its
mouth, the bathymetry immediately outside the Bay rises up on its western side, squeezing the main
channel and restricting the exchange between the deeper water within the Bay and the outside ocean
water (Davidson et al. 1984). The western half of Placentia Bay is characterized by numerous islands,
banks, shoals and reefs and contains extremely productive shallow marine areas (Catto et al. 1999).
Placentia Bay is considered an environmentally important area, hosting an abundance of sea life and a
diverse marine ecosystem. However, there are no known species endemic to Placentia Bay (Catto et
al. 1999). It is characteristically pack ice-free and has water temperatures that are, on average, warmer
than the north and east coasts of Newfoundland. The Oceans Program Division, DFO has identified
Placentia Bay as a priority area in Newfoundland and Labrador. Placentia Bay is a feeding ground for
many species of fish, seabirds, whales and seals. As water warms over the summer, migrant species
such as sunfish and sharks occur at the head of Placentia Bay (Coastal Resource Inventory website
accessed June 2007). Leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are also known to occur at the
mouth of the Bay.
Grassy Point is located on the eastern side of Come By Chance Bay, at the head of Placentia Bay. The
headland of Grassy Point is approximately 1,900 m due east of the Placentia Bay traffic lane. The water
depth near the potential Grassy Point terminal site drops to approximately 10 m within 100 m of the
shore, dropping to 30 m within 400 m of the shore and to 125 m or greater towards the centre of the
Come By Chance shipping lane. Depths in Come By Chance Bay vary from approximately 125 m at the
entrance to 5.5 m at the head.
There are several estuaries at the head of Placentia Bay that are of particular environmental
importance because they serve as habitat for juvenile fish and shellfish, migratory birds and
anadromous fish. Come By Chance Gut, Big Pond near Arnolds Cove and Swift Current estuary are
such places. Estuarine habitats are considered more sensitive to disturbance due to unique species
present among saltmarsh and seagrass beds. This area of the Bay is considered moderately
productive, but has low diversity, compared to other portions of Placentia Bay (Catto et al. 1999). It is
relatively sheltered from surf and ice erosion, which allows the shoreline to develop a zonation of
perennial species.
Page 151
Figure 9.9
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Aggregations of plankton and krill and schooling fish like capelin (Mallotus villosus) and herring (Clupea
harengus) in Placentia Bay attract several species of marine mammals. As a result, whales and
dolphins are most abundant in Placentia Bay between April and July (NTL TERMPOL Review
Committee 1999). Marine mammals are generally opportunistic feeders, so they likely move around the
Bay in search of food. However, there are five areas within Placentia Bay that are considered hotspots
for the congregation of marine mammals and pelagic fish, where abundance is relatively higher than
other areas of the Bay. These hotspots are near Lamaline/St. Lawrence, Marystown, Swift Current and
north of Merasheen Island, Placentia and Cape St. Marys (Sjare et al. 2003).
Six species of baleen whales, four toothed whales, three species of seals and one marine reptile have
been reported within Placentia Bay (Table 9.13). Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) are the only resident
marine mammal species. River otters are also resident but are presented under the terrestrial
environment (Section 9.3.3).
Table 9.13
Marine Mammals Observations in Placentia Bay
Scientific Name
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Balaenoptera borealis
Balaenoptera musculus
Balaenoptera physalus
Globicephala malaena
Megaptera novaeangliae
Delphinus delphis
Lagenorhynchus acutus
Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Phocoena phocoena
Halichoerus grypus
Phoca groenlandica
Phoca vitulina
Common Name
Baleen Whales
Minke Whale
Sei Whale
Blue Whale
Fin Whale
Long-Finned Pilot Whale
Humpback Whale
Toothed Whales
Common Dolphin
Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin
White-Beaked Dolphin
Harbour Porpoise
Seals
Grey Seal
Harp Seal
Harbour Seal
Observation Frequency and Period

Common-Spring, Summer and Fall
Common-Summer
Rare-Winter and Spring
Common-Spring, Summer and Fall
Occasional-Summer
Common-Summer and Fall
Rare-Summer
Occasional-Summer
Occasional-Summer
Unknown
Common-Spring
Occasional Spring
Common-Annual
Source: NTL TERMPOL Review Committee 1999.
The summary of the existing conditions for marine fish habitat near Grassy Point was primarily based
on a marine fish habitat survey conducted within the area of the proposed marine terminal in
September 2006 (Jacques Whitford 2007b). The survey was conducted by a diver videotaping
transects and a marine biologist reviewing the video and describing habitat by classification of substrate
types, vegetation and biota. A literature search was also conducted for existing information on fish and
fish habitat in the area. Habitat information was also obtained from previous environmental assessment
reports from the area (Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal (NTT) 1996; Ledrew, Fudge and
Associates 1990). Fish species data and information for the head of Placentia Bay were obtained from
personal communications and previous environmental assessment reports, but the majority of the data
and information on fish came from recent scientific publications and databases relevant to Placentia
Bay. The DFO websites for literature searches (http://inter01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/waves2/index.html), the
Coastal Resource Inventory databases (http://geoportal.gc.ca/index_en.html) and the Smart Bay
website (http://www.smartbay.ca/) were invaluable sources of relevant fish and fish habitat information.
Sections 9.5.1 to 9.5.5 were adapted from a commissioned report by AMEC (2007).
Page 153
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
9.5.1
Water Temperature and Salinity
Temperature and salinity data were extracted from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO)
hydrographic database (BIO 2007). This database is a collection of temperature and salinity
measurements for the area roughly defined by 35 to 80 N and 42 to 100 W. The data come from a
variety of sources including hydrographic bottles, CTD casts, spatially and temporally averaged Batfish
tows and expendable digital or mechanical bathythermographs. Near real-time data in the form of
IGOSS (Integrated Global Ocean Services System) Bathy or Tesac messages (codes for
oceanographic data). The database currently consists of approximately 782,000 profiles and 35 million
individual observations from 1910 to the present.
The water property data for Come By Chance Bay were sparse therefore a larger area was required to
obtain an annual data set. The geographic limits used for this study are in the northern part of Placentia
Bay; 47.74N to 47.83N, and 54.4W to 53.88W (Figure 9.10). The data from a small region
surrounding the Come By Chance Bay were used to compare with the larger region, shown as the red
square in Figure 9.10). Approximately 3,060 measurements were available; these were averaged by
depth with bin depth of 5 m for 0 to 30 m and 25 m from 50 to 200 m. The results are presented in
Figures 9.11 to 9.16 and a comparison of the northern Placentia Bay and the Come By Chance Bay
data are presented in Figure 9.17. Locations of measurements and monthly temperature and salinity
statistics are provided in AMEC (2007).
Northern Placentia Bay shows a marked seasonal cycle with a strong stratification during the summer,
with relatively warm fresh water standing above colder more saline waters, with a more mixed system
in fall and an almost completely mixed water column during the winter and spring. The summer period
also shows a marked intrusion of deep salty water present from August through October. There are
insufficient data to determine if it was also present in July.
During winter (January to April) the water column has a generally uniform average temperature of
0.5C, with a range of -1.7 to 4C. The average salinity ranges (in practical salinity units) from 31.5 near
surface 32.6 at the saline bottom layer.
In May, the surface layer begins to warm, becoming less salty and forms a mixed layer in the upper
20 m with an average temperature and salinity of 2.1C and 31.8, respectively. In June, the surface
layer deepens to 50 to 60 m, with an average temperature and salinity of 5.1C and 31.6, respectively.
During summer (July to October), there is a three-layer system present with: warm and fresh water in
the upper 30 m with an average temperature and salinity of 10.3C and 31.6 psu, respectively; an
intermediate water between 30 and 50 m with an average temperature and salinity of 3.9C and 32.2,
respectively; and colder saltier bottom water for the bottom 50 m of the water column with an average
temperature and salinity of 0.1C and 32.7, respectively.
In the fall (November to December), the upper 30 m layer cools and the water column becomes a twolayer system. The upper 50 m has an average temperature and salinity of 5.4C and 31.4, respectively
and a bottom layer has an average temperature and salinity of 1.2C and 32.4, respectively.
Density data from a small region surrounding the Come By Chance Bay were extracted and compared
to the data extracted for the northern part of Placentia Bay. The density values and seasonal cycle are
similar; however, between 25 and 50 m the Come By Chance Bay water is slightly denser.
Page 154
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
50'
Latitude (oN)
40'
30'
20'
10'
47oN
55oW
45'
30'
15'
54oW
Longitude ( W)
Legend: Blue Square Placentia Bay North (47.7-47.8N, 54.4-53.9W)
Red Square Come By Chance Bay (47.7-47.8N, 54.1-54W)
Figure 9.10
Regions of Extracted Data from the BIO Database

o
-2
0
Temperature ( C)
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
40
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
60
Depth (m)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Source: BIO 2007.
Figure 9.11
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Temperature
Page 155
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
30
0
30.25 30.5 30.75
Salinity (psu)
31.25 31.5 31.75
32
32.25 32.5 32.75
33
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
20
40
60
80
Depth (m)
31
100
120
140
160
180
200
Source: BIO 2007.
Figure 9.12
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Salinity
22.5
0
23
23.5
24
Density (sigmat)
24.5
25
25.5
26
26.5
20
40
Jan
Feb
60
Mar
Apr
Depth (m)
80
May
100
Jun
Jul
120
Aug
Sep
140
Oct
Nov
160
Dec
180
200
Source: BIO 2007.
Figure 9.13
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Density
Page 156
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Northern Placentia Bay Monthly Temperature

(47.74-47.83 oN, 54.06-53.88 oW)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Depth (m)
16
25
14
50
12
75
10
100
125
4
150
2
175
0
200
Temperature
o
C
Source: BIO 2007.
Figure 9.14
Placentia
Bay North
(47.7 Bay
to 47.8N,
54.4Salinity
to 53.9W) Water Temperature
Northern
Placentia
Monthly
(47.74-47.83 oN, 54.06-53.88 oW)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
32.5
25
50
32
Depth (m)
75
100
31.5
125
31
150
175
30.5
200
Salinity
psu
Source: BIO 2007.
Figure 9.15
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Salinity
Page 157
Northern Placentia Bay Monthly Density

(47.74-47.83 oN, 54.06-53.88 oW)
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
26
25
25.5
50
25
Depth (m)
75
100
24.5
125
24
150
23.5
175
23
200
Density
sigmat
Source: BIO 2007.
Figure 9.16
Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Water Density
26.5
26
Density (sigmat)
25.5
25
24.5
10-15m
15-20m
20-25m
25-30m
30-50m
50-75m
75-100
24
23.5
23
22.5
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Month
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Source: BIO 2007.
Figure 9.17
Density Comparison Placentia Bay North (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.4 to 53.9W) Solid Line
and Come By Chance Bay (47.7 to 47.8N, 54.1 to 54W) Dotted Line
Page 158
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
9.5.2
Waves
Directional statistics of the wave climate were derived from MSC50, a hindcast of hourly data provided
by Meteorological Services Canada (Swail et al., 2006). The data covers the years 1954 to 2005,
inclusive. Wave statistics account for ice cover and include only data from periods when the area is not
iced over.
Two MSC50 nodes were chosen as representative of the wave climate for Placentia Bay: #11761 in
the centre of the Bay (47.1 oN, 54.5 oW, Depth 188.9m), and #12549 in the Eastern Channel, near Long
Island (47.5 oN 54 oW, Depth 268.0m) (Figure 9.18).
In the centre of the Bay, the predominant wave direction year-round is from the southwest
approximately 46 percent of the time (AMEC 2007). Maximum wave heights occur from January to
March, reaching up to 10.6 m. Wave heights are at a minimum from April to June, where maximum
heights can be on the order of 5 to 6 m. In all months, the majority of waves are between 1 and 2 m in
height.
The node in the Eastern Channel of Placentia Bay (#12549) is more sheltered and reflective of the
conditions at Grassy Point. Waves come roughly equally from the south, southwest and west (Figure
9.19 and 9.20). Wave heights at Grassy Point are significantly lower than in central Placentia Bay
(AMEC 2007). Maximum wave heights for the year occur in March, where they can reach up to just
2.6 m. Roughly 90 percent of waves year-round are less than 1 m in height.
The MSC50 dataset extremal analysis results are available from Environment Canada's Atlantic
Climate Centre (Environment Canada, 2008) as described in Section 9.2.2. The results for maximum
wave height range from about 21 m at the mouth of Placentia Bay, between 15 m and 18 m in middle of
the Bay and down to about 6 m in the Grassy Point area. The results for significant wave height range
from about 12 m at the mouth of the Bay, between 8 m and 10 m in the Bay and down to about 4 m in
the Grassy Point area.
The 50 year return period of maximum wave height using the same criteria ranges from about 21 m at
the mouth of the Bay, between 12 m and 18 m in middle of the Bay and down to about 3 m in the
Grassy Point area. The 50 year return period of significant wave height using the same criteria ranges
from about 12 m at the mouth of the Bay, between 6 m and 10 m in middle of the Bay and down to
about 4 m in the Grassy Point area.
Page 159
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Figure 9.18
Location of MSC50 Nodes Used to Derive Wave Climate Statistics
Figure 9.19
Yearly Wave Rose for the Eastern Channel of Placentia Bay
Page 160
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Figure 9.20
Monthly Wave Roses for the Eastern Channel of Placentia Bay
Page 161
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
9.5.3
Currents
The current statistics for northern Placentia Bay and Come By Chance Bay were extracted from the
BIO Ocean Data Inventory (ODI) database (BIO 2007). The data archive includes approximately 5,800
current metre and acoustic Doppler time series, for the area roughly defined as the north Atlantic and
Arctic from 30 to 82N from 1960 to present. The locations of the measurements are presented in
Figure 9.21 and summary of the data in Tables 9.14 to 9.18.
52'
Latitude (oN)
14
15
13
48'
12
8,9,10,11
6
5
16
Grassy Point
47 N
44.00'
2
1
40'
36'
15'
10'
5'
o
54oW
55'
Longitude ( W)
Figure 9.21
Placentia Bay North and Come Chance Bay Current Measurement Locations
Page 162
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Table 9.14
Summary of Current Measurements in Northern Placentia Bay (BIO, 2007)
Location in Come By
Chance Bay
Station
No.
Depth
(m)
Starting Date
No. of
Days
Middle
July, 14, 1968
15
Outside
July, 14, 1968
28
Head, Middle and

Outside (47.43-47.82oN,
54.0854oW )
5,7,10,
11,13
2,3,6,8,
12
5, 6, 20,
21
5, 6, 30,
31
January, 8, 1972
27
July, 12, 1972
23
Head
14,15
September, 27, 1988
32
1,16
16,35,49,
82
September, 27, 1988
32
16
25, 63
February, 19, 1988
39
Bread and Cheese

Islands
Bread and Cheese
Islands
Speed (cm/s)
Max: 23.1
Mean: 1.3
Max: 36.2
Mean: 9.2
Max: 30.4
Mean: 2.1
Max: 27.8
Mean: 0.96
Max: 49.5
Mean: 3.7
Max: 52
Mean: 3.1
Max: 29.4
Mean: 3.7
Direction
Northeast
Southwest
South
Southwest
West
South
Northwest
Source: BIO 2007.
Table 9.15
Depth
(m)
3
5
6
7
20
21
30
31
Summary of Current Speed and Direction Inside Come By Chance Bay (Stations 8
to 15)
Station No.
Max Speed (cm/s)
Mean Speed (cm/s)
9
8,10,11,12,13
8,12,13
14,15
13
10,11
8
8,12
23.1
27.8
23.1
45.9
6.7
22.1
13.4
7.7
1.3
0.9
0.4
3.7
0.0
1.2
0.3
0.1
Mean Degree
Direction
43
190
164
273
246
249
207
214
Mean Cardinal Direction

Northeast
South
South, Southeast
West
West Southwest
West
South, Southwest
Southwest
Source: BIO 2007.
Table 9.16
Depth
(m)
3
5
6
16
20
21
25
30
31
35
49
63
82
Summary of Current Speed and Direction Outside Come By Chance Bay (Stations
1 to 7, 16)
Station No.
Max Speed (cm/s)
Mean Speed (cm/s)
4
2,3,5,6
2,3,5,6,7
16
5,7
5,7
16
2,3,6
2,3,6
1
16
16
1
36.2
52.5
45.3
44.5
20.1
18.5
29.4
30.4
27.8
32.4
52.0
17.9
12.2
9.2
1.7
3.0
5.0
2.5
2.2
4.4
2.2
1.5
2.4
4.4
3.1
0.8
Mean Degree
Direction
200
119
141
184
172
163
319
288
188
201
62
273
283

South, Southwest
East Southeast
Southeast
South
South
South, Southeast
Northwest
West Northwest
South
South, Southwest
East Northeast
West
West Northwest
Source: BIO 2007.
Page 163
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Table 9.17
Summary of Current Speed and Direction in Winter and Summer in Come By

Chance Bay (Stations 8 To 15)
Depth (m) Max Speed (cm/s)

Winter: January to March
5-6
15.4
20-21
14.1
Summer: July to October
3-7
21.0
30-31
9.6
Mean Speed (cm/s)
Mean Degree Direction
0.9
0.9
139
249
Southeast
West Southwest
1.9
0.1
229
212
Southwest
South, Southwest
Source: BIO 2007.
Table 9.18
Summary of Current Speed and Direction in Winter and Summer Outside Come By
Chance Bay (Stations 1 to 7, 16)
Depth (m)
Max Speed (cm/s)
Winter: January to March
5-6
22.7
20-25
19.1
63
15.8
Summer: July to October
3-6
28.5
16
30.7
30-31
17.4
35
22.8
49
29.4
82
8.7
Mean Speed (cm/s)
Mean Degree Direction
3.8
2.8
3.1
140
200
273
Southeast
South, Southwest
West
3.0
5.0
1.8
2.4
4.4
0.8
140
184
238
201
62
283
Southeast
South
West Southwest
South, Southwest
East Northeast
West Northwest
Source: BIO 2007.
The available data were divided into the region inside (Table 9.15) and outside (Table 9.16) the Come
By Chance Bay and by season (Tables 9.17 and 9.18). Mean speeds are generally weak inside the Bay
and range from 0.4 to 3.7 cm/s at the surface (less than approximately 10 m) and from 0.1 to 1.2 cm/s
at sub-surface (approximately 20 to 40 m). Outside the Bay, mean current speeds are slightly greater,
and range from 1.7 to 9.2 cm/s at the surface (less than approximately 20 m) and from 1.5 to 4.4 cm/s
at sub-surface (approximately 20 to 65 m) and 0.8 cm/s near bottom.
The currents outside the Bay reach a maximum of 52.5 cm/s at 5 m at station 3 and a mean speed of
3.2 cm/s. Outside the Bay, the mean direction near the surface (less than approximately 20 m) is south,
southwest to east-southeast. Below 25 m, it is highly variable. Inside the Bay there is a maximum
current speed of 49.5 cm/s at 7 m at station 15; this station had unusually high current speeds and
north westerly current direction, the common maximum current speed is between 20 and 30 cm/s. The
mean speed inside Come By Chance Bay is 1 cm/s with a mean direction below 7 m between west and
south, southwest.
In winter, the near surface (5 to 6 m) mean current direction is south easterly and at 20 to 25 m, it is
south westerly. In summer; the near surface (less than approximately 10 m) currents inside the Bay are
south westerly, while outside the Bay it is south easterly, and at 30 m, it is south westerly. In winter and
summer, the current speed is generally greater outside the Bay.
Page 164
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
9.5.4
Tides
Tides at Come By Chance Bay are semi-diurnal with two highs and lows every 24 to 25 hours.
According to the Canadian Hydrographic Services tide Tables (2007), the mean tide range at Come By
Chance (station #815) is 1.2 m and the large tide range is 2.6 m.
Harmonic analysis of the current metre records for winter and summer 1988 (outside Come By Chance
Bay) indicate that tidal currents are weak, and they are stronger in winter than summer (Hodgins and
Niwinski 1989). The tide accounts for approximately 12 percent of the measured variance in the near
surface currents; the maximum amplitudes were in the order of 3 to 5 cm/s.
An example of a tidal prediction ellipse, just outside Come By Chance Bay, processed with the WebTide
model (Dupond et al. 2002) is illustrated in Figure 9.22.
-3
x 10
Webtide Prediction at 47.76 oN and 54.06 oW
North Velocity (m/s)
-1
-2
-3
-3
-2
-1
East Velocity (m/s)
Figure 9.22
9.5.5
3
-3
x 10
WebTide Prediction for 2007 Near Come By Chance Bay
Ice and Iceberg Conditions
The characteristics of the ice climate for Placentia Bay have been generated based on data compiled
by the Canadian Ice Service (2007) for the years 1971 to 2000. Davidson (1985) also completed a
comprehensive ice climatology study of Newfoundland bays that includes pack ice and landfast ice
(local ice formation) in Placentia Bay.
The waters of Placentia Bay remain generally unfrozen over the year (Figure 9.23). This point is
illustrated further in Figure 9.24, where the 30-year median of ice concentration (area of water surface
covered by ice as a fraction of the whole area, from 1/10 to 10/10) for Placentia Bay is zero for the
Page 165
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
period of the greatest ice extent for Eastern Canada. No icebergs have been cited at the head of
Placentia Bay, north of 47.67 oN over the 40 year record from the International Ice Patrol (2007) and
are highly unlikely to occur (Figure 9.25). Icebergs are more likely to occur near the mouth of the Bay
and most years there are none that enter the Bay.
Placentia Bay
Source: Canadian Ice Service 2007.
Figure 9.23
Freeze-Up Dates for Eastern Canadian Waters
Page 166
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Source: (Canadian Ice Service, 2007).
Figure 9.24
30-Year Median Ice Concentration in Eastern Canadian Waters
Source: International Ice Patrol, 2007.
Figure 9.25
Iceberg Sightings From 1960-2003
Page 167
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Although Placentia Bay generally remains ice-free for much of the year, ice has been observed within
the Bay. Pack ice can enter the Bay from the southeast from mid-February to May under the influence
of strong easterly winds. Landfast ice is only a few centimetres thick and generally occurs in sheltered
bays and harbours in Placentia Bay from mid-February to mid-March, but only for a couple of weeks at
the head of the Bay (Davidson 1985). At the head of the Bay (north of 47.75N) the earliest arrival of
landfast ice is March 19th and for pack ice is February 26th, compared with February 12th and 19th for the
remainder of Placentia Bay. The latest departure of pack ice at the head of the Bay and in fact, the
whole Bay, is May 14th (Davidson 1985). The most severe pack ice events in Placentia Bay occurred in
1961 and 1987. In 1961, the pack ice arrived in March and persisted until May, moving north of 47.5N.
In 1987, the Bay was filled from the mouth to the head and the pack contained concentrations of 3/10 to
9/10 (Davidson 1985). These events are considered rare and may be expected on the order of once
every 25 to 30 years.
Canadian Ice Service (2007) reports the maximum percentage of sea ice in Placentia Bay is 1 to 15
percent, which occurs most often from the middle of February to the middle of April (Figure 9.26). When
sea ice is present, the predominant kinds of ice include new ice (February), grey ice (March), greywhite ice (February to March), first-year ice (March to April) and fast ice (end of March). The local
temperature conditions of the east coast of Newfoundland cannot create the thickness of ice that is
usually encountered in the area.
Source: Canadian Ice Service, 2007.
Figure 9.26
Year Frequency of Presence of Sea Ice in Eastern Canadian Waters
Page 168
MARINE HABITAT
9.6
Marine Habitat
9.6.1
Water Quality
The Newfoundland Transshipment EA summarized water quality data for Come By Chance Bay and
noted that chlorophyll levels were higher in deeper areas of the Bay, indicating higher phytoplankton
biomass than near the coastline (NTT 1996). The EA also noted low mean levels of turbidity (0.7 NTU)
within the Bay, but with considerable variation. The maximum turbidity reported occurred during
December, at 18 NTU (Swiss and Osbourne 1976). Turbidity can be expected to fluctuate in nearshore
waters as a result of storm-induced resuspension of sediments. The range of means reported for total
suspended sediment (TSS) measured within Come By Chance Bay was 23.6 to 30.1 mg/L (NTT 1996).
A spring plankton bloom raises the level of TSS within the water column as phytoplankton densities
increase and levels of dissolved oxygen decrease. The spring bloom can vary from year to year in
duration and intensity, but usually occurs between March and June. Increased day length during the
spring warms the surface waters to depths of 10 to 20 m. The thermocline, combined with intense
grazing by zooplankton and depletion of nutrient supply results in a mid-summer low in primary
production. During sampling in Come By Chance Bay over two years, concentrations of chlorophyll a
ranged from 0.504 to 2.8 g/L, chlorophyll b from 8.72 to 0.12 g/L and carotene from 0.479 to
0.14 g/L, which is comparable to ranges in other bays in Newfoundland (TERMPOL Review
Committee1999).
Phytoplankton (e.g., diatoms) is the primary food source for most copepods, the dominant zooplankton
species in these waters. Copepods are a critical link in the marine food web, as they are the principal
prey of pelagic fish and fish with pelagic life stages. Zooplankton populations decline in the summer as
they are grazed by carnivorous zooplankton, fish, seabirds and marine mammals. A fall plankton bloom
is less pronounced and instead of diatoms, the bloom is usually dominated by flagellates and
dinoflagellates.
Swiss and Osbourne (1976) found hydrocarbons in seawater samples from Come By Chance Bay to
range from 0.6 to 5.5 ppb in the early 1970s. Since then, monitoring within Come By Chance Bay has
reported total hydrocarbon levels to range from below analytical detection limits to 10,500 ppb (NTT
1996). Hydrocarbons levels in the upper end of this range are considered incidental, infrequent and
likely due to spills.
9.6.2
Sediment Quality
Marine sediments can contain and accumulate chemicals from the overlying water column if the
substrates contain fines and organics. Metals accumulate in fine grained sediments because the metals
bind to organic particles in clay and silt (Loring 1988). Sediments with low organic content are generally
not anoxic and toxic sulphide compounds are not formed. Metal concentrations tend to be lower in sand
and gravel substrates, which is characteristic of the smallest surficial sediments near Grassy Point.
Baseline sediment samples of similar sized substrates in water depths between approximately 5 and 10
m north of Whiffen Head indicate metal concentrations are generally well within normal range for
marine sediments in the area and below Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines (NTT 1996). However,
concentrations of copper, arsenic and nickel at one nearshore station were believed to be influenced by
a land-based source of metals and exceeded the threshold effects level in 1996 (TEL). Concentrations
above the TEL represent the point at which effects on aquatic life are occasionally observed.
Page 169
MARINE HABITAT
There is no indication of sediment contamination within the benthic community in the area (NTT 1996).
Opportunistic or pollution tolerant species of polychaetes, for example, do not dominate the benthic
community. The benthic invertebrate community in the area can be highly variable in diversity and
abundance over short distances. Species such as the bivalve Crenella glandula and polychaetes,
Eteone longa, Harmothoe fragilis, Lumbrineris latreilli, Phyllodoce mucosa, Prionspio steenstrupi and
Pholoe minuta may be abundant or absent.
9.6.3
Shoreline
Terrain in the Grassy Point area is characterized by bedrock-controlled ridge and valley topography that
rises to a high of approximately 36 m above sea level (masl) on the western shore of the Grassy Point
peninsula and slopes gently to moderately south eastward towards the waters of Arnolds Cove.
Bedrock ridges and outcrops are a common feature of the area and often divide the low lying wetland
areas. Vegetation on the peninsula is intermixed with discontinuous balsam fir forest separated by
open heathland, with bog and fen wetlands in low lying areas. There is seasonal ground water runoff
along the western shoreline of the Grassy Point peninsula, but there are no continuous streams along
the shoreline.
The marine habitat along the western shore of the Grassy Point peninsula is typical of Come By
Chance Bay. The intertidal habitat is rocky and moderately exposed, with headlands extending into the
shallow subtidal. Between the headlands are pocket gravel/cobble beaches characteristic of the
adjacent subtidal substrate (Figure 9.27).
The headlands extend into the water several metres and are covered primarily with Fucus and
filamentous brown algae. Seaward of the headlands, the substrate is composed of bedrock outcrop and
boulders. Algal species present on these outcrops include Irish moss (Chondrus crispus), tubed weeds
(Polysiphonia spp.), banded weeds (Ceramium spp.), coral weed (Corallina officinalis), cord weed
(Chorda sp.), edible kelp (Alaria esculenta) and rockweed (Fucus vesiculosus). Dominant faunal
species off these headlands are the common periwinkle (Littorina littorea), frilled anemone (Metridium
senile), horse mussels (Modiolus modiolus), blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), sea urchins
(Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) and cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus).
Page 170
MARINE HABITAT
The shoreline at the proposed location of the marine jetties is bedrock cliff. Figure 9.27 is a photograph
taken from Grassy Point, northward.
Figure 9.27
Shoreline from Grassy Point Looking North
Page 171
MARINE HABITAT
There is very little vegetation on either of these headlands(Figure 9.28) where the jetties would
intersect, approximately 5 m above high tide.
Figure 9.28
Grassy Point Headland
Page 172
MARINE HABITAT
North of Grassy Point (Figure 9.29), the backshore is bedrock cliff, but in this case there is a small
boulder/bedrock beach in the intertidal zone. The intertidal zone in this area is the typical dense
rockweed, periwinkle and mussel community.
Figure 9.29
Shoreline North of Grassy Point
Page 173
MARINE HABITAT
The shoreline south of Grassy Point is gravel/cobble pocket beach (Figure 9.30). The beach consists
of approximately 47 m of gravel/cobble substrate along the shoreline, before the substrate becomes a
mix of boulder and bedrock for the remaining approximately 22 m. Including the backshore, the beach
is 13 to 15 m deep along its entire length.
Figure 9.30
Shoreline South of Grassy Point
The intertidal zone of the pocket cobble/gravel beach is relatively void of vegetation, apart from
occasional smooth cord weed (Chorda filum). Characteristic fauna of these rocky shallow subtidal
habitats include amphipods (e.g., Hylae nilssoni and Gamarus accidentalis), isopods (Jaera marina),
periwinkles, barnacles (Balanus spp.), sea urchins, mussels and sea stars (Asterias vulgaris).
Page 174
MARINE HABITAT
The shoreline at the proposed tug basin location is also in the area of a pocket beach and bedrock cliff.
This beach is approximately 100 m long by 10 m wide. The intertidal substrate is a mix of gravel and
cobble, but the backshore is primarily cobble (Figure 9.31). Scattered boulders are also present on the
beach and along the lower intertidal zone. Boulders within the intertidal are covered with rockweed,
periwinkles, amphipods and barnacles.
Figure 9.31
9.6.4
Shoreline at Tug Basin Location
Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Habitat
An intensive fish habitat survey was conducted within the Grassy Point area during September 2006
and during August 2007 (Jacques Whitford 2007b). Approximately 5,858 m of transects were
videotaped by divers. The video from each transect was reviewed to describe the habitat in the area by
substrate type, vegetation cover and species present.
Generally, the intertidal and shallow subtidal nearshore habitat reflects the shoreline substrate. The
headlands on the western shoreline of Grassy Point extend into the water several metres and are
covered primarily with rockweed and filamentous brown algae. The subtidal habitat near Grassy Point
is a mix of boulder/bedrock, with 100 percent coverage of filamentous brown algae to approximately 2
to 3 m water depth. Seaward of the headlands, the substrate is composed of bedrock outcrop and
boulders. The substrate quickly becomes a mix of cobble and boulder, with the filamentous brown
algae coverage decreasing to approximately 50 percent. Algal species present on these outcrops
include Irish moss, tubed weeds (Polysiphonia spp.), banded weeds (Ceramium spp.), coral weed
(Corallina officinalis), cord weed (Chorda sp.), edible kelp (Alaria esculenta) and rockweed (Fucus
Page 175
MARINE HABITAT
vesiculosus). The cobble/gravel beaches are relatively void of vegetation, apart from occasional
smooth cord weed (Chorda filum).
9.6.4.1 Fish Habitat South of Grassy Point
The beach south of Grassy Point has not been confirmed as a capelin spawning beach, but it does
have suitable characteristics of substrate and slope to be a potential capelin spawning beach. As a
precautionary approach we have assumed that capelin spawn on this beach. Capelin have been
observed schooling nearshore in this area (D. Lambert, pers. comm.), so there could be a demersal
spawning location near Grassy Point. In any case, capelin have been very infrequent at the head of
Placentia Bay in the past 30 years (E. Johnson, pers. comm.), so the area cannot be considered crucial
to the success of the capelin stock in Placentia Bay.
The subtidal habitat is a mix of boulder/bedrock, with 100 percent coverage of filamentous brown algae
to approximately 2 to 3 m water depth. The substrate along this transect quickly becomes a mix of
cobble and boulder, with the filamentous brown algae coverage decreasing to approximately 50
percent. Seaward of the headland south of Grassy Point, the shallow subtidal boulder/bedrock
nearshore habitat is 50 to 75 percent covered with an abundance of filamentous bushy red seaweeds
(e.g., Polysiphonia, Ceramium), coral weed, Irish moss, rockweed and periwinkles (Figure 9.32). The
faded Irish moss is typical after a summer of warm water temperatures and nitrogen depletion. The
effects of high water temperatures and low nutrient levels were also observed in Alaria leaf break down.
Figure 9.32
Boulder/Bedrock Algal Community Nearshore
Further from shore, between 5 and 10 m water depth, the substrate is predominately a mix of sand and
gravel, with less than 10 percent algal coverage. Invertebrates over the sand and gravel substrate
included low densities of sand dollars, urchins, sea stars, scallops and empty mussel and urchin shells.
A rock gunnel (Pholis gunnellus), rock crab (Cancer irroratus) and a hermit crab (Pagurus spp.) were
Page 176
MARINE HABITAT
also observed using this sand/gravel habitat. Within the boulder/cobble substrate at 10 to 15 m water
depth, there were occasional patches of coralline algae and sand. Sea urchins occurred in dense
patches, sea anemones were abundant on boulders and cunners, brittle stars (Ophiopholis aculeata)
and rock crab occurred near boulders.
The habitat within the area of Transects 2, 3, 4 and 24 (Figure 9.33) is a mix of substrate types, with no
clear gradient of substrate size with distance from shore. Of note is a dense patch of seaweeds (e.g.,
Laminaria, Ascophyllum, Alaria) over about 30 m on the northern portion of Transect 2. Alaria occurs
occasionally over the next 100 m of the transect. Transect 3 runs through the middle of the tug basin
and the potential dredge area. The dominant substrate in the area is classified as gravel/cobble with a
mix of boulder/bedrock nearshore and at the end of the transect. As with most other transects, low
densities of seaweed occur nearshore. Transect 4 revealed occasional occurrence of seaweed in water
less than 10 m deep and a dense section of coralline algae over about 90 m of gravel/cobble and
cobble/boulder habitat.
Also illustrated on Figure 9.33, are transects 14 and 15 which reveal a coralline algal dominated
gravel/cobble substrate. However, there will be limited disturbance to the bed with the use of piles to
support the berth.
9.6.4.2 Fish Habitat within the Proposed Tug Basin Location
At the northern extent of the marine terminal, is the proposed location for the facilities tug basin. Four
transects (5, 6, 7, and 8) in this area were orientated in a grid pattern (Figure 9.34). Like other sections
of this shoreline, this area is also a mix of substrate types, but unlike other areas, there were very few
occurrences of seaweeds or kelps observed. Coralline algae beds between 20 and 50 m in length
occur frequently at depths greater than 12 m, but not nearshore. The other important physical feature
is the 40 m bedrock outcrop (with little vegetation) along Transect 7 and the 10 m outcrop section on
Transect 6 where hundreds of cunners aggregated. A mussel bed (approximately 100 m 2) was also
noted in section 36 of Transect 6 at a depth of 15 m (Figure 9.34).
Coralline algae play an important role in nearshore ecology as habitat for invertebrates, as a food
source for a variety of gastropods (Mandeveldt et al. 2006) and by limiting the re-colonization of kelp
species that have been harvested by urchins (Bulleri et al. 2002, Bulleri and Benedetti-Cecchi 2006).
The attraction of invertebrates to coralline algae beds results in the attraction of fish to feed in these
areas. There has been little study of the role of coralline algae as fish habitat in the western north
Atlantic.
9.6.4.3 Fish Habitat within the Area of the Seawater Intake Pipe
The habitat survey also included the proposed location for the seawater intake pipes. Transects 9, 10,
12 and 15 demonstrate a mix of sand/ gravel and gravel/cobble substrates between 5 and 10 m (Figure
9.35). Transect 15 is within the footprint of the proposed intake pipe and close to shore there is a mix
gravel/cobble substrate where coralline algae cover is greater than 75 percent. Coralline algae are also
prevalent in the cobble/boulder substrate at approximately 10 m of water for approximately 60 m along
Transect 15. The remaining substrate is composed of sand/gravel or gravel/cobble, with only
filamentous vegetation present (Figure 9.35).
Page 177
Veg etati on Co ver b y Tran sect S eg men t ( 10m)
Transect Starting Points

SUBSTRATE
Bedrock
Segment ID Depth (m)
Bedrock (Coralline Algae >75%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Transect 23
Boulder/Bedrock
Boulder/Bedrock (Coralline Algae >75%)
Cobble/Boulder
Cobble/Boulder (Coralline Algae >75%)
Gravel/Cobble
Gravel/Cobble (Coralline Algae >75%)
ct 1
nse
a
r
T
Sand/Gravel
Sand/Gravel (Coralline Algae >75%)
Tra
nse
ct
26
Filamentous brown algae dominant

Multi-Species, patchy
19
Land Area
Other Transects (represented on additional maps)
50
18
15
16
17
131
130
100
129
Metres
128
* Depth measurements in metres
127
188
167
189
4
Tr
an
se
ct
1
119
110
118
109
117
108
116
107
115
106
104
103
159 158
194
195
196
t3
ec
s
an
60
Tr
61
63
197
198 58
59
57
199
52
53
54
3
se
ct
1
27
174
t4
ec
s
68
an
67
Tr
-15
64
65
151
150 187
186
48
49
46
31
32
169

42
43
45 183
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
182
181
180
179
178
177
69
Transect 2
35
36
70
71
72
73
37 75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
38
39
91
90
89
88
87

64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
41
66
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
-10
5.9
6.5
7.1
7.7
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.6
9.2
9.2
9.5
10.4
11.1
11.7
12.3
12.6
13.8
14.2
14.2
14.8
5.2
6.1
7.6
8.5
9.1
9.1
9.5
9.4
10.0
10.7
11.0
11.3
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.9
12.2
12.5
13.1
13.7
14.0
14.0
13.7
-5
92
85
Transect 13
40
94
93
3.4
4.9
Transect 4
34
74
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.5
6.5
6.2
6.8
6.8
6.5
5.0
4.3
6.8
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.0
8.3
8.6
8.6
Vegetation cover
Fil. brown algae 30, Alaria 20, Chorda filum <10

Fil. brown algae 30, Alaria 20, Chorda filum <10
Fil. brown algae 30, Alaria 20, Chorda filum <10, Laminaria 25, sea lettuce 30
Fil. brown algae 20, Chorda filum 10
Fil. brown algae 25, Alaria 10 (eaten), Chorda filum 15, Laminaria 25
Fil. brown algae 60, Chorda filum 10, Laminaria 30, Ascophyllum <10
Fil. brown algae 30, Alaria <10, Chorda filum 10, Laminaria 20
Fil. brown algae <10
Coralline algae 95, Fil. brown algae <10
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 30
Coralline algae 30
Coralline algae 40% for 5m, then 95% coverage.
Vegetation cover
Sea lettuce 40, Irish moss 25, Alaria 15, Laminaria 15, Chorda filum <10
Sea lettuce 40, Irish moss 25, Alaria 15, Laminaria 15, Chorda filum <10
Sea lettuce 10, Alaria 15, Chorda filum <10, Fil. brown algae 20, Ascophyllum <10
Chorda filum 15, Alaria <10
Fil. brown algae 15, Chorda filum 10, Alaria <10
No vegetation
Fil. brown algae 10, Chorda filum <10
Fil. brown algae 40, Ascophyllum <10
Fil. brown algae 20, Alaria <10, Ascophyllum 15
Fil. brown algae 25, Alaria 20
Fil. brown algae 15, Alaria 10
Fil. brown algae ,10, Alaria 15
No vegetation
Chorda filum <10
No vegetation
Fil. brown algae <5
Transect 3
30
173
111
97
152
185 42
26
205
98
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44 184
47
4.6
5.2
6.7
7.7
8.6
8.6
8.9
9.2
9.8
10.7
11.0
11.3
11.6
12.0
12.3
12.6
13.8
14.5
15.4
16.3
33
101
Tra
n
51
25
204
99
Transect 2
28 176
102
95
50
170
203 168
100
132
175 29
202
112
153
154
22
171
201
113
96
155
156
172
200
62
55
56
135
134
133
21
Transect 23
193
114
105
Tra ns ec t 23 157
192
121
120
160
161
162
163
142
24
28
122
143
138
191
t
sec
123
145
144
139
136
137
23
n
Tra
125
164
2
t2
140
ec
s
n
141
Tra
190
126
124
165
166
146
147
148
149
13
14
Ascophyllum dominant
10
11
12
Tr
an
se
ct
2
VEGETATION COVER TYPE
Transect 14
Transect 1
23.8
21.4
24.4
24.4
24.7
24.7
24.4
24.7
24.7
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.1
24.4
21.3
21.3
21.0
20.7
20.7
20.7
19.8
20.1
20.7
Vegetation cover
Sea lettuce 30, Ascophyllum 20, Chorda filum <10, Alaria 10,
Sea lettuce 30, Ascophyllum 20, Chorda filum <10, Alaria 10,
Sea lettuce 25, Fil. brown algae 15, Chorda filum <10, Alaria 20,
Fil. brown algae <10, Chorda filum <10
No vegetation
Fil. brown algae <5, Chorda filum <10, Ascophyllum <10, Laminaria <10
Ascophyllum 10, Laminaria 10, more veg. at beginning of section
Fil. brown algae 50, sea lettuce 40, Chorda filum <10, Laminaria 25
Fil. brown algae 50, Chorda filum <10, Laminaria 25, Ascophyllum <10
No vegetation
No vegetation
No vegetation
Ascophyluum <5
Coralline algae 10
Coralline algae 40, Fil. brown algae 10, Ascophyllum <10
Coralline algae 70, Fil. brown algae 30, Ascophyllum <10, Alaria 25
Coralline algae 90, Ascophyllum <10
Coralline algae 75, Ascophyllum 15
Vegetation cover
Fil. brown algae 10, Alaria 15, Chorda filum <10, no coral
Fil. brown algae 30, Laminaria 25, Alaria 10, Chorda filum <10, no coral
Fil. brown algae 30, Laminaria 25, Alaria 10, Chorda filum <10, no coral
Fil. brown algae 20, Laminaria 10, Alaria <10, no coral
Fil. brown algae 15, Laminaria <10, Chorda filum <5, no coral
Fil. brown algae 15, Laminaria <10, kelp <5, no coral
Fil. brown algae 10
Fil. brown algae <10, Ascophyllyum 15, Alaria <10
No vegetation, no coral
Fil. brown algae <5, Ascophyllyum <5, no coral
Coralline algae 50
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 50
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95, Fil. brown algae <10, Ascophyllum <10
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 20
Vegetation cover
Coralline algae 90, no vegetation

Coralline algae 50, sea lettuce <1, Fil. brown algae 10
Coralline algae 60, Fil. brown algae 20
Coralline algae 80, sea lettuce 10, Fil. brown algae 25
Coralline algae 30
Coralline algae 15, Fil. brown algae 10-15
Fil. brown algae 40, sea lettuce 10

111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
23.4
24.3
24.3
25.0
25.9
25.9
26.2
25.9
25.9
25.3
25.0
24.3
24.3
24.1
23.4
22.0
21.6
21.0
20.4
19.8
18.9
Vegetation cover
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 80-90
Coralline algae 80-90
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 95
Transect 22
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10
Vegetation cover
Fil. brown algae (50%) ; Irish

Fil. brown algae (50%); C. fil
Fil. brown algae <10%
coralline algae > 75%
Transect 23
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
10-15
10-15
10-15
Vegetation cover
Fil. brown algae 100%

coralline algae <10%
Transect 24
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
5-10
5-10
5-10
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
Vegetation cover

Transect 28
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
Vegetation cover

coralline algae < 10%
Fish Habitat Within the Area of the Tug Basin and Alternate Berth Location
FIGURE No: 9.33
MAP FILE: Marine_Transects_1_Tab.mxd
DATE: February 22, 2008
DRAWN BY: CP
PROJECT No: 1015846
Vege ta ti on Cov er by Tran se ct Se gme nt (1 0 m)

Transect 5
Filamentour brown algae dominant

SUBSTRATE
Depth (m)
Vegetation cover
12.2
Coralline algae 25
34
13.7
Coralline algae 95
6
7
Cobble/Boulder
Cobble/Boulder (Coralline Algae > 75%)
10
Gravel/Cobble
11
Gravel/Cobble (Coralline Algae > 75%)
12
Sand/Gravel
13
14
Sand/Gravel (Coralline Algae > 75%)
15
16
Land Area
17
40
18
19
62
80
Metres
20
61
21
60
22
23
59
52
24
58
51
25
57
50
26
56
49
Tra
n
se c
48
55
47
t8
46
45 53
52
30
54
44
51
43
41
40
39
38
37
45
se
ct
20
19
41
40
42
18
-1 5
s
an
Tr
ec
16
15
14
13
t6
10
8
6
ct
17
4
3
2
1
35
an
Tr
c
se
t5
10
8
34
27
10
26
20
21
22
25
2
Coralline algae 90
42
43
44
45
46
47
Filamentous brown algae <10, Chorda filum <5
8.8
Filamentous brown algae <10
9.1
8.2
7.9
8.0
8.2
8.5
8.8
9.1
9.1
9.7
9.8
9.4
9.7
9.4
4.0
6.1
7.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
11.6
24
3
41
9.4
13
12
23
4
10.0
40
Coralline algae 90
10.7
39
Coralline algae 90
11.5
10.9
38
Coralline algae 75
11.9
11.0
19
Coralline algae 75
11.9
11
18
-5
11.9
37
Filamentous brown algae <10, Chorda filum <5

11.6
56
57
58
Coralline algae 30
59
Coralline algae 95
60
Coralline algae 95
61
Coralline algae 40
62
63
Vegetation cover
Filamentous brown algae <10, Chorda filum <5, Alaria <10

Filamentous brown algae 40, Chorda filum 25
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 20

Coralline algae 60
12.8
15.8
18.3
23.5
Coralline algae 75
19.8
Coralline algae 90
24.4
Coralline algae 40
24.4
51
55
12.2
13.1
50
54
12.5
49
53
12.2
12.2
48
52
8
28
12.2
Coralline algae 60
8.2
7
29
12.2
36
Filamentous brown algae 10, Chorda filum <5
6
30
12.2
Coralline algae 40
7.3
5
31
12.2
35
Filamentous brown algae 10-20, Chorda filum <10, Alaria <5
4
32
12.2
Coralline algae 40
4.9
3
33
12.5
33
17
11
22
12.2
Coralline algae 25
Depth (m)
23
12.7
Segment ID
16
12
11
Transect 7
15
13
12
32
14
14
se
16
15
Tra
n
17
-1 0
38
37
19
18
39
36
36
20
43
17
31
24
21
44
30
25
46
21
29
26
47
Tra
n
28
27
42
48
22
31
28
49
23
27
29
50
33
Segment ID
Boulder/Bedrock (Coralline Algae > 75%)
34
Vegetation cover
Boulder/Bedrock
35
Depth (m)
Bedrock (Coralline Algae > 75%)
24
Segment ID
1
Bedrock
Transect 6
Coralline algae 40
13.7
14.6
Coralline algae 95
14.6
Coralline algae 75
14.9
Coralline algae <10
14.3
Coralline algae 90
14.6
Coralline algae 75
13.7
Coralline algae 75
13.4
Coralline algae 75
13.1
11.9
No coral for 5m, then coralline algae 75
10.8
12.2
12.5
Coralline algae 30
Coralline algae <10
13.1
Coralline algae 30, filamentous brown algae <10
13.7
Coralline algae 90
13.1
Coralline algae 40
13.7
Coralline algae 90
13.7
Coralline algae 75
13.7
Coralline algae 40
13.7
Coralline algae 60
14.0
Coralline algae <10
14.3
Coralline algae 60
15.2
Coralline algae 30
14.9
Coralline algae <10
15.2
Coralline algae 30, filamentous brown algae <10
15.0
15.2
Coralline algae 30
Coralline algae 40
15.2
Coralline algae 40
15.2
15.2
Transect 8
Segment ID
Depth (m)
27
6.2
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
7.7
8.0
8.9
9.2
9.2
9.8
10.8
36
11.4
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Vegetation cover
6.2
34
52
53
Coralline algae 95
11.1
11.7
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.3
12.3
12.9
13.8
14.8
15.4
16.3
16.6
17.2
18.5
20.0
22.2
24.6
Coralline algae 90
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 25
Coralline algae 40
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 90
Coralline algae 90
Coralline algae 90
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Fish Habitat Within the Area of the Alternate Tug Basin Location
FIGURE No: 9.34
DRAWN BY: CP
PROJECT No: 1015846
Vegetation Cover by Transect Segment (10m)

n
Tra
SUBSTRATE
28
Tra
ns
ec
t
Transect 2
14
Boulder/Bedrock
Cobble/Boulder

Gravel/Cobble
Transect 10
t4
ec
s
an
Tr
se
c
t1

Sand/Gravel
Segment ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
t
sec
Bedrock
Transect 9
3
ct
se
n
a
Tr
Tra
n

Land Area
50
44
100
43
Metres
42
20
-15
41
t 1
3
19
40
17
16
15
14
-10
13
12
11
an
Tr
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
108
107
ct
se
106
15
105
104
103
102
101
100
99
95
92
93
88
85
81
82
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
-5
2
1
68
67
66
65
64
t
ec
63
12
62
61
60
59
58
24 55
56
57 23
22
54
53
Depth (m)
7.7
8.3
8.6
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
8.6
8.6
8.3
8.3
7.7
7.1
6.5
Vegetation cover
Fil. brown algae 50, Alaria <5
Chorda filum <1, Sea lettuce <1, Fil. brown algae 75
Fil. brown algae 90, Sea lettuce <1
Fil. brown algae 40, Irish moss 30
Fil. brown algae 20
Fil. brown algae 20
Fil. brown algae 20
Fil. brown algae <5
Fil. brown algae 40, Ascophyllum 15
Fil. brown algae 15, Ascophyllum 15
Fil. brown algae 10-15, Laminaria <5
Laminaria 10-15, Chorda filum <1
Laminaria <1, Ascophyllum 5, Fil. brown algae 25, Chorda filum <1, Alaria <1
Laminaria 10, Ascophyllum 5, Fil. brown algae 25, Chorda filum <1, Alaria 10-15
Depth (m)
Vegetation cover
7.6
7.9
8.5
8.8
8.8
9.1
9.1
9.8
10.0
10.4
10.7
10.7
10.7
11.0
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.6
11.9
11.9
11.6
10.7
10.7
Fil. brown algae 5

Fil. brown algae 5
Fil. brown algae 5
Fil. brown algae 5
Fil. brown algae 5
Fil. brown algae 15- 40 (more at end of transect)
Fil. brown algae 40-50
Fil. brown algae 75
Fil. brown algae 75-80, sea lettuce <1
Fil. brown algae 75-80, sea lettuce <1
Fil. brown algae 90, Alaria 10 (eaten)
Fil. brown algae 75, sea lettuce 5-10
Fil. brown algae 20, sea lettuce <5
Fil. brown algae 60, sea lettuce 5, Laminara <1
Fil. brown algae 80
Fil. brown algae 80, sea lettuce 5, Alaria <1
Fil. brown algae 10-15
Fil. brown algae 40
Depth (m)
6.1
7.3
7.6
8.2
8.8
9.1
9.5
9.8
10.1
10.4
10.1
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.8
10.8
11.9
12.5
13.1
13.1
13.4
13.7
13.7
13.7
14.3
14.6
14.6
14.9
15.2
15.2
15.5
15.5
16.2
16.8
16.8
17.1
17.7
18.3
18.3
18.3
18.9
19.2
20.1
21.0
21.3
21.3
21.9
22.0
Vegetation cover
Fil. brown algae 10
Fil. brown algae 10
Laminaria <5, Chorda filum <1
Fil. brown algae 10, no coral. Suddenly much less vegetation
Coralline algae 80, Alaria <10, Laminaria <10, Fil. brown algae 30
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 50
Coralline algae 50
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 80
No vegetation on bedrock
Coralline algae 50
Coralline algae 50
Coralline algae 50
Coralline algae 30
Fil. brown algae 25
Fil. brown algae 50
Fil. brown algae 50
Fil. brown algae 30
Fil. brown algae 30
Fil. brown algae 20
Fil. brown algae 10
Fil. brown algae 10
Fil. brown algae 10
Fil. brown algae 10
Fil. brown algae 5
Fil. brown algae <1
Fil. brown algae <1
Coralline algae <10
Coralline alga <10
Coralline algae 25
Coralline algae 40
Coralline algae 50
Coralline algae (rotoliths) 75, Fil. brown algae 1, Chorda filum <1
Coralline algae (rotoliths) 80, Fil. brown algae <1
Coralline algae 80
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Transect 15
33
s
an
r
T
37
34
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
36
75
Vegetation cover
Fil. brown algae 60, sea lettuce <10, Ascophyllum <5, coralline algae 15
Fil. brown algae <5
Fil. brown algae <5
Coralline algae 40
Coralline algae 40
Coralline algae 60
Coralline algae 40
Coralline algae 40
Coralline algae 20
Coralline algae 60
Coralline algae 60
Coralline algae 75, Fil. brown algae <10, Ascophyllum 80
Ascophyllum 75, Fil. brown algae 20, sea lettuce 10
Ascophyllum 10, Fil. brown algae 25, sea lettuce <10
Ascophyllum 10, Fil. brown algae <10
Ascophyllum <10, Fil. brown algae <10
Transect 12
35
Trans
ect 9
98
97
96
94
10 89
90
91 9
87
86
84
83
79
80
39 77
78
38
76
71
69
Segment ID
Trans
ect 10
Tra
nse
c
18
74
73
72
70
Segment ID
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Depth (m)
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
15.4
15.4
12.3
10.8
10.8
10.8
12.0
11.7
11.7
11.4
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.0
9.8
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
Segment ID
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
Fish Habitat Within the Area of the Seawater Intake Pipe

FIGURE No: 9.35
DRAWN BY: CP
PROJECT No: 1015846
MARINE HABITAT
The most dominant vegetation in this area of the seawater intake pipe is filamentous brown algae.
Generally, filamentous brown algae and sea lettuce occur in patches in the sand and gravel substrate
but it also occurs over some areas of gravel/cobble substrate. Other notable vegetation features include
a section of coralline algae near the middle portion of Transect 9. Only one 10 m section is considered
coralline algae dominate (i.e., >75 percent coverage), but there is an 80 m section where percent cover
is 40 percent or greater. Very little kelp or seaweed (e.g., Laminaria, Ascophyllum, Alaria) occurred
within this area. Of note is a 20 m section of kelp along Transect 9.
9.6.4.4 Fish Habitat North of Grassy Point
North of Grassy Point, at the deepest portion of Transect 27, the substrate is a mix of sand/gravel and
occasional boulders, with occasional coralline algae, sea urchins and sea stars (Figure 9.36). One
scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) and one winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) were
observed along this section. In the middle of the transect, the coralline algae becomes denser, with
imbedded horse mussels (Figure 9.36). There are also patches of sand and gravel and occasional
boulder. Closer to the shore at Grassy Point, there is a patch of boulders where cunners are abundant.
There are urchins, anemones and some filamentous algae on the rocks, but little other vegetation apart
from an occasional piece of smooth cord weed.
Running south is Transect 26, which is within the footprint for the dolphins and service platforms of the
berth. This area is a mix of cobble/boulder with very little coralline algae or vegetation (Figure 9.37). Of
note is a 60 m bedrock outcrop. Species observed over this substrate were cunners, urchins,
anemones, and mussels.
Figure 9.36
Coralline Algae Substrate
Page 181
34
35
36
C. filum dominant
37
38
Multi-Species dominant
39
Smooth cord weed dominant
40
sec
t
Bedrock
Tra
n
Bedrock (Coralline Algae Dominant)

Boulder/Bedrock
Boulder/Bedrock (Coralline Algae Dominant)
47
Gravel/Cobble
48
Gravel/Cobble (Coralline Algae Dominant)
49
Sand/Gravel
Sand/Gravel (Coralline Algae Dominant)

Land Area
65
130
Metres
Tr
an
se
c
t2
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
50
2 51
52 3
53 4
54
26
sec
t
Tra
n
76
75
29
28
27
Vegetat ion Cover by Transect Segment (10m)

se
c
26
t2
25
Transect 16
24
Segment ID
23
22
21
20
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
n
Tra
85
84
83
t1
sec
2
t2
ec
ns
Tra
82
-1 0
Transect 23
Transect 25
Depth (m)
Vegetation cover
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.1
12.8
12.2
12.2
11.6
11.9
11.6
11.3
10.4
9.8
8.8
7.9
7.6
5.8
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Fil. brown algae 10, no coral
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 10
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 95
Coralline algae 80
Fil. brown algae < 5, no coral
Depth (m)
Vegetation cover
0-5
0-5
0-5
5-10
5-10
5-10
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
Segment ID
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Depth (m)
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
Depth (m)
Vegetation cover
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20

Transect 26
C. filum < 10%

Fil. brown algae 100%, coralli
Smooth cord weed <10%
coralline algae >75%
Segment ID
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Transect 21
Segment ID
86
-1 5
10
14
88
77
Transect 16
13
87
79
12
90
78
30
Tra
n
Segment ID
11
89
81
31
Transect 20
93
107 106 105
104 103 102
101 100 99
92 108
98 97 96
Transect 27
95 94
91
80
43
44
46
Cobble/Boulder (Coralline Algae Dominant)
42
45
Cobble/Boulder
74
41
21
SUBSTRATE
33
32
Vegetation cover

coralline algae (<10%); sour weed
Depth (m)
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
Vegetation cover
Coralline algae <10%

coralline algae (<10:); sour weed
Transect 27
Segment ID
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
Depth (m)
0-5
0-5
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
10-15
10-15
15-20
15-20
Vegetation cover

coralline algae >75% Fil. brown
Fish Habitat Within the Area of Berth 3 and Berth 2

FIGURE No: 9.37

DRAWN BY: CP
PROJECT No: 1015846
MARINE HABITAT
9.6.4.5 Fish Habitat within Area of Cooling Water Discharge

Transect 16 in Figure 9.37 is within the footprint of the cooling water discharge pipe location.
Nearshore, the substrate quickly changes from rockweed-covered cobble/boulder to sand/gravel
substrate with vegetation limited to filamentous algae. Almost 80 percent of the remaining 140 m of the
transect was dominated (> 75 percent cover) by coralline algae in a predominantly cobble/boulder
habitat from 5 to 15 m water depth. Another notable feature of this transect was an abundance of
cunners nearshore (Figure 9.38).
Figure 9.38
Representative Boulder Habitat
9.6.4.6 Fish Habitat off Grassy Point

Between 20- and 15-m depths, the substrate is predominately cobble-sized coralline algae. There are
occasional mussels, urchins, sea stars and scallop in this area. Between the 15- and 2-m contours
(approximately) the substrate is a mixture of sand and gravel (Figure 9.39). There were occasional
patches of urchins, sea stars and mussels over the sand and gravel substrate. Occasional rock crab
and a winter flounder were also observed in this area. Smooth cord weed begins to appear in the
sand/gravel substrate which becomes more abundant in the shallow subtidal rocky area off the
headland. Filamentous brown alga provides up to 100 percent cover of boulders nearshore. Occasional
anemones and urchins are also present among the boulders in the nearshore. Cunners are abundant
among boulders. Young edible kelp and Irish moss occur in the shallow subtidal and intertidal zones
and combine to give up to 50 to 75 percent cover.
Page 183
MARINE HABITAT
Figure 9.39
Typical Substrate off Grassy Point
A mix of gravel/cobble substrate is dominated by coralline algae for the first 60 m south, along
Transect 21. The substrate then turns to a mix of sand and gravel for approximately 50 m before a
cobble/boulder substrate become dominant at depths between the 15 and 10 m contours. There is
very little vegetation along Transect 21. Substrate along the entire length of Transect 25 is a mix of
cobble and boulder with less than 10 percent coralline algae and no vegetative cover. Along these
transects, benthic macrofauna were limited to urchins, mussel shells and sea stars. One ocean pout
(Macrozoarces americanus) was also observed along this transect. Occasional scallop and one thorny
skate were also observed.
At the deepest section of Transect 17 (Figure 9.40), is a mix of cobble and boulder with filamentous and
coralline algae covering 50 percent of some rocks. Anemones and urchins are common, while Agarum
and sea stars occur infrequently. Cunners were abundant in this area at the time of the survey. Moving
shoreward, the boulders become larger and there is an occasional bedrock outcrop over the next
approximately 25 m. Coralline algae occur in dense pockets, mussels, sea stars and urchins are more
frequent. Cunners become scarce and scallops are infrequent. A thorny skate (Raja radiata) and winter
flounder were also observed along this transect. The sand/gravel section of the jetty footprint was
relatively barren of flora and fauna; however, sea stars and empty mussel and urchin shells occurred
occasionally. As with all other transects, the boulder/bedrock habitat nearshore was covered in
filamentous alga and smooth cord weed and cunners were abundant. Irish moss and edible kelp also
occurred on the nearshore rocks. The substrate near the adjacent pocket beach was composed of
gravel and cobble, with patches of smooth cord weed, edible kelp and Irish moss.
Page 184
Ve ge ta ti on C o ve r by Tr a n se c t Se gm e nt (1 0 m )
6
ec
t
Transect 17
Tr
an
s
Filamentous Brown Algae dominant
Segment ID
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
SUBSTRATE
Bedrock
Boulder/Bedrock
Cobble/Boulder
Gravel/Cobble
Sand/Gravel
Land Area
50
100
Tra
n
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
10
Metres
11
12
13
-1 0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-1 5
-3 0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
33
Tr
an
se
ct
19
-2 0
30
32
34
29
35
36
37
38
40
39
56
-5
se
ct
55
54
Tra
53
ns
ec
52
t1
51
7
Tra
nse
ct 1
8
69
1 68
67
2
50
49
48
47
46
45
Transect 18
44
43
42
41
Segment ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Transect 19
Segment ID
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Depth (m)
<5
<5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
Vegetation cover
Irish Moss; Chorda; sourweed
No vegetation
No vegetation
No vegetation
No vegetation
No vegetation
No vegetation
No vegetation
No vegetation
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
Coralline algae 75
coralline algae 50%; Agarum < 10 %
coralline algae 50%; Agarum < 10 %
Depth (m)
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
Vegetation cover
coralline aglae <10%
Depth (m)
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
10-15
10-15
10-15
Vegetation cover
coralline aglae >75%
Fish Habitat Within the Area of Berth 1

Tra
n
se
ct
2
FIGURE No: 9.40
MAP FILE: Marine_Transects_17-19.mxd
DRAWN BY: CP
PROJECT No: 1015846
MARINE HABITAT
Transect 18 runs between the 20 m and 10 m depth contours where the substrate alternates between
bedrock outcrop and cobble/boulder, with small pockets of coralline algae and sand. Occasional
patches of filamentous brown algae occur on the boulders. Urchins, anemones and sea stars occur
occasionally. Cunners were present in low numbers, as were mussels. Coralline algae becomes the
dominant substrate feature along most of Transect 19, and apart from a small exposed bedrock
outcrop, continues to be prominent for the next approximately 270 m. Coralline algae pockets or
boulders occur over the surface of bedrock in some areas. Cunners were present wherever there was a
relief of boulders.
Page 186
MARINE FAUNA
9.7
Marine Fauna
9.7.1
Invertebrates
Dominant faunal species off the headlands in intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat include amphipods
(e.g., Hylae nilssoni and Gamarus accidentalis), isopods (Jaera marina), the common periwinkle
(Littorina littorea), barnacles, frilled anemone (Metridium senile), horse mussels, blue mussels (Mytilus
edulis), and sea urchins. Occasional anemones and urchins are also present among the boulders in the
nearshore.
In deeper subtidal areas, a variety of polychaetes species are present. Prionospio steenstrupi, Eteone
longa, Nephtys spp., Pholoe minuta and Scoloplos armiger are also expected within the Grassy Point
area. The amphipod Phoxocephalus holbolli is also commonly found in sand substrates within the area.
Other invertebrates in sand and gravel substrates include low densities of sand dollars, urchins, sea
stars, scallops and empty mussel and urchin shells. There were several dense patches of urchins
observed between 5- and 10-m water depths. Brittle stars (Ophiopholis aculeata) were also common in
some areas (e.g., coralline algal beds) and sea anemones were abundant on boulders. There are low
densities of mussels, urchins, sea stars, cancer crabs and scallop in this area. The green crab
(Carcinus maenas) was not observed in the area of Grassy Point.
9.7.2
Fish
Cunners were by far the most abundant fish species within the Grassy Point area during both surveys.
Cunners were observed congregating over rocky outcrops and boulders with various algal densities,
from the shallow subtidal to 20 m deep. The other fish observed during the surveys were rock gunnel,
winter flounder, thorny skate and ocean pout.
Along the coast of Newfoundland, winter flounder, thorny skate and giant scallop generally prefer sand
or sand/gravel habitat from 5 to 20 m where there is little vegetative cover. The rock gunnel and similar
species such as the radiated shanny (Ulvaria subbifurcata), Artic shanny (Stichaeus punctatus),
seasnail (Liparis atlantic and L. liparis), and Arctic eelpout (Lycodes reticulates) prefer the shelter of
cobble, boulder or bedrock substrate. Lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus), ocean pout, sculpin (e.g.,
Myoxocephalus octodecimspinosus), American lobster (Homarus americanus), rock crab and toad crab
(Hyas coarctatus) occur over rocky substrate most often, but also occur on softer substrates,
depending on their age and activity.
Spring migrants through the nearshore shallow habitat include Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus),
capelin (Mallotus villosus) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Fall migrants include Atlantic mackerel
(Scomber scombrus) and possibly herring. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) are most likely to use Placentia Bay from May to August
during migration from and to rivers and as a juvenile feeding area. American eel (Anguilla rostrata) may
be present in Placentia Bay upon leaving the rivers August and September and during their return to
the rivers in May.
Most of the fish and shellfish species present in the nearshore environments during the spring, summer
and early fall, likely migrate to nearby deeper waters to overwinter.
There are no species listed on the Species at Risk Act (SARA) expected to occur within the Grassy
Point Area. The Laurentian North population of Atlantic cod is classified as threatened by COSEWIC,
Page 187
MARINE FAUNA
and the Newfoundland and Labrador population is classified as endangered by COSEWIC. Individuals
of either of these populations may occur within the Grassy Point area, but the SARA Section 32
prohibitions do not apply since neither population is listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule 1
of SARA.
9.7.2.1 Cunner
Cunners were by far the most abundant fish species observed during the fish and fish habitat survey of
the Grassy Point area. Cunners were present wherever there was a relief of boulders or bedrock.
Multiple age classes of cunners congregated in shallow nearshore outcrop habitats, as well as around
boulders in areas of up to 20 m deep. Cunners range from Newfoundland to New Jersey and can occur
from intertidal to 100 m water depths (Scott and Scott 1988).
Cunners tend to become docile at night and move into nearby crevices. During the winter they are
dormant for five or six months and retreat to deep crevices or under rocks until the spring (Green and
Farwell 1971). Curran (1992) found that cunner stop feeding for up to six months when water
temperature reaches levels that induce torpor and hibernation (approximately 5C).
Spawning occurs in late July and August in Nova Scotia and eggs are pelagic for approximately three
weeks (Tupper and Boutilier 1997). Spawning in Placentia Bay likely occurs several weeks later than
Nova Scotia. Newly settled cunners are more abundant on shallow, rocky or shell fragment substrates,
with or without eelgrass (Tupper 1994). There is no evidence of active habitat selection by newly settled
cunner (Auster 1989). Differences in population density between habitats are attributed to postsettlement mortality, rather than emigration. Sculpin species are the primary predator of cunner (Auster
1989). Recruitment success was found to be highest from juveniles settling on rocky reefs, followed by
cobble habitats and eelgrass. Recruitment from sand substrates was reportedly zero (Auster 1989).
Juvenile cunners feed on amphipods, isopods, zooplankton and small benthic epifauna (Levin 1994).
After settlement, cunners have limited home ranges for the first one or two years (Tupper 1994).
Juveniles even remain near their nursery area over winter, as opposed to the adults who migrate to
deeper offshore waters.
As with the juveniles, adult cunner (age 1+ and older) are most abundant on reefs, cobble and within
eelgrass, respectively, but absent from sand substrates (Auster 1989). The adult cunners home range
is limited to several hundred metres (Green 1975). Adult cunner feed on benthic invertebrates like
mussels, barnacles, clams, amphipods and juvenile lobsters. They likely compete directly with lobster,
crabs and starfish for mussels as prey (see Auster 1989).
Cunners are resilient to hydrocarbon pollution in that they can metabolize petroleum hydrocarbons
(Payne and May 1979) and little pathological effects were observed after cunners in a lab were
exposed to hydrocarbons for six months (Payne et al. 1978). Prolonged exposure to hydrocarbons is
required to suppress feeding in cunners and feeding resumes within weeks of ceasing exposure
(Williams and Kiceniuk 1987).
9.7.2.2 Capelin
Capelin have been observed schooling within the Grassy Point area (Sjare et al. 2003; D. Lambert,
pers. comm.), but abundance has been declining for several years (Coastal Resource Inventory
website accessed June 2007). Capelin have been commercially fished or observed during June and
July near Adams Head and Bordeaux Island (Coastal Resource Inventory website accessed June
2007), south of Grassy Point and south of Whiffen Head (NTT 1996). Capelin may spawn in the Grassy
Page 188
MARINE FAUNA
Point area, but particular beaches or demersal spawning sites cannot be confirmed as spawning habitat
(D. Lambert pers. comm.).
Capelin generally occur in water between 30 and 100 m during the winter until they undergo their
spawning migration. In late spring or early summer, capelin migrate into bays to spawn on beaches or
in deeper waters of up to 125 m offshore. Beach spawning of capelin occurs when water temperatures
are in the range of 6C to 10C on gravel substrates ranging from 5 to 25 mm in diameter. Beach
spawning is more prevalent at night. Capelin are able to spawn at the age of two and males usually die
following spawning.
Spawning may occur in particular areas each year or appear sporadic. The exact time of spawning may
be a function of annual water temperature. Spawning lasts four to six weeks, and occurs between May
and July, usually. Females produce as many as 50,000 eggs at one time. Males tend to spawn more
than once during their reproductive season. Eggs attach to the substrate and remain in the sediment
between 14 and 52 days, depending on temperature, but last approximately 15 days at 10C (Scott and
Scott 1988).
Upon hatching the capelin larvae remain in the sediment until the right conditions occur (i.e., onshore
wind). If these conditions do not occur within five days, the yolk sac is depleted and the chance of
survival is poor. If there is an onshore wind during this period, emergence of the larvae occurs and
capelin leave the beach. It is a very critical period for the capelin larvae because they can fall prey to
any organism that feeds on plankton. Capelin larvae are passive drifters nearshore during the summer
months, but become more active swimmers and make their way to deeper water offshore by autumn
(see Scott and Scott 1988).
Capelin feed on zooplankton, especially copepods and euphausiids, in the pre- and post-spawning
season and eat very little near spawning time (Scott and Scott 1988). Adult capelin are an integral link
in the marine food web between plankton and many vertebrates. They are prey for a wide variety of
species such as cod, squid, and baleen whales.
9.7.2.3 Herring
In the northwest Atlantic, herring occur from southern Labrador to Cape Hatteras (Scott and Scott
1988). Herring are known to occur along the shoreline of Grassy Point (Sjare et al. 2003) and are
commercially fished there in the spring (March and April) as part of the Placentia Bay-St. Marys Bay
herring stock (Coastal Resource Inventory website accessed June 2007; NTT 1996). Herring are also
fished during the winter along the eastern portion of Placentia Bay (DFO 2006a). Herring move into the
bays in the spring to spawn and feed and move to deep water to over-winter. However, herring may
also occur at the head of Placentia Bay in the fall (J. Wheeler, pers. comm.).
Herring are demersal spawners, depositing their eggs on stable substrates in high energy environments
with strong tidal currents (Iles and Sinclair 1982, in Stevenson and Scott 2005). Spawning can occur on
offshore banks at depths of 40 to 80 m; however, most herring stocks spawn in shallow coastal waters
at depths of less than 20 m. Masses of herring eggs attach to the hard bottom substrate nearshore or to
kelp leaves. Larvae hatch after approximately 30 days at 5C and after 10 days at 15C (Scott and
Scott 1988). Duration of the pelagic larval stage is temperature-dependent and therefore depends on
the time of spawning. Spring recruits will remain in the water column during spring and summer, but the
fall recruits may be pelagic until the following spring. Eggs and larvae can be contained near the
spawning grounds by tidally induced retention areas, or may passively drift with the dominant currents
(DFO 1984).
Page 189
MARINE FAUNA
Herring primarily feed on euphausiids (DFO 2005a) and they are an important prey item for other fish,
seabirds and marine mammals.
9.7.2.4 Winter Flounder
Winter flounder or blackback occurs from central Labrador to Georgia (Scott and Scott 1988) and has
been commercially fished in the Grassy Point area (NTT 1996). They are an inshore shallow-water
species preferring soft to moderately hard substrates (Scott and Scott 1988). Juveniles and young
adults inhabit shallower water than older, large fish. Most winter flounder undergo a season migration to
deeper waters in the fall and return to nearshore shallow waters to spawn during May and June (Scott
and Scott 1988), although the seasonal migration may not be triggered by temperature alone (see
Pereira et al. 1999). Feeding migrations have also been reported from Newfoundland (Keats 1990).
Mass movements of winter flounder have also been reported due to habitat disturbance. Van Guelpen
and Davis (1979) found that winter flounder move from the shallow nearshore to deeper water during
storm events, possibly to avoid the interference of suspended sediments with feeding (Pereira et al.
1999).
Flounder eggs are demersal and adhesive, so inshore, the eggs settle in clumps on sand substrates in
less than 5 m of water (Pereira et al. 1999). Their eggs appear to have a wide salinity and temperature
tolerance, with optimal hatching success in waters ranging in salinity from 10 to 30 ppt and in
temperature from 3 to 15C (see Pereira et al. 1999). Hatching can occur within two to three weeks,
depending on temperature, and the pelagic larvae settle out approximately eight weeks after hatching
(Fahey 1983). Spawning tends to occur in areas where egg and larval dispersal by currents is limited. It
has been concluded by several researchers that spawning adults choose to spawn in habitat suitable
for larval settlement (see Pereira et al. 1999). In other words, spawning and nursery habitats overlap or
are adjacent. Several studies have reported that highest densities of newly settled winter flounder
occurred on muddy substrates (see Pereira et al. 1999). There were no muddy substrates observed
within the Grassy Point area and juvenile winter flounder were not observed during the marine survey in
September.
Winter flounder are considered opportunistic feeders, queued visually by moving benthic invertebrates.
Winter flounder are attracted by the most abundant and active epibenthic species (Carlson et al. 1997).
Flounder feed primarily on benthic invertebrates (Keats 1990), especially polychaetes and amphipods
(Carlson et al. 1997), but they also eat molluscs, capelin eggs and fish (Scott and Scott 1988).
9.7.2.5 Lumpfish
Lumpfish are present throughout NAFO Division 3Ps and have been commercially fished within the
Grassy Point area (NTT 1996). Mature fish migrate inshore in the spring or early summer to spawn and
return to deeper waters in the fall (Scott and Scott 1988). Males arrive on the spawning grounds several
weeks in advance of the females to establish their territories. The females lay two to three egg mass on
rocks in shallow water at intervals ranging from 8 to 14 days. The eggs are guarded and fanned by the
male until hatching occurs after six to eight weeks, while the female returns to deeper water. Egg mass
may contain more than 100,000 to 130,000 eggs measuring 2 mm in diameter and light green to
yellowish in colour.
Larvae are approximately 5 mm at release and are considered semi-pelagic, remaining in the top metre
of the water column for their first year, during which they are often associated with floating algae. After
settlement, juveniles are often found in shallow water among eelgrass and kelp leaves, especially
Page 190
MARINE FAUNA
Laminaria (Moring 1989). During early life stages, lumpfish attach to rocks, lobster traps and other solid
objects with their pelvic adhesive disc.
Juveniles eat mostly copepods and amphipods during the summer (Moring 1998). The adult lumpfish
tends to feed during the winter and their diet primarily consists of coelenterates, ctenophores,
chaetognaths, amphipods, euphausiids, copepods, some molluscs polychaetes and small fish, such as
herring and sandlance (Moring 1989; Scott and Scott 1988).
9.7.2.6 Thorny Skate
There has been a limited fishery for thorny skate within the Grassy Point area in previous years (NTT
1996). Thorny skate are a temperate to Arctic species, widely distributed in the north Atlantic, ranging
from Greenland to South Carolina (Kulka et al. 2006). Thorny skate have been observed over a wide
range of depths, from nearshore to 1,700 m, with most of their biomass noted to occur between 50 to
150 m (Kulka and Miri 2003). Thorny skate are observed on both hard and soft substrates (Kulka et al.
1996) but are primarily associated with muddy, sandy and pebble substrates (Kulka and Miri 2003). The
most common temperature where skate are found is in the 3C to 4C range (Colbourne and Kulka
2004). Thorny skate deposit between 6 and 40 egg cases per year (DFO 2003).
Thorny skate feed on a variety of invertebrates and fish including polychaetes, crabs and whelks (Kulka
and Miri 2003). The diets of larger skates include fish prey such as sculpins, redfish, sandlance and
small haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Significant amounts of fish offal have been found in skate
stomach and this, coupled with the ventral mouth location, suggests that thorny skate are opportunistic
bottom feeders. There is limited information on the predators of thorny skate, but they are likely prey for
large predators such as seals, sharks and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus).
Thorny skate abundance has increased from the early 1970s through the mid 1980s, followed by a
decline to its lowest levels in the mid-1990s, where it has remained stable (DFO 2003). Thorny skate
have become concentrated in approximately 20 percent of their former range, primarily the edge of
southwest Grand Banks. Small thorny skates are largely absent from the northern Grand Banks, with
the largest abundance of small thorny skates occurring in 3Ps.
9.7.2.7 Spiny Dogfish
The spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) is a widely distributed boreal to warm temperate species, spread
over continental and insular shelves and upper slopes of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Kulka 2006).
Their western Atlantic distribution ranges from Labrador to Florida, with their centre of abundance
located between the southern Scotian Shelf and Cape Hatteras. Spiny dogfish concentrate at bottom
depths of 10 to 200 m in water ranging between 7C to 15C. They congregate in the warmest available
water (>5C) and the population is comprised of mature adults. There are indications of a local
inshore/offshore migration pattern (Kulka 2006), so the spiny dogfish are most likely to occur in
Placentia Bay during the summer or early fall. Although the species is not identified specifically, spiny
dogfish are likely the dogfish species referred to by fishermen at the head of Placentia Bay in August
and September (Coastal Resource Inventory 2007).
Spiny dogfish distributions are patchy and they form dense aggregations, causing high variability in
survey indices. The absence of young juveniles coupled with survey abundance variability suggests
that the early life history stages (pupping and juveniles) occur elsewhere.
Page 191
MARINE FAUNA
9.7.2.8 Atlantic Salmon

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is an anadromous species, living in freshwater rivers for the first two
years of life before migrating to sea. Atlantic salmon return annually to their natal river or tributary for
spawning. Both post-smolt (juvenile) and adult salmon migrate from northeastern North America in the
spring and summer to over-winter in waters off Labrador. While at sea, adult salmon were found
spending a considerable amount of time in the upper portion of the water column (Reddin 2006).
Tagging studies of post-smolts also indicated they spend most of their time near the surface, but
undergo deep dives, likely in search of prey (Reddin et al. 2006).
The commercial fishing of Atlantic salmon in Newfoundland waters was placed under moratoria since
1992. From 1992 to 1996, salmon stocks on the south coast of Newfoundland declined by 20 percent
for smaller fish, and by 11 percent for adults (DFO 1997).
There are five scheduled salmon rivers at the head of Placentia Bay: Come-By Chance River; Watson
River; North Harbour River; Black River; and Pipers Hole River. Commercial fishing did occur between
North Harbour and Sound Island during May and June (Coastal Resource Inventory 2007).
While still in the river, post-smolts mainly eat aquatic insect larvae, including caddisflies and blackflies.
When salmon return to freshwater to spawn they do not eat (Scott and Scott 1988), but while at sea,
they consume euphausiids, amphipods and fishes such as herring, capelin, small mackerel, sand lance
and small cod. Salmon are prey for seals, sharks, pollock (Pollachius spp.) and tuna (Scott and Scott
1988).
9.7.3
Shellfish
Shellfish species in the area include American lobster, sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus), horse
and blue mussels, rock crab (Cancer irroratus) and toad crab (Hyas coarctatus). The focus of this
section is on biology of the commercial species.
9.7.3.1 Lobster
Lobsters ranges throughout the western north Atlantic from Cape Hatteras north to the Strait of Belle
Isle and are commercially fished in the Grassy Point area. Populations tend to be localized in less than
50 m of water. Adult lobsters inhabit coastal waters during the summer, but migrate to warmer, deeper
waters in the winter. Young lobsters generally stay close to the coast in depths of 10 m or less, and do
not migrate during the winter.
Mating can occur between July and September, depending on water temperature. If water temperature
remains below 5C, spawning will be later than usual, or may not occur at all (Aiken & Waddy 1986).
Embryo development is also regulated by temperature and proceeds slowly when temperatures are
below 6C. On the south coast of Newfoundland, lobster larvae begin hatching (emergence of stage I
larvae) during the first half of July, when bottom temperatures were between 10.0 and 13.8C (Ennis
1995), but may be delayed if the water temperature is low. Upon hatching, larvae are planktonic and
the larvae moult through three stages to the fourth (the bottom-dwelling stage) from 42 days (15C) to
94 days (10C) (Harding 1992). Larval development cannot be completed at low temperatures, thus it is
important that hatching occurs before the water temperature declines; this is particularly important in
the northern part of the lobsters range. The post-larvae eventually move down through the water
column and settle on the bottom, where they grow through juvenile stages and into adult form. Postlarvae may delay settlement if faced with unsuitable habitat and may undergo a succession of
Page 192
MARINE FAUNA
touchdowns and liftoffs until suitable substratum is encountered (Aiken & Waddy 1986). During the
pelagic stage, larvae are primarily drifters (i.e., wind and currents in the upper water column largely
determine their distribution) (Katz et al. 1994), but they can exhibit some control over distance travelled
by vertical migration (Ennis 1995).
Juveniles for the first couple of years occupy self-dug tunnels or natural crevices under cobble to avoid
predation by coastal predators such as cunner (Harding 1992). Where predators are present, time is
crucial during settlement and many lobsters are likely to succumb if pre-existing shelters are not found
(Wahle & Steneck 1992). According to Harding (1992), juveniles stay in their burrows, feeding on
passing plankton and detritus until they reach a size corresponding to a carapace length of greater than
30 mm (this corresponds to a two- to three-inch lobster), when they leave the tunnels at night to feed.
Wahle & Steneck (1992) report that juveniles are generally found occupying crevices and holes near
small boulders or burrowing under rocks and eelgrass. Juvenile lobsters usually remain within a few
kilometres of where they settle and migrate over several kilometres only after becoming mature.
In Newfoundland, it takes 8 to 10 years for a lobster to reach commercial size (DFO 2006b). Adult
American lobsters are known to be solitary and appear to conform to the general pattern of diminishing
predator avoidance with greater body size; however, lobsters do continue to shelter as adults but are
more transient than smaller lobsters. Shelter availability is a critical feature of adult lobster habitat,
leading adults to select habitats where burrows can be dug or where they pre-exist under rocks or
boulders.
Lobster diet consists mainly of benthic invertebrates including rock crab, polychaetes, molluscs,
echinoderms and fish (DFO 2006b). Adult lobsters have few natural predators, with the commercial
fishery accounting for most adult mortality.
9.7.3.2 Sea Scallops
Sea scallops are benthic, bivalve molluscs found only in the northwest Atlantic, from the Strait of Belle
Isle to Cape Hatteras. They occur on sand or gravel substrates at depths of 35 to 120 m in large
aggregations (beds), but also occur within shallow water nearshore. Sea scallops occur in the Grassy
Point area in low densities. Sea scallops do not migrate, but are capable of limited swimming by
clapping their shells together.
The primary spawning event for sea scallops in Newfoundland waters generally occurs in late
September/early October and lasts between two to four weeks. The first two larval stages of the scallop
are pelagic, remaining planktonic for over a month after hatching and usually settling to the seabed by
December (Hart and Chute 2004). Settlement is dependent on the larvae detecting a suitable substrate
(Pearce et al. 2004). Larvae preferentially settle on hard surfaces, preferring substrates with shell
fragments and small pebbles including existing scallop beds (Hart and Chute 2004). Scallops are filter
feeders, extracting plankton and nutrients from sea water.
9.7.4
This section describes the current commercial fisheries (wild and aquaculture) in Placentia Bay, in
particular, the area nearest the proposed Terminal. For the purpose of this description, the commercial
fisheries study area is the northern portion of Placentia Bay from approximately the southern end of
Red Island north, as shown on Figure 9.41.
Page 193
MARINE FAUNA
The description of the commercial fisheries includes a historical overview for Placentia Bay and a
description of current harvesting in the study area. Recent aquaculture operations and sites in the study
area are also described, including a brief summary of development trends within this sector during the
past decade.
Note: The star represents the location of the Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal.
Figure 9.41
Study Area (blue) and Unit Area 3PSc Boundaries
In addition to relevant historical data, the commercial fisheries analysis relies on existing (2003 to 2006)
DFO data related to study area fisheries resources and catches. The overview of past and current
aquaculture activities is based on information obtained from the Newfoundland and Labrador
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (NLDFA). The report also draws on background information
from existing agency reports, other research studies and the consultants files. The description of
aquaculture activities also draws on consultations undertaken with all of the existing licence holders in
Placentia Bay, as well as with NLDFA managers and other industry participants exploring the potential
for new aquaculture development opportunities in the area.
Page 194
MARINE FAUNA
9.7.4.1 Data Sources and Data Limitations

The statistical data and analysis in this report are based primarily on time-series data from DFO,
Newfoundland and Labrador Region and Maritimes Region1, describing the quantity, month and
location (by fisheries management Unit Area (UA)) of fish harvesting. The datasets also include
information on fishing gear, vessels and other information, acquired from DFO for the period from 1984
to 2006. The analysis for this document presents historical information about the Placentia Bay
fisheries. The commercial fisheries study area focuses on the current fisheries environment (i.e., 2003
to 2006 period).
The best data resolution that can be obtained for most of the fish harvesting in Placentia Bay is at the
UA level, as a very small proportion of the harvest from the Bay (UA 3PSc) is specifically
georeferenced by latitude and longitude. For example, only 15 percent of the harvest by quantity was
georeferenced in 2004, 2 percent in 2005 and 12 percent in 2006. UA 3PSc is shown on Figure 9.41.
Though the georeferenced data represent a small portion of the harvest overall, maps of the
georeferenced data that are available are provided to indicate at least a subset of the harvesting
locations2 in Placentia Bay and the study area.
The main data for the commercial fisheries study area relies on fish landings (by quantity) for the
Statistical Section of the port in which the catch was landed. It should be noted that Statistical Sections
have no marine area; they are land-based designations containing fishing ports, although all are
adjacent to the ocean.
The calculation of the value of the fisheries is complex and highly variable. In addition to variability that
results from changes in the quantity of harvest from year to year (whether due to natural variability or
changing quotas), prices also vary from year to year, and even within the fishing season, driven
primarily by market conditions, which in turn are determined by supply and demand, currency exchange
rates and other market factors. Quality issues also affect the prices paid for many species.
Consequently, most of the analysis provided in this section involves quantity of harvests (tonnes of fish
landed), which is directly comparable from year to year.
Other data sources include fisheries management plans and data tables (e.g., fishing enterprises)
provided by DFO. Information on aquaculture was provided by NLDFA, including its AguaGIS.com
database, and from individual aquaculture licence holders consulted in November 2006 and April 2007.
9.7.4.2 Consultations
DFO and NLDFA managers, area fishers and existing aquaculture licence holders were contacted to
obtain current information on the study areas fisheries and aquaculture sector activities.
Representatives of the FFAW Union, as well as local area fishers, also attended several of the Open
Houses. In addition, fishers from Arnolds Cove and Come by Chance met with the fisheries
representative on the Projects Community Liaison Committee to discuss fish habitat issues, as well as
established harvesting activities, in the Grassy Point area.
A list of all persons consulted for the commercial fisheries is provided in Appendix B.
1
A small proportion of the harvest from within Unit Area 3PSc is landed in the Maritimes (Nova Scotia) Region (less than 15 tonnes in 2005);
these datasets are included within the Newfoundland and Labrador Region data and are used in this analysis.
2
The location given is that recorded in the vessel's fishing log, and is reported in the database by degree and minute of latitude and longitude;
thus the position is accurate within approximately 0.9 km (0.5 nautical mile) of the reported coordinates. It should be noted that for some gear,
such as mobile gear towed over an extensive area, or for extended gear, such as longlines which may be several miles long, the reference
point does not represent the full distribution of the gear or activity on the water. However, over many data entries, the reported locations create
a fairly accurate indication of where such fishing activities occur.
Page 195
MARINE FAUNA
9.7.4.3 Commercial Wild Fisheries Historical Context, 1980s to the Present

Beginning in the early 1990s, groundfish closures were imposed in many regions of Atlantic Canada,
including Placentia Bay, because of declining stocks. Within 3PSc for the period 1984 to 1990, 74
percent of the catch by quantity was cod, while snow crab made up just 3 percent, during 1994 to 1995,
immediately after the moratoria were imposed, cod made up only 6 percent of the harvest and snow
crab catches increased to 24 percent. In terms of value, cod accounted for nearly 60 percent of the
value of the 3PSc harvest (1984 to 1992), but only a negligible amount in 1994 to 1995. The lobster
fishery continued to be important in inshore areas throughout these changes, and remains a key fishery
today.
From 1986 to 1995, the quantity of fish taken from Placentia Bay declined from more than 19,000
tonnes to under 3,000 tonnes, a drop of 85 percent. However, the landed value of the 3PSc fishery did
not experience a similar decline, owing to the changed composition of the catch. In 1995, it was
primarily high-priced species such as lobster, snow crab and lumpfish roe, and the value of the fishery
was only 8 percent lower than in 1986 ($9,740,000 compared to $10,634,000). Value continued to rise
after 1995 until, by 2002, the harvest from 3PSc was worth more than $18 million, nearly 180 percent of
the value of the harvest in 1986, the year that the peak quantity was harvested over this timeframe.
Even with weaker prices in recent years, snow crab is still a very valuable species in this area.
When a limited cod fishery was reinstated in 3PSc in 1997, it was under a strict management regime.
From 2000 to 2002, cod was again the major fishery, making up nearly 60 percent of the harvest by
quantity. Since then, cod quotas have again been reduced.
The overall quantity harvested from 3PSc from 1987 to 2006 are illustrated for all species (Figure 9.42),
groundfish harvests, which are mainly cod (Figure 9.43), and all other species (mainly shellfish and
herring) (Figure 9.44).
Placentia Bay Harvest, All Species, 1987-2006
20,000
18,000
16,000
Tonnes
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
Figure 9.42
Placentia Bay Harvest, All Species, 1987 to 2006
Page 196
MARINE FAUNA
Placentia Bay Harvest, Groundfish, 1987-2006

20,000
18,000
16,000
Tonnes
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
Figure 9.43
Placentia Bay Harvest, Groundfish, 1987 to 2006
Placentia Bay Harvest, Other Species (Not Groundfish), 1987-2006

6,000
5,000
Tonnes
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
Note: The large increase in 2006 for non-groundfish species is owing to greatly increased whelk harvesting recorded in the DFO dataset for
that year. However, DFO managers contacted about the whelk data report that relatively few fishers are harvesting whelk directly within
Placentia Bay, and were not aware of any catch locations within the study area. They suggest that most of this species catch is made in areas
beyond 3PSc (e.g., in the St. Pierre Banks area) (M. Eddy, pers. comm.; R. Smith, pers. comm.). However, some 60 records in the 3PSc data
locate whelk harvesting in Placentia Bay, and the gear type associated with all the 3PSc whelk records (pot) is correct for this species.
Figure 9.44
Placentia Bay Harvest, Other Species (Not Groundfish), 1987 to 2006
Page 197
MARINE FAUNA
Since the groundfish closures, a fish harvesting rationalization strategy was implemented in the
province that reduced the number of participants in the harvesting sector, and a professionalization
process was introduced that prescribed specific levels of experience and training required to be a
professional fish harvester. Along with this system, DFO introduced the "core" harvesting enterprise
designation, with restrictions on harvesting by those who are not part of such an enterprise. The
following sections provide more information on key aspects of present-day Placentia Bay fisheries.
9.7.4.4 Current Regional Wild Fisheries (Placentia Bay)
Species Harvests
The composition of the harvest in Placentia Bay (i.e., UA 3PSc) in recent years, based on 2003 to 2006
landings by year, is shown in Table 9.19. As these data show, cod is still the primary species harvested
in the area, with snow crab, herring and lumpfish (roe fishery), scallops and a few other groundfish
species making up most of the remainder.
Table 9.19
Placentia Bay Harvest, 2003 to 2006 (by Year)
Species
2003
Atlantic cod
Redfish
American plaice
Yellowtail flounder
Winter flounder
Turbot (Greenland flounder)
Skate
Pollock
White hake
Monkfish
Herring
Sea scallops
Icelandic scallops
Whelks
Sea cucumbers
Sea urchins
Lobster
Snow crab
Lumpfish roe
All other species
Total
2004
Atlantic cod
Haddock
American plaice
Winter flounder
Skate
Pollock
White hake
Herring
Capelin
Sea cucumbers
Sea urchins
Lobster
Snow crab
Lumpfish roe
All other species
Total
Tonnes
Percent of Total
4,804.2
5.6
212.1
13.2
91.3
7.0
48.3
7.7
18.4
9.3
1,057.1
6.1
177.6
7.8
87.8
18.7
86.7
2,222.5
121.7
8.6
9,003.0
53.4
0.1
2.4
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
11.7
0.1
2.0
0.1
1.0
0.2
1.0
24.7
1.4
0.1
100.0
4,594.9
6.0
143.0
68.0
30.3
14.1
71.2
927.0
71.6
182.2
44.0
58.7
1,243.0
602.2
19.8
8,056.3
57.0
0.1
1.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.9
11.5
0.9
2.3
0.5
0.7
15.4
7.5
0.2
100.0
Page 198
MARINE FAUNA
Species
2005
Atlantic cod
Haddock
Redfish
Halibut
American plaice
Winter flounder
Skate
Pollock
White hake
Monkfish
Hagfish
Herring
Mackerel
Sea scallops
Icelandic scallops
Whelks
Sea cucumbers
Sea urchins
Lobster
Snow crab
Lumpfish roe
All other species
Total
2006
Atlantic cod
Haddock
Redfish
Halibut
American plaice
Yellowtail flounder
Winter flounder
Skate
Pollock
White hake
Monkfish
Herring
Mackerel
Capelin
Sea scallops
Icelandic scallops
Squid
Whelks
Sea cucumbers
Sea urchins
Lobster
Snow crab
Lumpfish roe
All other species
Total
Tonnes
Percent of Total
5,016.6
40.8
6.7
10.0
239.0
99.1
91.8
124.5
507.1
155.7
180.7
279.8
33.1
47.6
121.7
77.4
307.6
31.9
70.3
637.3
415.7
14.1
8,494.5
59.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
2.8
1.2
1.1
1.5
6.0
1.8
2.1
3.3
0.4
0.6
1.4
0.9
3.6
0.4
0.8
7.5
4.9
0.2
100.0
4,491.0
28.8
72.9
9.9
206.8
6.0
92.4
107.8
139.7
126.4
69.8
870.9
131.9
250.4
463.8
69.6
9.7
1,993.9
140.1
19.6
69.3
597.3
428.6
4.5
10,396.6
43.2
0.3
0.7
0.1
2.0
0.1
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.2
0.7
8.4
1.3
2.4
4.5
0.7
0.1
19.2
1.3
0.2
0.7
5.7
4.1
0.0
100.0
Note: Although the DFO data identify this harvest as sea cucumbers (Cucumaria frondosa), DFO managers consulted believe this is also an
error in the dataset, either associated with the incorrect UA designation (sea cucumbers are harvested off St. Pierre Bank in 3PS), or the
incorrect species code was used when the data were entered. If the latter, these may be scallops (code 618, not code 619).
Page 199
MARINE FAUNA
The Bays commercial fishers usually depend on three high-value species; lobster, snow crab and cod,
for the bulk of their annual fishing income. While lobster accounts for only a small percentage by weight
of the annual catch, given its high value, this species remains very important to many study area
fishers, and tends to be fished quite close to shore. Although the herring fishery is important (especially
as bait), it does not have the direct economic value of the other three fisheries.
Seasonality
Currently, some harvesting is conducted year-round within the Bay, as it was in the pre-moratorium
(1984 to 1992) period, though in recent years it has been much less evenly distributed throughout the
months compared to previous years (Figure 9.49). Since 1996, the peak harvesting months have been
June and July, but there has also been a fairly strong fishery in the late fall (for cod) (Figure 9.45). The
timing of the 2003 to 2006 harvests are illustrated for cod (Figure 9.46), lobster (Figure 9.47) and snow
crab (Figure 9.48).
Placentia Bay Harvest by Month, All Species
2003-2006 Average
2000
1800
1600
Tonnes
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Figure 9.45
All Species, Quantity by Month
Page 200
MARINE FAUNA
Placentia Bay Harvest by Month, Atlantic Cod

2003-2006 Average
1200
1000
Tonnes
800
600
400
200
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Figure 9.46
Cod, Quantity by Month
Placentia Bay Harvest by Month, Lobster

2003-2006 Average
40
35
Tonnes
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Month
Figure 9.47
Lobster, Quantity by Month
Page 201
MARINE FAUNA
Placentia Bay Harvest by Month, Snow Crab

2003-2006 Average
450
400
350
Tonnes
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Figure 9.48
Snow Crab, Quantity by Month
Fishing Gear
In many cases, the fishing gear used is specific to the species harvested: pots for snow crab; scallop
drags for scallops; and diving for sea urchins. Cod is harvested using several gear types, but primarily it
is harvested with gillnets in this area. The quantity of the harvest from Placentia Bay as a whole by
each gear type is shown in Table 9.20 for 2003 to 2006.
Table 9.20
Placentia Bay (3PSc) Harvest by Gear Type, 2003 to 2006 Average
Gear
Stern otter trawl
Beach and bar seine*
Tuck seine
Purse seine
Gillnets (set)*
Longlines*
Handlines*
Trap*
Pot*
Dredge / drag
Diving
Hagfish barrel*
Other
Total (Average)
Tonnes
79.8
32.6
22.3
666.4
5,265.6
331.1
246.5
110.5
1,764.5
401.7
28.5
45.2
4.7
8,994.6
Percent of Total
0.9
0.4
0.2
7.4
58.5
3.7
2.7
1.2
19.6
4.5
0.3
0.5
0.1
100.0
* Fixed gear.
Page 202
MARINE FAUNA
9.7.4.5 Study Area Wild Fisheries

Harvesting Locations
Fish harvesting activities occur throughout the Bay and the study area. The locations recorded in
DFO georeferenced dataset for all species, 2003 to 2006, aggregated are illustrated for 3PSc and
study area in Figures 9.49 and 9.50, respectively. However, this represents only small sub-set of
3PSc harvest. Lobster, which is harvested extensively in the study area, are not represented in
georeferenced data.
the
the
the
the
Harvests by Homeport and Port of Landing

Because very little of the catch data are specifically georeferenced, additional analysis was undertaken
to provide a better indication of study area fishing effort (species, quantities and values). This analysis,
for 2003 to 2006, considers the quantity of the harvest from the waters of 3PSc, by the recorded SS of
the fishing vessels homeport and by the Statistical Section of the port where the catch was landed
(Figure 9.51) (port of landing)3.
In the DFO datasets, the vessel homeport SS is provided for approximately 61 percent of the 2003 to
2006 catch (by quantity) harvested from within UA 3PSc. Of this, more than 97 percent (by weight) is
harvested by vessels registered in ports in Placentia Bay (i.e., ports within SS 29 to 32, (Figure 9.51)).
The commercial fisheries study area (shoreline boundaries) corresponds with SS 30.
DFO Newfoundland and Labrador Region does not disclose the specific homeport or port of landings for confidentiality reasons, though DFO
Maritimes Region does.
Page 203
MARINE FAUNA
Figure 9.49
Page 204
MARINE FAUNA
Figure 9.50
Commercial Fisheries Study Area
Page 205
MARINE FAUNA
Figure 9.51
Placentia Bay, Study Area and Location of Statistical Sections
The quantity of the harvest from 2003 to 2006 for the SS 29 to 32 areas of Placentia Bay is illustrated in
Figure 9.52, by homeport.
The port of landing area for the harvest (i.e., where it is brought to port and off-loaded) is indicated for
100 percent of the 3PSc catch. These locations range more broadly, indicating that the Placentia Bay
harvest is landed in many ports around the island of Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia. For 2003 to
2006, 87 percent of the harvest was landed in Placentia Bay ports (though this is not necessarily
processed there). The quantity of the harvest landed in 2003 to 2006 within the Placentia Bay Statistical
Sections (SS 29 to 32) is illustrated in Figure 9.53.
Page 206
MARINE FAUNA
Placentia Bay Area Harvest by Vessel Homeport

Statistical Section (2003-2006 Average)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
SS 29
Figure 9.52
SS 30
SS 31
SS 32
2003 to 2006 Placentia Bay Harvest (tonnes), All Species, by Statistical Section of
Homeport
Placentia Bay Area Harvest by Vessel Port Of Landing
Statistical Section (2003-2006 Average)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
SS 29
Figure 9.53
SS 30
SS 31
SS 32
2003 to 2006 Placentia Bay Harvest (tonnes), All Species, by Statistical Section of
Landing
Page 207
MARINE FAUNA
Boats from SS 30, which contains the proposed LNG terminal site, recorded the greatest proportion of
the recent Placentia Bay harvest, and SS 30 ports also received the greatest proportion of the Bays
landings for the 2003 to 2006 period.
The quantity and value of the harvest by species in 2003 to 2006 (averaged) for vessels reported as
based in SS 30 homeports are shown in Table 9.21. The quantity and value of the 3PSc harvest landed
in SS 30 ports are shown in Table 9.22.
Table 9.21
Species
Atlantic cod
American plaice
Winter flounder
Skate
Herring
Capelin
Sea scallops
Whelks
Lobster
Snow crab
Lumpfish roe
Other
Total
Table 9.22
Species
Atlantic Cod
American Plaice
Winter Flounder
Skate
Herring
Capelin
Sea Scallops
Sea urchins
Lobster
Snow crab
Lumpfish roe
Other
Total
Placentia Bay Harvest by Vessels from Statistical Section 30 Ports (2003 to 2006
Averages)
Tonnes
1,108.1
30.4
7.5
5.2
26.4
22.7
4.5
22.5
43.4
248.5
21.1
6.8
1,540.4
Value
$1,280,342
$21,214
$3,108
$1,508
$5,388
$6,378
$7,561
$22,149
$478,592
$529,609
$41,951
$8,554
$2,397,800
Placentia Bay Harvest Landed in Statistical Section 30 Ports (2003 to 2006

Averages)
Tonnes
1,608.4
49.3
17.6
7.2
349.2
56.2
10.1
19.5
46.2
184.1
16.9
13.0
2,364.8
Value
$1,858,421
$34,406
$7,238
$2,078
$71,237
$15,822
$17,076
$25,947
$509,117
$392,454
$33,470
$16,351
$2,983,616
Values are calculated based on the average annual quantities of landings for 2003 to 2006, applying
recent prices. Specifically, these prices are the average landed amounts paid to harvesters in 2006,
averaged over all months, for relevant species within the Newfoundland and Labrador Region (DFO
2006c).
The timing of the harvest (based on landings in SS 30 Ports for the 2003 to 2006 period) is shown in
Figure 9.54.
Page 208
MARINE FAUNA
Placentia Bay Harvest Landed in SS30 by Month,

All Species 2003 - 2006 (Averaged)
3000
2500
Tonnes
2000
1500
1000
500
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Figure 9.54
Placentia Bay Landed Harvest All Species 2003 to 2006
Fishing Enterprises, Study Area

Data on the number of core and non-core fishing enterprises in the commercial fisheries study area
were provided by DFOs Licensing Branch in St. Johns, for the year 2007. The numbers of core and
non-core enterprises by community and vessel length for SS 30 are show in Table 9.23. A "core"
fishing enterprise is a commercial fishing enterprise holding key species licences, under a system
established by DFO in 1996. New core enterprises are not normally created, though existing
enterprises may be transferred to a new eligible harvester. DFO requires that the transfer go to a Level
II professional fish harvester, as certified by the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board of
Newfoundland and Labrador. A non-core enterprise is one holding other (perhaps single) species
licences.
Page 209
MARINE FAUNA
Table 9.23
Number of Core and Non-Core Enterprises by Vessel Size, Statistical Section 30

(2007 Data)
Home Port
Fair Haven
Little Harbour East
Southern Harbour
Arnold's Cove
Come By Chance
North Harbour
Garden Cove
Swift Current
Prowseton & Sand Hr. (Vacated)
Davis Cove (Vacated)
Old Cove-Woody Island (Vacated)
Bar Haven (Vacated)
Haystack (Vacated)
Red Island (Vacated)
Brewley (Vacated)
Merasheen (Vacated)
Tack's Beach (Vacated)
Isle Au Valen (Vacated)
South East Bight
Monkstown
Total
<35 ft
15
16
28
18
4
13
6
5
3
5
1
2
1
5
1
6
2
3
25
6
165
35-64 ft
1
5
20
4
2
1
1
4
1
40
Total
16
21
48
22
4
15
6
5
4
6
1
2
1
5
1
7
2
3
29
7
205
Within the SS 30 ports, there are 205 fishing enterprises (based on 2007 records). Of these, 83 percent
use vessels less than 35 feet in length. In general, these smaller fishing boats tend to fish closer to
shore than the larger boats and closer to their home ports and/or ports of landing.
In particular, the lobster fishery (which is 0 percent georeferenced) is known to occur relatively close to
the fishers home wharves, along rocky shorelines and nearshore islands, using small boats. This
fishery while making up less than 1 percent of the overall Placentia Bay harvest by quantity in 2003 to
2005 accounted for almost 7 percent of the value of the harvest. Within SS 30 ports, lobster
represented more than 19 percent of the value of the catch.
9.7.4.6 Fisheries in the Grassy Point Area
Based on information obtained from several local area fishers for this assessment, it is estimated that
approximately nine enterprises usually fish various species in the Grassy Point area. Future
consultations and discussions with area fishers and FFAW representatives will determine the exact
number of enterprises with established harvesting activities in this area. Fishers based in Arnolds Cove
and Come by Chance, harvest both cod and lobster in this area. Lobsters are taken during the regular
season for this species in pots set relatively close to shore, out to a maximum of 10 to 12 fathoms (18
to 21 m). Cod are harvested primarily in June and July, and also later in the fall months. Most
(approximately 90 percent) of the cod is taken with gillnets, though trawls may also be used. Gillnets
are set relatively close to shore, where water depths are as shallow as 27 to 36 m (15 to 20 fathoms).
Fishers also harvest herring in this area, primarily for lobster bait. Herring is taken with nets beginning
about two weeks before the lobster season until the end of June. Fishers report occasional harvests of
flounder and scallops in the area as well. An enterprise based in Arnolds Cove also harvests sea
urchin on suitable grounds along the shore between Bordeaux Gut and Whiffen Head. Urchins are
taken from kelp beds by divers in water depths between 3 to 12 metres during the winter months.
Page 210
MARINE FAUNA
9.7.4.7 Aquaculture
To date, the majority of the aquaculture development and investment activities in southern
Newfoundland have been concentrated in the Bay dEspoir and Fortune Bay areas. In 2000, the
provinces aquaculture Strategic Plan noted the Newfoundland salmonid industry is located in Bay
dEspoir, the only area of the province that is suitable for the growing of steelhead trout and salmon.
(Burke Consulting 2000) However, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and
Aquaculture (NLDFA) aquaculture managers now believe that Placentia Bay has many of the desirable
characteristics of Bay dEspoir. As such, they are confident that Placentia Bay has significant growth
opportunities, including possibilities for the development of salmonid farming, as well as further
expansion of existing mussel operations.
Historical Overview
The development of aquaculture resources in Placentia Bay has been underway since the mid-1990s.
In 1997, there were seven active aquaculture operations and several applications to investigate and/or
develop additional sites. Two sea urchin sites were later approved but by 2003 these were no longer
active. A cod hatchery was also established in Placentia Bay in the early 1990s but this was
subsequently destroyed by fire.
During 2000 to 2003, NLDFA reported a relatively measurable level of expansion in the Placentia Bay
aquaculture sector and a considerable interest in the development of new mussel and cod farming
sites, particularly on the Burin Peninsula side of the Bay and around Merasheen Island. During this
period, NLDFA deployed thermographs in numerous locations to monitor water temperatures in order to
assess whether such areas might be suitable for aquaculture.
By 2003, there were 15 approved aquaculture operations including six blue mussel sites and nine cod
grow-out facilities4. At that point, most of these aquaculture sites were still at a developmental stage,
(i.e., they had product in the water, but no significant amount of commercial sales). In 2004, NLDFA
reported that only four operators were selling their product on a commercial basis 5. Nevertheless,
based on discussions with NLDFA experts and 2004 production and sales data obtained from selected
aquaculture enterprises, the annual value of aquaculture production (after primary processing) in
Placentia Bay was estimated at $500,000 (Canning and Pitt 2005).
In 2006, a detailed analysis of aquaculture operations in Placentia Bay was undertaken as part of a
larger comprehensive study of oil spill risk assessment within the South Coast Eastern Avalon region
prepared for TC (Canning and Pitt 2007). This study, based on data obtained from detailed
consultations with industry participants, as well as NLDFA experts, calculated current (2006/2007)
mussel production levels in Placentia Bay at 3.5 million pounds with a primary product value (before
processing) of $1.4 million. These data were based on current production levels at the five
commercially-active mussel farming sites within Placentia Bay as a whole.
Currently, the annual value of aquaculture production within Placentia Bay is relatively small compared
to other areas where fish farming has been under development for a much longer period. For example,
the study prepared for TC estimated salmonid production in the Bay dEspoir-Fortune Bay region will be
approximately 6,500 tonnes, with a primary product value of $34.5 million in 2007. By 2008, production
4
As of 2004, there were still no full-cycle (egg to plate) cod aquaculture operations in the province; thus, all cod enterprises are grow-out
facilities. However, current production of farmed cod is limited because of restrictions on taking wild cod for any purpose (NLDFA managers,
pers. comm.).
5
These included a cod farming facility on Jerseyman Island, two blue mussel farms at Crawley Island/St. Croix Bay and another mussel
operation on Merasheen Island.
Page 211
MARINE FAUNA
levels are expected to more than double, to 14,700 tonnes, which, at current product market values
($5,315 per tonne) would be worth an estimated $78 million. Annual blue mussel production levels in
the Bay dEspoir-Fortune Bay are currently estimated at 300,000 pounds valued at $120,0006.
Current Activities
According to the most recent (April 2007) NLDFA data, there are currently 13 licensed aquaculture
operations within Placentia Bay7. Applications for another eight sites are awaiting NLDFA approval8.
Currently, licensed sites include five mussel farming operations and eight Atlantic cod grow-out sites.
Detailed information on these mussel and cod farming operations within the study area is provided in
Table 9.24. The geographic location of existing aquaculture sites in Placentia Bay in relation to the
commercial fisheries study area is shown in Figure 9.55.
Table 9.24
Placentia Bay Study Area Aquaculture Site Licences and Applications, 2007
Company Name
Licences
Warren, Christopher J.
Applications
Merasheen Mussel Farms
Warren, Christopher
Mervin Hollett
Latitude
(Deg / Min)
Longitude
(Deg / Min)
Big South West Cove, Merasheen I.

Merasheen Island
47
47
34.43
36.22
54
54
10.35
9.85
Blue Mussels
Blue Mussels
Jean de Gaunt
Dog Harbour
Rose au Rue
Barren Island
Presque Hr
Big South West (Expansion)
Port Royal Arm
Merasheen Island
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
32.9
34.7
30.1
31.2
24.8
34.43
32.3
36.22
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
14.17
8.6
10.86
6.36
29.17
10.35
5.55
9.85
Blue Mussels
Blue Mussels
Blue Mussels
Blue Mussels
Blue Mussels
Blue Mussels
Blue Mussels
Oyster add-on
Location
Species
Source: T. Budgell, pers. comm.
NLDFA experts and industry participants acknowledge that, for various reasons, mussel farming in the Bay dEspoir-Fortune bay region has
not been as successful as it has been in Placentia Bay, or in other provincial aquaculture zones (e.g., along the Northeast coast).
7
NLDFA managers report that, if an aquaculture site is licenced, it is deemed to be "active", even though it may not be at the commercial
production stage (i.e., currently selling its product). It was also noted that, although their licences have been renewed annually, most of the
Atlantic cod operations have had little or no activity over the past several years due to moratoria. Further, most of the areas cod sites are
classed as developmental licences (for reasons related to the original intent of the cod grow-out sector and associated land tenure issues).
Managers also note that even developmental mussel licences are considered active, since these operations have gear deployed in the water
and hence, aquaculture is being conducted (T. Budgell, pers. comm.).
8
NLDFA notes that there is no guarantee that all of these applications will receive final approval (T. Budgell, pers. comm.).
Page 212
MARINE FAUNA
Source. T. Budgell, pers. comm. (refer to Table 9.24).
Figure 9.55
Aquaculture Sites in Placentia Bay, 2007
Current Status of Aquaculture Production

Consultations with all operators presently involved in the Placentia Bay aquaculture sector were
undertaken (in November 2006 and April 2007) to obtain further information about the present status of
these farming operations, including their current production levels, future plans and any concerns
related to the proposed LNG terminal at Grassy Point.
An overview of recent activity levels and current status of NLDFA approved aquaculture sites, and
applications pending NLDFA approval, that fall within the study area is provided in Table 9.25. Updated
baseline information obtained from NLDFA based on consultations with industry participants, is shown
in Table 9.25.
Page 213
MARINE FAUNA
Table 9.25
Activity Status of Northern Placentia Bay Aquaculture Sites (to April 2007)
Company/Operator
Location
Big South West
Cove,
Merasheen
Island
Merasheen
Island
Species
Blue Mussels
Current Status
Operation has had commercial sales for the last five years
or more; operator has applied to NLDFA for site
expansion, expects to increase production of mussels.
Blue Mussels
Hollett, Mervin
Port Royal Arm
Blue Mussels
Leonard, Peter
Southern
Harbour
Atlantic Cod
Merasheen Mussel
Farms Inc.
Merasheen Mussel
Farms Inc.
Merasheen Mussel
Farms Inc.
Merasheen Mussel
Farms Inc.
Merasheen Mussel
Farms Inc.
Merasheen Mussel
Farms Inc.
Warren, Christopher
Barren Island
Blue Mussels
Operation has had commercial sales for the last five years
or more; operator has applied to NLDFA to add oyster
farming activities to the site.
Licence status/approval is uncertain pending NLDFA
review of objections from scallop fisher(s) operating near
the site; no commercial sales to date; operator hopes to
begin mussel farming in 2007 or 2008 if NLDFA/DFO
approvals are obtained; if so, operator anticipates
commercial sales of 400,000 to 500,000 pounds in four to
five years.
Licence has been renewed but no commercial sales to
date; operation presently inactive, no equipment on site;
operations may resume pending DFO allocation of cod for
grow-out; potential for commercial sales will depend on
the same factors that have affected growth of other
Placentia Bay cod grow-out operations (availability of
growing stock, feed supply and market conditions).
Awaiting NLDFA approval.
Jean de Gaunt
Island
Presque Harbour
Blue Mussels
Blue Mussels
Rose au Rue
Blue Mussels
Dog Harbour
Blue Mussels
Merasheen
Island
Big South West
(Expansion)
Oyster
Awaiting NLDFA approval; operator has applied to add

oyster activities to existing mussel operations at this site.
Awaiting NLDFA approval (expansion of existing site
already licensed by NLDFA).
Blue Mussels
Source: T. Budgell, pers. comm.; C. Laing, pers. comm.
Currently, there are only three NLDFA-licensed aquaculture sites within the study area, and only two of
these operations (both mussel farms) are presently in commercial production (Table 9.25). One Atlantic
cod site (in Southern Harbour) is licensed, but has not had any commercial sales to date, and another
mussel farming operation (at Port Royal Arm) is awaiting approval from NLDFAs (Table 9.25).
All of the commercially-active operations within the study area are engaged in mussel farming; the
remaining cod farming site is not currently in production. Applications for an additional eight sites are
presently being reviewed by NLDFA. Seven of these applications are for mussel farming, while one firm
has applied to add oyster farming activities to its existing mussel farming site on Merasheen Island.
Consultations with licence holders indicate that cod farming has not proven to be economically feasible,
and only one operator anticipates resuming his cod farming activities in the next year or two. Cod
farmers report that a combination of factors - availability of growing stock, feed supply and costs and
market conditions - have made it very difficult to produce and sell farmed cod on an economic basis.
One or two operators remain optimistic that a special allocation of cod from DFO for grow-out stock
might allow them to re-enter the aquaculture sector within the next few years.
Within the past year or so, Cook Aquaculture has expressed some interest in developing new cod and
salmonid farming operations in Placentia Bay. However, company managers indicated that they are still
Page 214
MARINE FAUNA
in the process of collecting preliminary data and exploring potential sites and, as such, the company
has no specific investment plans at this point (N. Halse, pers. comm.).
9.7.5
Marine Mammals
The summaries below are for marine mammals most likely to occur within Placentia Bay. Those
mammal species at risk that may occur within Placentia Bay are considered separately in Section 9.8.
9.7.5.1 Humpback Whale
The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) is found in tropical, temperate and sub-polar waters
throughout the world and undergoes a seasonal migration from high-latitude feeding areas in the
summer to low-latitude breeding and calving grounds. During the summer, humpbacks are common in
the coastal waters of Newfoundland, but can be observed from March to November. The humpback is
considered the most common whale in Placentia Bay (TERMPOL Review Committee 1999) and the
head of Placentia Bay is reported locally to be frequented by humpbacks during the summer (Sjare et.
al 2003). They are attracted to the area each summer to feed on capelin and can occur in groups of
several individuals while feeding on capelin, herring, krill and shrimp.
The world population of humpback whales is estimated at between 12,000 and 15,000 animals, while
the Newfoundland and Labrador population is estimated at over 6,000 (J. Lawson, pers. comm.). There
are three feeding stocks in eastern Canada: the Gulf of Maine; the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and the
Newfoundland and Labrador stocks. There is some interchange between feeding stocks and juveniles
from all three stocks mix. The species is considered not at risk by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2003a) and
they are not a species listed by SARA.
9.7.5.2 Minke Whale
Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) occur worldwide and are the most common of the baleen
whales. They are common throughout Newfoundland and Labrador during the summer, arriving in the
inshore waters in April. Minke whales have been sighted within Placentia Bay in August during DFO
surveys (J. Lawson, pers comm.) Most stay for the summer and fall, as late as October or November,
but some individuals remain into the winter. Minkes are generally sighted in the nearshore, or in waters
less than 200 m deep (Hooker et al. 1999), but they occur offshore as well. They are most commonly
observed singly, but may occur in groups of two or three. Minkes feed on capelin and sand lance (Naud
et al. 2003), but also eat planktonic crustaceans, herring, mackerel and, occasionally, squid.
The north Atlantic population has been estimated at approximately 15,000 animals, of which,
approximately 5,000 occur in Newfoundland and Labrador. Minke whales were assessed by COSEWIC
in April 2006 as not at risk (COSEWIC website, accessed 2007).
9.7.5.3 Sei Whale
The sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) is considered a common visitor to Placentia Bay during the
summer (TERMPOL Review Committee 1999), but a basis for the claim has not been found, since they
are most often found in open, pelagic waters and along the Continental Shelf edge in the northwest
Atlantic (COSEWIC 2003b). Their diet in the north Atlantic consists mostly of copepods and
euphausiids, but they may also feed on schooling fish and squid (see COSEWIC 2003b). They migrate
northward along the continental slope in July and August and return along the slope from September to
Page 215
MARINE FAUNA
November, which places them in Newfoundland waters during August and September, although their
occurrence may be sporadic from year to year (Mitchell 1974; Mitchell and Chapman 1977).
In Atlantic Canada, the Nova Scotia stock is considered separate from eastern north Atlantic stock and
possibly another separate stock occurs off Labrador (COSEWIC 2003b). The western north Atlantic
population was estimated between 1,393 to 2,248 animals in the late 1970s, and this is still considered
the most accurate information (COSEWIC 2003b).
9.7.5.4 Sperm Whale
Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) are likely uncommon to Placentia Bay, but a sighting was
reported off Fairhaven, Placentia Bay in August 2005 (Ledwell and Huntington 2005). Sperm whales
are mainly an offshore species, but occasionally occur in deep inshore canyons. They feed on a variety
of fish and squid, so may enter the Bay in pursuit of a variety of prey. Sperm whales use acoustic clicks
for echolocation and communication. Measured frequencies during foraging dives have been in the
range of 5 to14 kHz (Madsen et al. 2002).
The population of sperm whales in the western north Atlantic has been estimated to be approximately
4,700 animals (NMFS website accessed June 2007). The sperm whale is not considered at risk by
COSEWIC and is not a listed species under SARA.
9.7.5.5 Long-finned Pilot Whale
Long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas), or potheads, usually travel in pods of 10 or more related
individuals (Amos et al. 1993; Whitehead et al. 1998). They commonly come close to shore, especially
if squid are abundant in the area. Squid is a primary prey item along with pelagic schooling fish species.
The pilot whales are considered occasional visitors to Placentia Bay during the summer (TERMPOL
Review Committee 1999), but may be abundant along the southern Avalon Peninsula (Hay 1982).
There are reports of a recent stranding on Sound Island, Placentia Bay (Coastal Resource Inventory
2007).
Pilot whales are distributed throughout the north Atlantic, with some evidence of segregation between
the west and east north Atlantic populations (Bloch and Lastein 1993). The Newfoundland and
Labrador population has been estimated between 4,000 and 12,000, with a world-wide abundance
estimate of 750,000 (J. Lawson, pers. comm.). The long-finned pilot whale has not been assessed by
COSEWIC and is not listed under SARA, so is considered not at risk.
9.7.5.6 Atlantic White-sided Dolphin
The Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) usually travel in groups numbering between
50 and 60, but groups sometimes number in the hundreds (Reeves et al. 1999). Their primary foods
are squid and herring, so they are occasional visitors to Placentia Bay from April to October (TERMPOL
Review Committee 1999). Fishers report that dolphins usually do not travel up the Bay, north of
Placentia, but can be seen year-round (Coastal Resource Inventory 2007). Goups of up to 80 Whitesided dolphins have been sighted within Placentia Bay in August during DFO surveys (J. Lawson, pers
comm.)
They are quite common in the northwest Atlantic, with a total population of several hundred thousand
(Reeves et al. 1999). Those in the western north Atlantic may be comprised of three distinct
populations: Gulf of Maine; Gulf of St. Lawrence; and the Labrador Sea population (Palka et al. 1997).
Page 216
MARINE FAUNA
The Atlantic white-sided dolphin was declared not at risk by COSEWIC in 1991 and is not listed under
SARA.
9.7.5.7 White-beaked Dolphin
White-beaked dolphins (Larenorhynchus albirostris) are occasional visitors to Placentia Bay during the
summer (TERMPOL Review Committee 1999). A mammal survey of Placentia Bay in August, 1980,
estimated a density of 0.99 individuals/square nautical mile (Hay 1982). White-beaked dolphins have
been sighted in groups of up to 40 within Placentia Bay in August during DFO surveys (J. Lawson, pers
comm.) They have a varied diet of squid, schooling fish and crustaceans. White-beaked dolphins
commonly travel in groups of approximately 30, but groups may number in the hundreds or thousands
(Kinze 2002).
White-beaked dolphins occur on both sides of the north Atlantic, but the west and east populations are
genetically distinct (Kinze 2002). The largest population is off Labrador and south western Greenland.
The white-beaked dolphin was declared not at risk by COSEWIC in 1998 and is not listed under SARA.
9.7.5.8 Harbour Seal
Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) are year-round residents of Placentia Bay. Sjare et al. (2005) reported a
total of 296 harbour seals in Placentia and St. Marys Bays during reconnaissance surveys of known
haul-out sites in 2001, 2002 and 2003. A congregation of females and pups was reported on southern
King Island, near Merasheen Island. Pupping is expected to occur during May and June (Sjare et al.
2005) and pups are nursed for approximately 24 days (Bowen et al. 2001). The pups spend time in the
water with the mother following weaning. Harbour seals are common in nearshore shallow waters near
river mouths or at particular haul-out sites at the head of Placentia Bay. A survey of local knowledge in
the area reported harbour seals hauled out in the Swift Current area, at Southern Head and on the
rocks around Arnolds Cove and Grassy Point (Sjare et al. 2003). The primary prey of harbour seals in
Newfoundland waters are winter flounder, Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida), shorthorn sculpin
(Myoxocephalus scorpius) and Atlantic cod, with some regional and age-specific variability (Sjare et al.
2005). Harbour seals at the mouths of rivers and in estuaries (i.e., Swift Current area) may be linked to
salmon runs (B. Sjare, pers. comm.).
The harbour seal has been divided into five different subspecies (Burns 2002). In 1996, the population
of harbour seals in eastern Canada was estimated at 32,000 with approximately 5,120 in Newfoundland
waters (Hammil and Stenson 2000).The harbour seal population status was last examined in 1999 by
COSEWIC which declared there was insufficient information available to make a determination on the
risk of extinction to the local subspecies.
9.7.5.9 Harp Seals
The harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) is considered an occasional visitor to Placentia Bay during the
spring (TERMPOL Review Committee 1999). Fishers report seeing harp seals in Placentia Bay from
December to May (Coastal Resource Inventory 2007) and hauled up on ice in North Harbour and in the
Swift Current-Sound Island area. Larger sculls of adult harp seals may move through this area to feed
in the spring (B. Sjare, pers. comm.). For the most part, after moulting in the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
northeastern Newfoundland and southern Labrador, aggregations of harp seals may form in April and
May, followed by a migration to Greenland and the eastern Arctic where they spend the summer. Harp
seals primarily eat capelin, Atlantic cod, Artic cod, herring and crustaceans while in inshore waters
(Hammill and Stenson 2000).
Page 217
MARINE FAUNA
The harp seal population in the northwest Atlantic was estimated to be between 4 and 6.4 million in
2000 (Healey and Stenson 2000). This population has been stable since 1996. This northwest Atlantic
population is genetically distinct from those that whelp in the northeast Atlantic (Perry et al. 2000).
Harp seals have not been assessed by COSEWIC and are not listed by SARA.
9.7.5.10
Grey Seals
Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) are considered common to Placentia Bay during the spring
(TERMPOL Review Committee 1999). Grey seals congregate in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (i.e., between
the eastern end of Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton Island) and on the ice in St. Georges Bay for
pupping and breeding from mid-December to late February (Stobo and Zwanenburg 1990). Pups are
weaned in approximately three weeks and soon after, grey seals disperse throughout the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, the Scotian Shelf and along southern Newfoundland, at which time, some grey seals may
make it to Placentia Bay. Grey seals are benthic and pelagic predators of herring, cod, flounder, skate,
squid, and mackerel.
Grey seals occur on both sides of the north Atlantic, but the stocks are genetically distinct (NAMMCO
1997). The northwest Atlantic stock is over 200,000 animals (with annual growth of approximately 12
percent) and is spread between the Gulf of St. Lawrence, off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and
Labrador (COSWEIC website accessed 2007). The species was assessed by COSEWIC in 1999 as
not at risk.
9.7.5.11
Hooded Seals
Hood seals (Cystophora cristata) have been reported by locals in the Swift Current area (Sjare et al.
2003). These sightings are primarily 1.5-year-old bluebacks hauled up in the fall and are likely feeding
in the area (B. Sjare, pers. comm.). Hooded seals are widely distributed throughout the northwestern
Atlantic summer and fall (Kovacs 2002). Pupping and mating occurs in March and April in Atlantic
Canada and the moulting migration to Greenland begins soon after.
Hooded seals in inshore waters consume mostly redfish and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius
hippoylossoides), supplemented by Artic cod and herring (Hammill and Stenson 2000). Population
estimates are on the order of half a million seals (Kovacs 2002). The hooded seal was declared not at
risk by COSEWIC in 1986 and is not listed by SARA.
9.7.6
Marine Birds
As part of background research for information on marine birds within the Grassy Point area, electronic
data searches were conducted, literature reviews were completed, previous environmental
assessments were consulted and officials from the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) were contacted.
The island of Newfoundland has seabird colonies of world importance since they number among the
world's largest and most easily accessed colonies (Important Bird Areas 2007). Seabirds of several
orders inhabit and move through Newfoundland waters in all four seasons. Placentia Bay is a
particularly important area for migratory birds, especially marine birds. While some birds like gulls and
guillemots are fairly sedentary near shore, many of the marine-associated birds in Placentia Bay are
migratory. Species like the Leachs Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) and the Manx Shearwater
only come to land to breed and spend most of the year out at sea. Other species come from the south
to breed in northerly waters, and then return to the south for winter. The Bay usually doesnt ice over in
winter, allowing year-round foraging for some marine species. The cliffs and trees along the coast
Page 218
MARINE FAUNA
provide high-quality nesting habitat for many species. Placentia Bay is rich in capelin and plankton,
providing substantial food resources for marine birds (Important Bird Areas of Canada 2007). The bird
species known to occur in Placentia Bay are listed in Table 9.26.
Table 9.26
Marine Associated Bird Species Known to Occur in Placentia Bay
Common Name
Gadwall
American Black Duck
Greater Scaup
Common Eider
Harlequin Duck
Common Goldeneye
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Common Loon
Greater Shearwater
Sooty Shearwater
Manx Shearwater
Leachs Storm Petrel
Northern Gannet
Double-crested Cormorant
Great Cormorant
Spotted Sandpiper
Black-headed Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Herring Gull
Great Black-backed Gull
Black-legged Kittiwake
Common Tern
Pomarine Jaeger
Parasitic Jaeger
Dovekie
Thick-billed Murre
Common Murre
Razorbill
Black Guillemot
Atlantic Puffin
Belted Kingfisher
Species Name
Anas strepera
Anas rubripes
Aythya marila
Somateria mollissima
Histrionicus histrionicus
Bucephala clangula
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser
Gavia immer
Puffinus gravis
Puffinus griseus
Puffinus puffinus
Oceanodroma leucorhoa
Morus bassanus
Phalacrocorax auritus
Phalacrocorax carbo
Actitis macularius
Larus ridibundus
Larus delawarensis
Larus argentatus
Larus Marinus
Rissa tridactyla
Sterna hirundo
Stercorarius pomarinus
Stercorarius parasiticus
Alle alle
Uria lomvia
Uria aalge
Alca torda
Cepphus grylle
Fratercula arctica
Ceryle alcyon
AOU Species Code

GADW
AMBL
GRSC
COEI
HADU
COGO
HOME
COME
COLO
GRSH
SOSH
MASH
LESP
NOGA
DCCO
GRCO
SPSA
BHGU
RBGU
HERG
GBBG
BLKI
COTE
POJA
PAJA
DOVE
TBMU
COMU
RAZO
BLGU
ATPU
BEKI
Source: Adapted from CWS data (2007) and important Bird Areas (2007).
Procellariiformes (tube-nosed seabirds) are pelagic birds that seek food from the oceans surface and
up to 20 m deep. This Order includes shearwaters and petrels. Placentia Bay is important for
thousands of locally-breeding seabirds and is host to globally important concentrations of Greater
Shearwaters (Puffinus grauis) during the summer (Important Bird Areas of Canada 2007) that come to
feed on capelin. Storm petrels nest in burrows onshore in large colonies, several of which are known
from Placentia Bay. There are no known tube-nosed seabird colonies within the Grassy Point area.
Of the Order Pelecaniformes, only cormorants and gannets are known from Placentia Bay. Both Great
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and Double-crested Cormorant (P. auritus) are diving species that
pursue fish underwater and nest in colonies onshore. Northern Gannets (Morus bassanus) dive for prey
from the air and nest in colonies on rocky cliffs. Abundance has historically been affected by
overhunting and the accumulation of toxins in the marine environment (Important Bird Areas 2007). Oil
pollution, both chronic (continual exposure to persistent oil) and catastrophic (large-scale spills), is a
continual threat for gannets, especially since the Cape St. Marys colony is located near a major
shipping route (Important Bird Areas of Canada 2007). Cormorants are known to occur near Arnolds
Page 219
MARINE FAUNA
Cove and a colony is known from a coastal area 10 km south of Grassy Point. Northern Gannets are
not known to occur in proximity to Grassy Point; their nearest colony is at Cape St. Marys.
The Order Anseriformes is comprised of waterfowl species. Some are marine-associated and some are
freshwater species (freshwater species are discussed in Section 9.3.4). Waterfowl vary in ecology from
terrestrial grazers to deepwater divers to swift surfers of ocean waves (Gill 1990). The species that use
the marine environment of Placentia Bay include American Black Duck, Greater Scaup (Aythya marila),
Common Eider (Somateria mottissima), Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), Common Goldeneye
and Red-breasted and Common Merganser. American Black Duck is a large dabbling duck that breeds
in a variety of wetlands, brooks, lakes, ponds, bogs, and salt marshes (Longcore et al. 2000) in
Newfoundland and will also forage in the marine environment. Black ducks have been observed at the
Arnolds Cove Bird Sanctuary. Greater Scaup primarily uses the southern coast of Newfoundland for
overwintering, but breeding is known from the Avalon Peninsula. There are no records of breeding
Greater Scaup from Placentia Bay (Kessel et al. 2002). Common Eider is known to breed on
Newfoundland shores and islands, and overwinter in Newfoundland waters. A colony is known from
Red Island (Figure 9.56) and there are likely other colonies in Placentia Bay. There are no known
Common Eider colonies near Grassy Point. Harlequin Duck is known from Cape St. Marys at the
mouth of Placentia Bay. It is a species of Special Concern under SARA that winters along
Newfoundlands southern coast and breeds in mountain stream habitats. It is not known from the
Grassy Point area. Common Goldeneye winters along the coasts and breeds in wetland, lake or
riparian habitats in Newfoundland where suitable tree or rock cavities are available (Bellrose 1980).
Although no data were available on Common Goldeneye from Placentia Bay, it is likely using the Bay
for overwintering and the adjacent terrestrial habitat for breeding. No Common Goldeneyes were found
during the waterfowl surveys and there did not appear to be suitable nest cavities near Grassy Point.
Two species of mergansers are likely present in Placentia Bay near Grassy Point. Common Merganser
is a large piscivorous duck which nests near large lakes and rivers in forested habitats (Mallory and
Metz 1999) throughout Newfoundland. This species overwinters on large lakes and rivers and along
coasts. Red-breasted Merganser is more frequently associated with salt water habitat than Common
Merganser and is also found throughout Newfoundland in coastal bays and large water bodies and
rivers (Titman 1999). No mergansers were detected during the waterfowl surveys, but it is likely they
are using areas near Grassy Point given the overwintering and breeding habitat available.
The Order Charadriiformes includes the Suborders that include shorebirds, gulls, and allies (Gill 1990).
The Suborder Charadrii includes sandpipers and plovers, some of which are marine-associated and
some of which prefer freshwater. The species found during waterfowl surveys were freshwaterassociated and are discussed in Section 9.3.4.
Members of the Suborder Alcae consist of auks, puffins, guillemots, and murres. These are diving birds
that forage below the surface and nest in colonies. Dovekie (Alle alle), Razorbill (Alca torda), Thickbilled Murre (Uria lomvia), Common Murre (Uria aalge), Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle) and Atlantic
Puffin (Fratercula arctica) are all known from Placentia Bay, but only the Black Guillemot is known to
nest in close proximity to Grassy Point (Figure 9.56).
The Suborder Lari comprises families such as the gulls, terns and jaegers, characterized by longwinged birds that occupy niches in the marine environment. Canadian Wildlife Service (2006) data from
Goose Island indicated the presence of 929 Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) nests, 153 Herring
Gull nests, and 291 Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) nests. Goose Island is approximately 2 km
away from the Grassy Point. Great Black-backed Gulls (L. marinus) and Black-headed Gulls (L.
ridibundus) are also known from Placentia bay in lesser numbers (Figure 9.57).
Page 220
MARINE FAUNA
Source: from CWS (2007) data.
Figure 9.56
Historical Locations of Marine-Associated Birds in Placentia Bay
Page 221
MARINE FAUNA
Figure 9.57
Historic Locations of Gull Colonies in Placentia Bay
Page 222
MARINE FAUNA
Common (Sterna hirundo) and Arctic (S. paridisaea) Terns are often found together during nesting
season. The known historical locations of these species in Placentia Bay are shown in Figure 9.58.
Common and Arctic Terns forage by plunge-diving and surface-dipping for a variety of small fish,
crustaceans and other invertebrates (Hatch 2002). Their breeding season is short, spending only two to
three months in their nesting areas and returning to sea (Hatch 2002). The Arctic Tern has the longestdistance migration of any bird, returning to the Antarctic each year after breeding.
Figure 9.58
Historical locations of Common and/or Arctic Terns in Placentia Bay
Page 223
SPECIES AT RISK
9.8
Species at Risk
The official federal list of wildlife and plant species at risk in Canada is Schedule 1 of the Species at
Risk Act (SARA). The purposes of SARA are to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies and
distinct populations of wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of
endangered or threatened species, and to encourage the management of other species to prevent
them from becoming at risk. Section 32 of SARA prohibits killing, capturing and destruction of critical
habitat for those species listed on Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered and threatened. Critical
habitat is defined as the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species
and that is identified as the species' critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the
species.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is a committee of experts
which assesses and designates which Canadian wildlife species are in some degree of danger of
disappearing. Under SARA, COSEWIC is responsible for identifying and providing scientific
assessments for species considered as being at risk. These assessments are then passed on to the
federal Minister of the Environment. The federal government, through the Governor-in-Council, then
decides which species are added to the official list after a review period and public notice. Lists of
species at risk that are most likely to occur in northern Placentia Bay are provided in Table 9.27. Note
that the species included are either listed under SARA and/or given status by COSEWIC.
Table 9.27
Federal Species at Risk that may Occur in Placentia Bay
SPECIES
Common
Scientific
Name
Name
Birds
Barrows
Bucephala
Goldeneye
islandica
Eskimo
Numenius
Curlew
borealis
Harlequin
Histrionicus
Duck
histrionicus
Pagophila
Ivory Gull
eburnea
Piping
Charadrius
Plover,
melodus
melodus
melodus
subspecies
Loxia
Red
curvirostra
Crossbill
percna
Rusty
Euphagus
Blackbird
carolinus
Short-eared
Asio
Owl
flammeus
Marine Mammals
Balenoptera
Blue Whale
musculus
North
Eubalaena
Atlantic
glacialis
Right Whale
Balenoptera
Fin Whale
physalus
Harbour
Phocoena
Porpoise
phocoena
COSEWIC* Status
Expected Use of the Grassy Point

Area
Special Concern
Not likely to occur
Endangered
Not likely to occur
Special Concern
Not likely to occur
Endangered
Not likely to occur
Schedule 1 Endangered
Endangered
Not likely to occur
Endangered
May occur but area is not critical habitat

for the species
Special Concern

for the species
Schedule 3
Special Concern
Special Concern
Not likely to occur
Endangered
Not likely to occur
Endangered
Not likely to occur
Schedule 1
Special Concern
Special Concern
SARA* Status
Schedule 1
Special Concern
Schedule 1
Special Concern
Schedule 1
Special Concern
Special Concern

for the species
for the species
Page 224
SPECIES AT RISK
SPECIES
Common
Scientific
Name
Name
Fish
American
Anguilla
Eel
rostrata
Atlantic Cod
Gadus
(Laurentian
morhua
North Pop)
Atlantic Cod
Gadus
(NL Pop)
morhua
Atlantic
Anarhichas
Wolffish
lupus
Prionace
Blue Shark
glauca
Northern
Anarhichas
Wolffish
denticulatus
Porbeagle
Lamna
Shark
nasus
Shortfin
Isurus
Mako
oxyrinchus
Spotted
Anarhichas
Wolffish
minor
Reptiles
Leatherback
Dermochelys
Turtle
coriacea
Arthropods
Monarch
Danaus
Butterfly
plexippus
Lichens
Boreal Felt
Erioderma
Lichen
pedicellatum

SARA* Status
COSEWIC* Status
Expected Use of the Grassy Point

Area
Special Concern

for the species
Threatened
Occurs but area is not critical habitat for

the species
Endangered
Schedule 1
Special Concern
Special Concern
Occurs but area is not critical habitat for

the species
for the species
Special Concern
Not likely to occur
Threatened
Not likely to occur
Endangered
Not likely to occur
Threatened
Not likely to occur
Schedule 1 Threatened
Threatened
Not likely to occur
Endangered

for the species
Schedule 1
Special Concern
Special Concern
Not likely to occur
Schedule 1
Special Concern
Special Concern
Not likely to occur
Schedule 1 Threatened
*Listing as of June 28, 2007.
9.8.1
Marine Fish
9.8.1.1 Atlantic Cod

In 2004, the Newfoundland and Labrador population of Atlantic cod was listed as endangered by
COSEWIC and the Laurentian North population was listed as threatened by COSEWIC. Neither
population is currently listed by SARA, so the prohibitions under SARA do not apply with respect to cod.
Both populations underwent public consultation for inclusion on Schedule 1 of SARA, but it was
determined that significant socio-economic impacts were anticipated if the Newfoundland and Labrador
and Laurentian North populations of Atlantic Cod were listed under SARA. Instead, the approach
decided upon was to continue to work with domestic and foreign governments, the fishing industry,
non-government organizations and others to rebuild the cod populations using current and new
initiatives.
Cod occurring within the Grassy Point area are designated part of the 3Ps stock which is a component
of the Laurentian North population. Cod within Placentia Bay are primarily a localized stock or bay
population, but there is mixing with the offshore areas outside Placentia Bay and Fortune Bay (Brattey
et al. 2002). Cod tagged at the head of Placentia Bay in the spring have been recaptured all over
Placentia Bay, but the majority have been recaptured within the inner half of Placentia Bay (i.e., north of
Argentia) (Brattey et al. 2002), especially fish less than 50 cm (Lawson et al. 1998). Cod tagged near
Cape St. Mary's did not move into the Bay during spring and summer, but remained at the mouth of the
Page 225
SPECIES AT RISK
Bay or migrated into NAFO Division 3L (Lawson et al. 1998), which would indicate mixing with the
Laurentian North population.
Spawning cod can be found in Placentia Bay from March to August (DFO 2005b), with considerable
variation in peak spawning time. Spawning east of Bar Haven Island, in the Western Channel of
Placentia Bay, peaked in April of 1997 but not until June of 1998 (Bradbury et al. 1999; Lawson and
Rose 1999). As part of the Cod Recovery Strategy, the area of Sound Island, Woody Island and Bar
Haven is closed to commercial harvesting from January 1 to May 2 each year to protect over-wintering
and spawning aggregations of cod (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador 2005). A study of spawning
adult cod collected near the mouth of North Harbour also concluded spawning peaked in early June of
1998 (Bolon and Schneider 1999). Other spawning grounds within Placentia Bay have been identified
at Perch Rock (Cape St. Marys) and Oderin Bank (Bradbury et al. 1999; Lawson and Rose 1999).
Peak larval densities in Placentia Bay were observed in August (Bradbury et al. 1999), but vary
annually according to water temperature during egg and larval development. Currents on the western
side of Placentia Bay tend towards the mouth of the Bay, carrying eggs and larvae from the Bar Haven
area to the south (Bradbury et al. 1999; Bradbury et al. 2000). Cod larvae do settle out in nearshore
habitats near Bar Haven Island beginning in October (Robichaud and Rose 1999). Other important cod
nursery habitats identified by Robichaud and Rose (1999) within inner Placentia Bay were the northern
portion of Merasheen Island, Long Island and Little Southern Harbour. Older juveniles (i.e., age one to
four) were found near Long Island, Placentia Bay, primarily between 25 and 75 m water depths, over
gravel and cobble substrates (Gregory and Anderson 1997).
Pelagic juveniles can occupy rock reef, cobble, eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds, and sand bottom
(Tupper and Boutilier 1995b). Tupper and Boutilier (1995b) assumed that settling also occurred on
macroalgae habitat, as noted by Keats et al. (1987) off eastern Newfoundland. Although some habitat
is suitable, there were no juvenile or adult cod observed during the habitat surveys conducted in the
Grassy Point area in September 2006 or in August 2007. Shallow water depths (<5 m) and a strong
attraction to features on most substrata, except sand, afford settled juveniles an environment conducive
to growth and survival (Tupper and Boutilier 1995a; Grant and Brown 1998b). Juvenile cod primarily eat
pelagic crustaceans, especially zooplankton, but also eat benthic species (e.g., gammarids and
harpacticoids) (Scott and Brown 1998). Capelin is a major prey item for inshore adult cod (Lilly 1987),
depending on the season (ODriscoll and Rose 2000).
9.8.1.2 American Eel
The American eel is listed as a COSEWIC species of special concern, but has no SARA status. Eels
may migrate past the Grassy Point area as they enter or leave the Come By Chance River or Pipers
Hole River. Eels migrate from the rivers during August and September, and return in May.
Eels from all over the world spawn in the Sargasso Sea. Hatched larvae drift towards the Continental
Shelf, where they metamorphose into small, transparent glass eels. As glass eels move into inshore
waters, they develop pigmentation and become elvers. Elver arrival generally occurs in May and early
June on the Atlantic coast of the Maritime Provinces. Some elvers remain in shallow protected salt
water, some move into estuaries, and some move into fresh water. Elvers become yellow eels, which
have a dark back and a yellowish belly. Sexual differentiation occurs during the yellow phase.
The historic Canadian range includes all accessible fresh water, estuaries and coastal marine waters
connected to the Atlantic Ocean, up to the mid-Labrador coast. Continental shelves are used by
juvenile eels arriving from the spawning grounds, and by silver eels returning to the spawning grounds.
They are primarily benthic inhabitants, using substrate and bottom debris as protection and cover.
Page 226
SPECIES AT RISK
Long-term indices are not available for Newfoundland, but electrofishing survey results for the
Northeast Brook on Trepassey Bay suggest a decline from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s. A similar
downward trend is found in densities in the Highlands River on Newfoundland's west coast. In
Newfoundland (FEA4) and Labrador (FEA5), yellow and silver eels are fished principally in rivers, but
there are many rivers which are not exploited. Although seven exploratory elver licences were issued in
2004 in Newfoundland, fishing and effort data are not available. Possible causes of the observed
decline, including habitat alteration, dams, fishery harvest, oscillations in ocean conditions, acid rain,
and contaminants, may continue to impede recovery (COSEWIC Status Report 2006a).
9.8.1.3 Atlantic Wolffish
As a single population, the Atlantic (or striped) wolffish in the northwest Atlantic are listed on Schedule
1 of SARA as a species of special concern. On the western side of the north Atlantic, they occur off the
coast of west Greenland and southern Labrador, in the Strait of Belle Isle and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The Atlantic wolffish is a large bottom-dwelling predatory marine fish. Adults can weigh almost 20
kilograms and reach a length of 150 cm. Atlantic wolffish are found over hard clay bottoms at depths
from 101 to 350 m around Newfoundland (Scott and Scott 1988), but they occur in nearshore waters
during the summer. Mature Atlantic wolffish migrate to shallow, inshore waters in the spring and spawn
in September (Simpson and Kulka 2002). Eggs are laid in a mass that adheres to the bottom and the
eggs are guarded by the male. Eggs hatch by mid-December and the larvae are pelagic, but they
seldom swim near surface waters and the entire larval stage is spent close to where the eggs were
deposited (see Simpson and Kulka 2002).
The Grassy Point area reaches a depth of approximately 30 m, and this nearshore shallow water
habitat is not believed to be suitable for wolffish.
Available data indicate that the number of Atlantic wolffish in Canadian waters has declined by 87
percent from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s. The number of locations where the species occurs has
declined and the range where the species is abundant may be shrinking. Even though it has
measurably declined, it is thought to be very widespread and to still exist in relatively large numbers
(SARA website accessed June 2007). There are no data available on the direct causes of the declines
of Atlantic wolffish in the Atlantic. The Atlantic Wolffish was commercially fished at one time as a target
species, but now only as a by-catch. Bottom trawling is likely detrimental to the species by destroying
and disrupting habitat.
9.8.1.4 Northern Wolffish
Northern wolffish in the northwest Atlantic is treated as a single population and is listed as threatened
on Schedule 1 of SARA due to the rapid decline along the Northeast Newfoundland/Labrador Shelf and
the Grand Banks. It is a deep water species, preferring depths from 151 to 600 m, and is recorded up to
1,000 m (Scott and Scott 1988). It is not likely to occur in the Grassy Point area as the area reaches a
depth of approximately 30 m, and this nearshore shallow water habitat is not believed to be suitable for
wolffish.
Northern wolffish are pelagic fish, spending a great deal of time swimming and feeding on moving
creatures in open waters. In summer, mature females lay up to 30,000 extremely large eggs in a nest
on the sea floor. Adult northern wolffish are observed to make limited movements and are nonmigratory. The northern wolffish favours open Continental Shelf water that is cold (usually between 2C
to 5C). The fish is thought to prefer a rocky or muddy sea floor, but is found over all types of ocean
Page 227
SPECIES AT RISK
bottoms. There is little known about the reproductive biology of this species, but spawning is believed to
occur late in the year (DFO 2004a). Fertilized eggs are deposited on the bottom, but larvae are pelagic
(see Simpson and Kulka 2002).
From 1978 to 1994, abundance in the primary range off northeast Newfoundland declined by 98
percent. The number of locations where the species occurs has also declined (SARA website,
accessed June 2007).
Although the northern wolffish is not targeted by the fishing industry, it is taken as by-catch by offshore
trawlers. Groundfish trawls also accidentally kill or maim individuals. Bottom trawling for fish and
dredging for scallops and clams damage spawning habitat by disturbing rocks and boulders used for
shelter and construction of nests.
9.8.1.5 Spotted Wolffish
Spotted wolffish are treated as a single population in the northwest Atlantic and are listed as threatened
on Schedule 1 of SARA, due to the rapid decline along the northeast Newfoundland/Labrador Shelf and
the Grand Banks. In the western north Atlantic, they occur primarily off northeast Newfoundland. Since
1978, scientific surveys in the western Atlantic indicate a 96 percent decline in the Canadian population
of spotted wolffish over 21 years (equivalent to three generations of wolffish). Spotted wolffish are a
predatory bottom-dweller, inhabiting waters of 200 to 750 m, but usually found at depths of 457 m or
more (Scott and Scott 1988). As the Grassy Point area reaches a depth of approximately 30 m, this
nearshore shallow water habitat is not believed to be suitable for wolffish.
As with the other wolffish species, larvae are pelagic. A seasonal inshore migration is not known.
Spawning is thought to occur late in the year (DFO 2004a). Spotted wolffish are found over all oceanbottom types. The spotted wolffish favours cold, open continental shelf water, with water temperatures
between 2C to 5C.
Although the spotted wolffish is not targeted by the fishing industry, it is taken as by-catch by offshore
trawlers. Groundfish trawls also accidentally kill or maim individuals. Bottom trawling for fish and
dredging for scallops and clams damage spawning habitat by disturbing rocks and boulders used for
shelter and construction of nests. In addition, the bottom sediments are re-suspended, smothering
spawning areas and damaging gills.
9.8.1.6 Porbeagle Shark
Porbeagle shark is a large cold-water pelagic shark distributed in the western Atlantic from Greenland
to Bermuda (COSEWIC 2004a). Its distribution includes all the waters off Newfoundland. Porbeagle
shark are specifically found on the St. Pierre Bank and in the Laurentian Channel in the spring and
summer months (Scott and Scott 1988). The porbeagle shark is believed to constitute a single
population in the northwest Atlantic.
Adults undertake annual migrations between the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, to the waters off
Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, at a preferred temperature between 5 and 10C
(Campana et al. 2001 as cited in COSEWIC 2004a). They may be found singly or in schools, and are
occasionally found close to shore in shallow water during the summer (Campana 2001 as cited in
COSEWIC 2004a). They are primarily a mid-water species and feed opportunistically on benthic,
pelagic and epipelagic fish species (Joyce et al. 2002, as cited in COSEWIC 2004a), such as the
lancetfish (Alepisaurus spp.), cod and flounder. Squid also constitute a major portion of their diet (Joyce
et al. 2002).
Page 228
SPECIES AT RISK
Mating is believed to occur from August to November in the Cabot Strait, off southern Newfoundland
and on the Grand Banks. Gestation is approximately eight to nine months and self-reliant young are
born from early April to early June (Jensen et al. 2002, as cited in COSEWIC 2004a). Juveniles are not
known to migrate and are most common on the Scotian Shelf. Prior to 1991, the most abundant ageclass off southern Newfoundland in the fall months was 10 to 15 years old. This is consistent with the
use of the area as a mating ground. Between 1998 and 2000, the most abundant age classes in this
area were less than age 3 (Campana et al. 2002).
Abundance of porbeagle has declined greatly since it was targeted commercially in the 1990s, after an
earlier collapse and partial recovery (COSEWIC 2004a). Its life history characteristics, including late
maturity and low fecundity, make this species vulnerable to overexploitation (COSEWIC 2004a). The
population is considered endangered by COSEWIC and is currently not listed by SARA.
9.8.1.7 Shortfin Mako
COSEWIC designated the shortfin mako as threatened in 2006, and is currently under consideration for
SARA listing. In Canadian waters, the shortfin mako shark is most closely associated with warm waters
such as in and around the Gulf Stream. The shortfin mako has been recorded from Georges and
Browns Bank, along the Continental Shelf of Nova Scotia, the Grand Banks off Newfoundland and even
into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These sharks are not abundant in Canadian waters, due to their
preference for warm waters, but neither are they uncommon. The species is highly migratory, with
tagging results suggesting that there is a single well-mixed population in the north Atlantic. Atlantic
Canada represents the northern extension of their range, and most of their population is believed to
reside in more temperate waters. In Canadian waters, the shortfin mako is most closely associated with
warm waters such as the Gulf Stream. They prefer temperate to tropical waters with temperatures
between 17 and 22C. The mako would be considered a rare occurrence within Placentia Bay.
They occur from the surface to 500 m depths and typically well offshore, but makos have occasionally
been observed in littoral zones. They feed on fish and marine mammals. There are no known breeding
areas in Canadian waters. The status of the mako shark population in Canadian waters was assessed
for the first time in 2004, revealing the north Atlantic population had declined since 1986. There are no
shark surveys or fishery-independent surveys for shortfin mako in Canadian waters. Therefore, all
abundance indices are based on data from commercial or recreational fisheries. There are no reliable
means for estimating the total abundance of mature individuals in Canadian waters, as the total
population in Canadian waters is unknown. Shortfin mako by-catch by foreign fleets in the north Atlantic
are the most important source of mortality for the population. In Atlantic Canada, shortfin makos have at
times been misidentified as porbeagle shark.
9.8.1.8 Blue Shark
The blue shark is considered to have a single, highly migratory population in the north Atlantic, a
portion of which is present in Canadian waters seasonally. They can be found throughout Atlantic
Canada in almost all waters, with a peak occurrence in the late summer and fall. Blue sharks have
been found in southeastern Newfoundland and the Grand Banks, mainly between July and December.
The abundance index is considered to best represent the whole population and has declined 60
percent from 1986 to 2000, but another index shows no long-term trend for the whole population from
1971 to 2003 (COSEWIC 2006a). COSEWIC has listed blue shark as a species of special concern.
Blue sharks are pelagic, most commonly encountered offshore between the surface and 350 m. They
prefer offshore habitats, but have been observed inshore on occasion (COSEWIC 2006a). Water
Page 229
SPECIES AT RISK
temperature appears to influence their depth and latitudinal distributions, as well as size and sex
distributions. Blue sharks are known to occur in waters between 5.6 to 28C.
Canadas waters (Atlantic and Pacific) provide habitat for primarily subadult (immature) individuals,
although adult (mature) specimens are occasionally encountered. Occurrence of blue sharks in the
Grassy Point area is considered rare.
This species is a relatively productive shark (maximum age 16 to 20 years, mature at four to six years,
generation time eight years, 25 to 50 pups every two years), but elasmobranch (i.e., sharks, skates and
rays) populations are susceptible to increased mortality from all sources, including from human
activities. The primary threat is by-catch in pelagic longline fisheries; although the threat is understood
and is reversible, it is not being effectively reduced through management. Assessing the effect of bycatch on the population would benefit from better information on proportion of individuals discarded
which survive. It appears that recent fishery removals from the north Atlantic have been several tens of
thousands of tons annually. Estimated Canadian removals, a small proportion of the total, have been
declining since the early 1990s and recently have averaged approximately 600 t/yr. Loss of habitat is
not considered a threat for this species (COSEWIC 2006a).
9.8.2
Marine Mammals
9.8.2.1 Blue Whale

Blue whales are rare to Placentia Bay, but may occur during the winter or spring (TERMPOL Review
Committee 1999). The DFO marine mammal sightings database does not have any records of blue
whales in Placentia Bay, but it is possible that they occur there (J. Lawson, pers. comm.). They are
primarily an offshore species, attracted to areas of upwelling and oceanographic fronts in search of
their principal food source, krill. The inshore area on the south coast of Newfoundland - off Burgeo and
Connoire Bay - is frequented by blue whales in late winter and early spring (Seton et al. 1992).
Blue whales occur throughout the world, but in low numbers. Blue whales are usually sighted singly or
in pairs. Estimates are of a few hundred in the western north Atlantic (Sears and Calambokidis 2002)
and approximately 1,400 in the entire north Atlantic population. The Atlantic population of blue whales
is listed as endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA.
9.8.2.2 Fin Whale
Fin whales commonly occur during spring, summer and fall in Placentia Bay (TERMPOL Review
Committee 1999), but they may occur in other months (Lawson 2006). During the summer, they feed
primarily on euphausiids, capelin, squid and sometimes herring. They may form small groups while
feeding, but are usually seen singly or in pairs. They are most abundant in the northeast coast of the
island of Newfoundland (Lawson 2006). Sightings occur from shallow coastal waters to the limits of
sighting effort at water depths of over 4,000 m (Lawson 2006). Fin whales have been sighted within
Placentia Bay in August during DFO surveys (J. Lawson, pers comm.)
The Newfoundland population is estimated at approximately 2,200, with a total of 120,000 world-wide
(J. Lawson, pers. com.) There is debate as to whether the fin whales of the eastern north Atlantic may
comprise two or more stocks (see COSEWIC 2005). The fin whale is listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as
a species of special concern.
Page 230
SPECIES AT RISK
9.8.2.3 Harbour Porpoise

Harbour porpoise live in the temperate waters of the northern hemisphere. They are widely distributed
on the continental shelves of the northern oceans, and with several separate and distinct populations,
the Atlantic and Pacific populations of harbour porpoise are separate subspecies. Within the Atlantic
Ocean, harbour porpoise in the northeast Atlantic are effectively separated from those living in the
northwest Atlantic. In eastern Canada, harbour porpoise are found from the Bay of Fundy to Baffin
Island. Evidence suggests that there are three discrete populations summering in eastern Canada
(Newfoundland and Labrador, Gulf of St. Lawrence and Bay of Fundy-Gulf of Maine). There is likely
some mixing of these populations in the winter, when less is known about their distribution. There are
no range-wide estimates of the abundance of harbour porpoises in eastern Canada, but it seems likely
that the northwest Atlantic population is greater than 50, 000 individuals (SARA website accessed June
2007).
As the name suggests, harbour porpoise are often seen in bays (especially in summer), although they
have also been seen hundreds of kilometres offshore. Harbour porpoise are most likely to occur in
coastal Newfoundland waters from April to October, although reports of harbour porpoise at the mouth
of Placentia Bay extend in to November (Ledwell and Huntington 2006). Harbour porpoise have been
sighted within Placentia Bay in August during DFO surveys (J. Lawson, pers comm.) Harbour porpoise
are often seen in small groups, but may form very large groups occasionally (Bjrge and Tolley 2002).
Unlike other marine mammals, harbour porpoise do not form groups to increase feeding efficiency,
since they feed individually on small schooling fish like capelin, herring and squid (Read 1999). As a
small marine mammal with limited energy reserves, harbour porpoise are frequent feeders and their
distribution at any given time is associated with the distribution of prey. They are attracted to prey-rich
areas, especially of fat-rich prey such as capelin and herring. The species is well adapted to cold water
and is seldom found in water warmer than 16C. Individuals may return to the same areas on a
seasonal basis from year to year.
Harbour porpoise were initially listed by COSEWIC due to a significant proportion of the population
being accidentally killed each year as incidental bycatch, particularly in groundfish gillnet fisheries
(COSEWIC 2006b). The magnitude of this problem may have decreased in recent years due to
changes in the groundfish fishery. However, there are still many hundreds or thousands of porpoise
that die each year by accidental entrapment in fishing gear. The northwest Atlantic population of the
harbour porpoise is currently designated by COSEWIC as a species of special concern.
9.8.2.4 North Atlantic Right Whale
The lower Bay of Fundy is home to the worlds most endangered whale population, the North Atlantic
right whale. The population is listed on Schedule 1 as endangered under SARA. In the western north
Atlantic, the right whale ranges from Florida to Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. They congregate in the lower Bay of Fundy and on the Scotian Shelf during the summer and
fall.
The distribution of North Atlantic right whales would appear to be in response to physical and biological
characteristics of the environment. Previous studies in the Bay of Fundy have indicated that right
whales are mostly found in waters of about 90 to 240 m, and in surface water temperatures of 11 to
14.5C, with respective means of 140 m and 12.7C. (Gaskin 1991; Woodley and Gaskin 1996).
This distribution is much narrower than the right whales historical range, which included the east coast
of North America, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Atlantic Canada to Labrador, southern Greenland,
Page 231
SPECIES AT RISK
Iceland, Norway and the European coast to northwestern Africa. The current population is
approximately 322 individuals. The declining population in Newfoundland and Labrador can in part be
attributed to historical coastal and pelagic hunting. The population appeared to be increasing in the
1980s and early 1990s, but began to decrease again in the mid-1990s (COSEWIC 2003c). Fujiwara
and Caswell (2001) determined statistically that if the population growth rate observed in 1995 were
maintained, North Atlantic right whales would become extinct within approximately 200 years. Current
threats to the population include declines in reproduction, collisions with ships, entanglement in fishing
gear, marine pollution, reduction in food sources and possibly disturbance from tourism (whale
watching) boats (COSEWIC 2003c).
9.8.3
Reptiles
9.8.3.1 Leatherback Sea Turtle

Leatherback sea turtles have been sighted throughout Placentia Bay, between June and October (Goff
and Lien 1988), but are most common in late summer (TERMPOL Review Committee 1999).
Leatherbacks have been sighted within Placentia Bay in August during DFO surveys (J. Lawson, pers
comm.) Peak leatherback occurrences in Canadian waters are reported during August and September,
and observations have been reported nearly every month of the year (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle
Recovery Team 2006). In one study of Atlantic Canadian observations, the mean sea surface
temperature at the location of leatherback observations was 16.6C (James et al. 2006). Another study
of leatherback observations in Newfoundland waters reported a mean temperature of 12.6C (Goff and
Lien 1988). The leatherback sea turtles distribution and movement in Canadian waters is closely
associated with the distribution of the jellyfish (Cyanea and Aurelia spp.), the leatherback turtles
primarily food item (James et al. 2006). Generally, there is variability in where leatherbacks occur in
Canadian waters each year, and frequent observations occur on the Scotia Shelf off Halifax, off the
southeast coast of Newfoundland and off the tail of the Grand Banks (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle
Recovery Team 2006). Observation frequency is thought to be a result of fishing and observer effort,
prey abundance and sea surface temperature. Inter-annual variability within Canadian waters is likely
related to variability in the abundance of prey (James et al. 2006). Critical habitat for the leatherback
has not been identified in Canada (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006).
World-wide, the population is estimated between 26,000 and 43,000 individuals (Dutton et al. 1999).
There are no estimates of the number of leatherback sea turtles occurring within the north Atlantic. The
leatherback sea turtle is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA. In Canadian waters, incidental
capture in fishing gear is a major cause of mortality. A long lifespan, very high rates of egg and
hatchling mortality, and a late age of maturity make this species unusually vulnerable to even small
increases in adult and older juvenile mortality rates (COSEWIC 2001).
Page 232
SPECIES AT RISK
9.8.4
Birds
9.8.4.1 Barrows Goldeneye

Barrows Goldeneye is listed as a species of special concern under SARA and by COSEWIC. It is
chiefly a bird of the western montane region of North America (Eadie et al. 2000). Some individuals
overwinter in Eastern Canada along the Quebec North Shore and the inner Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Speculation about the location of a distinct breeding population in eastern North America has been
prevalent, but nesting in these areas has not been confirmed and is doubtful (Eadie et al. 2000). The
species has been observed during waterfowl surveys along the Quebec North Shore and the northern
peninsula of Newfoundland. It is unlikely that Placentia Bay or Grassy Point is important habitat for
Barrows Goldeneye, given the species distribution and historical records. It was not found during
Project-specific field surveys but occasionally does show up in winter around the Avalon Peninsula
making it a possibility in the Project Area in winter.
9.8.4.2 Eskimo Curlew
The Eskimo Curlew is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA. Its population has plummeted
drastically since the 1800s. Numbers dropped from hundreds of thousands of birds to so few that
sightings are considered rare (Gill et al. 1998). Although their historic migration route brought them past
southern Newfoundland, it is not thought that Eskimo Curlew would occur in the Grassy Point area,
given their diminutive numbers.
9.8.4.3 Harlequin Duck
Harlequin Duck is listed as a species of special concern by COSEWIC and on Schedule 1 of SARA. It
was listed as endangered up until 2001 before its reclassification.
The breeding population on the
island appears quite small and may be restricted to the northern peninsula (Goudie 1991). Cape St.
Marys is the primary wintering site in Newfoundland and Labrador. This species population is
vulnerable to oil spills, illegal hunting and breeding habitat conversion from logging. It breeds inland in
forest streams and feeds on insect larvae. It is a diving duck that overwinters in along shallow, rocky
coastlines, foraging for various small food items like amphipods, snails, crabs, barnacles, and fish roe
(Robertson and Goudie 1999). It is known from the mouth of Placentia Bay at Cape St. Mary's from as
early as late September until spring (Robertson and Goudie 1999). There has been limited information
on the wintering distribution or abundance of Harlequin Ducks around Newfoundland and primarily has
been limited to sightings from Cape St. Marys. Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data indicated a decline in
Harlequin Duck numbers from 1979 to 1988, but numbers appear to have rebounded from that time (at
least from CBC data). In 1990 there were 12 individuals recorded at the Cape, and in 2006 there were
200. Aerial and land-based surveys were conducted in support of the Newfoundland Refinery project in
2007, the first such surveys to actively attempt to document the distribution of wintering Harlequin
Ducks in Placentia Bay. Significant numbers were found around the Cape St. Marys area and smaller
numbers were documented from the areas up the shore to Patricks Cove and Gooseberry Cove. The
Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) provided historical data which included a sighting of 25 individuals
from Argentia from 1947, suggesting the species range in Placentia Bay may have reached farther
north in the past. No individuals are known from the Grassy Point area.
Page 233
SPECIES AT RISK
9.8.4.4 Ivory Gull

Ivory Gull is a circumpolar breeder that is occasionally known to scavenge (mostly among seal herds)
on pack ice in Newfoundland waters. It is listed as endangered by COSEWIC and as a species of
special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA. It occurs as a rare winter migrant in Newfoundland waters. It
is rarely found far from drifting pack ice at any time of year (Haney and McDonald 1995). It winters in
the Arctic, but also off the coast of Newfoundland. It is a congregating species, making it particularly
susceptible to oil spills. However, since Placentia Bay rarely freezes, it is unlikely that numbers of Ivory
Gulls would be present there.
9.8.4.5 Piping Plover
The Piping Plover is listed as endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA. It is a small, stocky shorebird
that nests locally in coastal areas on the southwest coast of Newfoundland (Amirault 2006). From a
2001 census, the eastern Canadian population was estimated at 481 adults. Piping Plovers nest in
sand, gravel or cobble in open, elevated areas of the beach (Environment Canada 2006; Haig and
Elliot-Smith 2004) on barrier island sandspits, or peninsulas in marine coastal areas. Piping Plovers
that nest in Newfoundland generally overwinter along the southern Atlantic Coast of the United States.
There are no historical Piping Plover sightings from Grassy Point and none were observed during 2006
surveys.
9.8.4.6 Red Crossbill
Red Crossbill is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC, but has been
observed in many different parts of Newfoundland. It requires mature coniferous trees for nesting and
foraging on conifer seeds (Benkman 1993a). The highest concentrations of Red Crossbills have been
found in western Newfoundland. The decline of the Red Crossbill was possibly due to competition from
Red Squirrels for cone crops and accelerated logging of old-growth forest (Benkman 1989a; 1992;
1993b; Pimm 1990). Critical factors affecting their current breeding success are theorized to be the
availability of conifer seeds and mature coniferous forest (Adkisson 1996; Benkman 1990), but their
requirements are still under scientific investigation. Due to their apparent preference for mature
coniferous forest, the Grassy Point area, which consists of mostly scrub forest, wetlands, and heath, is
not considered high-quality habitat for Red Crossbill. No Red Crossbills were observed from Projectspecific surveys but there are some patches of mature balsam fir forest (especially near the coast) that
could provide small patches of habitat for crossbills. Since these areas of forest along the coast will be
retained, the Red Crossbill should experience zero habitat loss from the Project.
9.8.4.7 Rusty Blackbird
Rusty Blackbird was designated as a species of special concern by COSEWIC in April 2006, but as of
yet it is not listed on the SARA. Seventy percent of the Rusty Blackbird's breeding range is located in
Canada, so it is largely considered a Canadian responsibility for attempting to conserve the species
(COSEWIC website accessed 2007). However, the most serious threats to the Rusty Blackbird are on
the wintering range in the US through land conversion and bird control programs.
Its preferred habitats in Newfoundland and Labrador include wetlands like bogs, meadows, marshes,
swamps and beaver ponds. Rusty Blackbird is an opportunistic species, foraging on seeds, fruit,
insects, snails, spiders and sometimes songbirds (Avery 1995). It may occur in the Grassy Point area in
spring and summer (and could occur in fall during migration), but was not found during Project-specific
surveys.
Page 234
SPECIES AT RISK
9.8.4.8 Short-eared Owl

Short-eared Owl was designated as a species of special concern by COSEWIC in 1994 and is listed on
Schedule 3 of SARA as a species of special concern. The populations in Newfoundland and Labrador
appear to have remained stable over the past century (Schelmezer 2005). The bog habitat of the
Grassy Point peninsula is potential habitat for this species but there are no records of Short-eared Owl
in the area. It was not found during Project-specific surveys.
9.8.4.9 Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius) was designated as a species of special concern
by COSEWIC in 2007. The anatum subspecies was designated as endangered in 1978, but was
moved into the Threatened category in 1999 after recovery from the use of DDT in Canada. The two
subspecies, anatum and tundrius, are listed separately on the SARA list as threatened and special
concern, respectively. They may interbreed and have range overlap so they are listed together on the
COSEWIC list.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Peregrines are known to nest only in Labrador, with the species
occasionally using the shores of Newfoundland on migratory stopover. In Labrador Peregrines mostly
nest along cliffs of the coast, feeding on guillemots and other seabirds. The provincial Wildlife Division
has carried out periodic surveys since 1985 to determine the range of the Peregrine in Labrador. A
banding program was implemented in 1990 and since that time, banded Peregrines from Labrador
have been discovered in Brazil, Texas, and Florida. A 1995 survey by Brazil determined that 20 of 31
historical territories were occupied by Peregrines (Environment Canada 2004).
Placentia Bay does not provide the necessary nesting requirements (i.e. inaccessible cliffs or ledges)
for Peregrine Falcon mostly due to the relatively lower-elevation substrates than in other parts of the
Peregrines range. Some individuals may use the bay for hunting during migratory stopovers, likely
feeding on guillemots and other seabirds and shorebirds.
9.8.4.10
Red Knot
The Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) was designated as endangered in 2007 by COSEWIC. It has no
designation under SARA. This shorebird subspecies has shown a decline that is thought to be
attributed to the depletion of horseshoe crab eggs, a critical food source used during northern migration
(COSEWIC 2007). Congregations of Red Knots at traditional staging areas during migration make them
vulnerable to pollution and loss of migration food (COSEWIC 2007). Numbers appear to be decreasing.
Red Knots are known uncommonly and sporadically in Newfoundland. It is thought that this species
only uses the island periodically on southbound migration and its primary eastern migratory flyway is
through the Maritime provinces. It prefers sandy intertidal marine areas for foraging on migration
(Harrington 2001). This habitat is not common along the shoreline of northern Placentia Bay. Red Knots
were observed in 2006 from the lagoon at Come by Chance (4 individuals) and from the estuary at
Southern Harbour (2 individuals) (Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery Project 2007). There is very
little suitable stopover habitat at Grassy Point, but it is possible that Red Knot would occasionally use
the area in small numbers.
Page 235
SPECIES AT RISK
9.8.5
Lichens
9.8.5.1 Boreal Felt Lichen

The boreal felt lichen is protected under SARA as a species of special concern on Schedule 1. The
boreal felt lichen is a foliose (i.e., leafy), tree-dwelling lichen that grows on trunks and branches of trees
(primarily balsam fir) in moist, mature forests. The majority of its remaining habitat subsists in
Newfoundland (Figure 9.59). This habitat is considered crucial to the survival of this species.
Habitats in the Grassy Point area having the highest potential (i.e., moist to wet older balsam fir on
lower slopes) were selected for initial surveys. Secondary surveys were conducted opportunistically in
the marginal habitats and in conjunction with the other terrestrial field surveys. Surveys for boreal felt
lichen, the associated indicator lichen species Coccocarpia palmicola, Lichenoides spp., and the
liverwort Frullania asagrayana were completed throughout the Grassy Point area in appropriate habitat.
Survey sites were concentrated in the proposed areas of Project-related ground disturbance, including
the facilities access road. The right-of-way for some of the access route had been cleared at the time of
the survey, so the surveys were conducted adjacent to the route in the undisturbed forest stands.
Boreal felt lichen was not observed in the Grassy Point area and only minor amounts of indicator
species were noted. In general, arboreal lichens species appeared to be in a state of decline as many
lichen thalli appeared necrotic.
Page 236
SPECIES AT RISK
Source: NLDEC.
Figure 9.59
Known distribution of Erioderma pedicellatum in Insular Newfoundland
Page 237
SPECIES AT RISK
9.8.6
Arthropods
9.8.6.1 Monarch Butterfly

Monarch butterfly is known to occur in southern insular Newfoundland. This species is listed as a
species of special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA. Monarch distribution coincides with milkweed
(Asclepius spp.) and, to a lesser extent, with goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster (Aster spp.)
distributions. Goldenrod and aster species are known from the Grassy Point area, but Milkweed was
not observed. It is unknown whether the monarch butterfly exists within the Grassy Point area during
the summer months, but the area is within the distribution range of the species (Figure 9.60) and is
within the distribution range of butterfly weed (Asclepius tuberose), a species of milkweed. However, it
is not considered critical habitat for monarch butterfly.
Source: CWS (2004) approximated data.
Figure 9.60
Monarch Butterfly Distribution in Insular Newfoundland
Page 238
REGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
9.9
Regional Socio-Economic Overview
Aspects of most socio-economic parameters will be discussed using Statistics Canada census data for
Consolidated Census Subdivisions (CCS) 1A, 2M and 7M, which comprise an approximated 50 km
commuter-shed from the Grassy Point area (hereafter referred to as the Isthmus Area). Certain
provincial data will be discussed for Economic Zones (referred to as the Region).
9.9.1
Demography
The population of the Isthmus Area has been decreasing since the 1980s (Figure 9.61). The total
population declined by approximately 27 percent between 1996 and 2006, a decrease of more than
2,500. The population of the largest town in the area, Arnolds Cove, decreased by 10 percent (112
individuals), over the same period.
12,000
10,000
Population
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
Census Year
Source: Statistics Canada 1986; 1991; 1996; 2001; 2006.
Figure 9.61
Population of Isthmus Area, 1986 to 2006
The age distribution of Isthmus area residents in 2001 is shown in Figure 9.62. Fifteen percent of the
population were under the age of 15; 72 percent were between the ages of 15 and 64; and 13 percent
were 65 and older.
Page 239
65+
13%
0-14
15%
15-24
14%
45-64
31%
25-44
27%
Source: Statistics Canada 2001.
Figure 9.62
9.9.2
Isthmus Age Distribution, 2001
Economy, Business and Employment
9.9.2.1 Provincial Economy

For many years, Newfoundland and Labrador had the slowest growing economy in Canada. This
situation was aggravated in the late 1980s to early 1990s, with the closure of the groundfish fishery.
The performance of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy today is a dramatic contrast to the
situation then. This is largely a result of the growth of the offshore oil and gas sector and the
commencement of mineral production at Voiseys Bay. The construction activity associated with
Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose and Voiseys Bay saw large capital investments in the provincial
economy and was a considerable source of employment.
The production from these projects is the primary economic driver in the Province and the reason why
the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador is now one of the fastest growing in Canada. This is
reflected in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Table 9.28), which was predicted to grow by 3.0 percent in
2006/07 (NLDF 2006b). However, these sectors (mineral production and offshore oil and gas
production) are highly capital-intensive. As a result, the growth in employment has not kept pace with
the level of GDP growth (Table 9.28) and the unemployment rate in Newfoundland remains the highest
in Canada. However, unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador has significant regional
characteristics. For instance, the St. Johns Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) unemployment rate, 7.4
percent, is comparable to that of the rest of Canada (6.9 percent), while that in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador is much higher (Table 9.29). This reflects a change in the structure of the provincial economy
away from rural, labour-intensive, resource-based activities to highly capital-intensive, concentrated,
resource-based activities.
Page 240
Table 9.28
Selected Economic Indicators for Newfoundland and Labrador, 1995 to 2005
Economic
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005p
Indicators
Population as of
567.4
559.8
551
539.9
533.4
528
522
519.4
518.5
517.3
516
July 1 (000s)
% Change
-1.3
-1.6
-2
-1.2
-1
-1.1
-0.5
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
GDP at Market
10,41
10,652
10,533
11,176
12,184
13,922
14,179
16,452
18,131
19,433
21,534
Prices ($000)
7
% Change
-2.2
1.1
6.1
9
14.3
1.8
16
10.2
7.2
10.8
Personal Income
10,130
9,972
9,963
10,239
10,651
11,122
11,576
11,895
12,385
12,851
13,350
($000)
% Change
-1.6
-0.1
2.8
4
4.4
4.1
2.8
4.1
3.8
3.9
Per Capita
17,81
Personal Income
17,853
18,082
18,965
19,968
21,064
22,176
22,901
23,886
24,842
25,872
4
($)
% Change
-0.2
1.5
4.9
5.3
5.5
5.3
3.3
4.3
4
4.1
Transfer
Payments
2,470
2,464
2,358
2,358
2,497
2,576
2,628
2,696
2,762
($ million)
% Change
-0.2
-4.3
0
5.9
3.2
2
2.6
2.4
Labour Force,
Annual Average
237.1
231.7
230.9
234.3
241.9
237.8
242.7
248.5
254.1
254.3
252.5
(000s)
% Change
-2.3
-0.3
1.5
3.2
-1.7
2.1
2.4
2.3
0.1
-0.7
Employment,
Annual Average
194.4
187.5
188.3
192.4
201
198
203.8
207.2
212.3
214.3
214.1
(000s)
% Change
-3.5
0.4
2.2
4.5
-1.5
2.9
1.7
2.5
0.9
-0.1
Unemployment
Rate, Annual
18
19.1
18.4
17.9
16.9
16.7
16.1
16.7
16.5
15.7
15.2
Average (%)
% Change
6.1
-3.7
-2.7
-5.6
-1.2
-3.6
3.7
-1.2
-4.8
-3.2
Value of Fish
Landings
329.8
263.9
308.8
384.4
509.3
570.7
487.2
505.4
575.6
606.1
461.3
($Millions)
% Change
-20
17
24.5
32.5
12.1
-14.6
3.7
13.9
5.3
-23.9
Value of Mineral
Shipments
881.5
911.3
1,010.10
1,095.80
821.1
974.2
754.7
797.5
774
694.5
1,532.40
($Millions)
% Change
3.4
10.8
8.5
-25.1
18.6
-22.5
5.7
-2.9
-10.3
120.6
Value of Iron Ore
919,409
1,026,517 760,482 902,134 691,626 728,909 720,427 624,677 1,286,771
Shipments ($000)
% Change
11.6
-25.9
18.6
-23.3
5.4
-1.2
-13.3
106
Value of
Manufacturing
183,388 208,646 205,649 211,440 215,320 212,045
195,607
Shipments ($000)
% Change
13.8
-1.4
2.8
1.8
-1.5
-7.8
Oil Production
(Millions of
1.3
23.8
36.4
52.8
54.3
104.3
123
114.8
111.3
Barrels)*
% Change
1730.8
52.9
45.1
2.8
92.1
17.9
-6.7
-3
Public & Private
Capital
2,984
2,457
2,788
2,825
3,611
3,399
3,371
3,361
3,712
4,243
4,318
Investment
($Millions)
% Change
-17.7
13.5
1.3
27.8
-5.9
-0.8
-0.3
10.4
14.3
1.8
Dwelling Starts
1,712
2,034
1,696
1,450
1,371
1,459
1,788
2,419
2,692
2,870
2,498
(Number)
% Change
18.8
-16.6
-14.5
-5.4
6.4
22.5
35.3
11.3
6.6
-13
Source: Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency 2006.
p = preliminary.
* = Hibernia began production in November 1997, Terra Nova began in January 2002, White Rose began in November 2005 and Voiseys Bay
began in September 2005.
Page 241
Table 9.29
Unemployment Rates for Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador and Economic

Regions, Three Month Moving Average, Ending March 2006
Canada
St. Johns CMA
Avalon Peninsula
South Coast Burin Peninsula
West Coast Northern Peninsula Labrador
Notre Dame Central Bonavista Bay
Unemployment Rate
6.9
17.6
7.4
12.7
25.8
19.9
25.7
Source: Statistics Canada 2007.
9.9.2.2 Isthmus Area Economy

The Isthmus has had a fluctuating economy over the years, in response to changing circumstances in
the provincial economy, changes in the fishery, and activity associated with major industrial projects
such as the North Atlantic refinery, Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal, the Long Harbour
Phosphorus Reduction facility, and the Bull Arm facility. Several new projects in the area are moving
towards development, including a second refinery, and a mineral processing plant.
The Isthmus Area has had a number of important involvements with the oil industry over the last
decade. It is the site of the $470 million Bull Arm construction and fabrication yard, the $150 million
Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal and the North Atlantic Refinery. The first of these, located on
Trinity Bay, approximately 3 km south of Sunnyside, saw most of the construction and fabrication
activity on the Hibernia production platform, and employed at peak about 5,800 workers. Over the life of
the project, an average of approximately 7 percent of the labour force was from the local area. As of
June 1995, the project had also awarded local area businesses contracts worth over $34 million
(HMDC 1996). The Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal is located on Placentia Bay, close to
Arnolds Cove. In 1999, the Terminal underwent a $150 million expansion to increase the capacity in
anticipation of Terra Nova production. The terminal employs 49 people, including operations staff and
tug crews (NOIA 2007). NARL operates a refinery at Come-by-Chance, adjacent to the Newfoundland
Transshipment Terminal. The refinery has annual revenue of over $2 billion and employs over 600 at
the refinery and an additional 100 in its home-heating and gasbar chain (NOIA 2007).
In 1996, the area had a labour force of 3,825, and an unemployment rate of 28.5 percent. By 2001, the
labour force decreased to 3,565, and the unemployment rate fell to 25.8 percent. In 2001, Arnolds
Cove had a labour force of 535, and an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent, down from 19.3 percent in
1996 (Statistics Canada 1996; 2001).
9.9.2.3 Income Support and Employment Insurance
The number of individuals receiving income support and EI benefits decreased in both the Arnolds
Cove, the Region (Economic Zone 15), and the Province, between 1994 and 2004 (Table 9.30).
Page 242
Table 9.30
Use of Income Support and Employment Insurance, 1994 and 2004, Arnolds Cove,
Region and Province
Province
Arnolds
Cove
Region
Province
Arnolds
Cove
Region
Province
Percent Change
Region*
Income Support
Assistance
(Individuals)
Incidence of
Income Support
Assistance (% of
Population)
EI Beneficiaries
(Individuals)
EI Beneficiaries as
% of Labour Force
2004
Arnolds
Cove
1994
100
5,805
101,105
60
3,405
65,875
-40
-41
- 35
8.8
16.7
17.6
5.5
11.5
12.8
-38
-31
- 27
415
8,645
154,235
405
8,240
101,020
-2
-5
- 35
65.9
54.2
53.0
62.3
52.3
36.5
-5
-4
- 32
Source: Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency/Community Accounts 2007.
In total, the income assistance cases in the Region fell from 5,805 in 1994 to 3,405 in 2004, a change
of more than 40 percent. The number of assistance cases in the Province decreased by 35 percent
over the same period. The percent of the population receiving income support has also declined in
Arnolds Cove, the Region and the Province. However, the incidence of income support in Arnolds
Cove has been consistently lower than in the Region or Province, and decreased from 8.8 percent to
5.5 percent between 1994 and 2004.
The number of EI beneficiaries has decreased in Arnolds Cove, the Region and the Province.
However, it did not decrease by as much as income support cases. In the Region, the number of EI
beneficiaries decreased by 5 percent between 1994 and 2004. The number in Arnolds Cove remained
fairly stable, decreasing by only 2 percent in the same 10-year period. Although the number of EI
beneficiaries did not show much change, in 2004, 62.3 percent of the labour force in Arnolds Cove
received EI payments, more than the Region (52.3 percent of the labour force) and Province (36.5
percent of the labour force).
9.9.2.4 Main Businesses
There are more than 30 businesses in Arnolds Cove. The main businesses include Icewater Seafoods,
Newfoundland Transshipment Limited, Newhooks Home Hardware, Foodland, the Tanker Inn and the
Arnolds Cove Pharmacy (W. Slade, pers. comm.).
9.9.3
Community and Regional Infrastructure and Services
9.9.3.1 Healthcare
The Dr. G. B. Cross Memorial Hospital in Clarenville serves the Isthmus Area, including Arnolds Cove.
In 2006, it had 43 acute care, 15 long-term care and 4 critical care beds, compared to 51 acute-care
and 14 long-term beds in 2000. It provides a range of medical specialty services to the area. There is
no psychiatric institution in the area. While the Cross Memorial Hospital does not provide formal
psychiatric in-patient services, patients can be admitted to the medical-surgical service.
There are two family physicians practicing in Arnolds Cove and nine in Clarenville.
Page 243
9.9.3.2 Education
There are nine primary and secondary schools in the Isthmus Area, compared with 12 in 1998/99. The
number of students in Grades K-12 decreased from 2,719 in 1998/99, to 2,159 in 2005/06, a decrease
of 20.6 percent. Over the same time period, the number of teachers in the area decreased by 5
percent, from 164.8 full-time equivalent teachers in 1998/99 to 157.1 in 2005/06. Tricentia Academy is
the only school in Arnolds Cove. In 2005/06, it had 362 students enrolled in grades K-12, and 25
teachers (Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency/Community Accounts 2007).
9.9.3.3 Housing
The number of occupied private dwellings in the Isthmus Area increased from 3,052 in 1996 to 2,995 in
2001, and 3,155 in 2006. In 2001, 2,795 of these units were owned and 195 were rented. In Arnolds
Cove, the number of dwellings increased by 5 percent between 2001 and 2006. Of the 360 dwellings
present in 2001, 315 were owned and 40 (11 percent) were rented (Statistics Canada 1996; 2001;
2006).
In 2001, the average value of dwellings in the area was $49,050 and the average rent was $177 per
month. The value of dwellings in Arnolds Cove was higher than the overall area; the value in Arnolds
Cove was $64,848 in 2001, and the average monthly rent was $374 (Statistics Canada 2001).
Between 2002 and June 2006, there were 17 housing starts and 40 sales in the Isthmus Area. All the
housing starts were in Arnolds Cove. The greatest number of sales occurred in Bellevue (10). Selling
prices for houses ranged from $8,000 (Chance Cove and Southern Harbour) to $90,000 (Hillview
Adeytown), and averaged approximately $38,000. The average selling price in Arnolds Cove was
$35,000 (CMHC 2006).
Within the Isthmus Area there are 10 hotels, bed and breakfasts and cottages, with a total of 87 rooms.
The largest hotel in the area is the Tanker Inn (22 rooms), located in Arnolds Cove. In addition to these
accommodations, there are an additional eight hotels and bed and breakfasts in nearby Clarenville.
This includes the Clarenville Inn (63 rooms), St. Jude Hotel (63 rooms) and Rest Land Motel (25 rooms)
(Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism 2007).
9.9.3.4 Municipal Infrastructure and Services
There are three cities, 280 towns and 182 local service districts in Newfoundland and Labrador. The
scope of municipal authority in the Province is defined by over a dozen pieces of provincial legislation
including the Municipalities Act 1999, Municipal Elections Act 2001, Urban and Rural Planning Act 2000
and Water Resources Act 2002. Officially, municipalities are responsible for provision of water and
sewer services, street lighting, road maintenance, waste management, fire and police services, public
transportation, public libraries, recreation facilities and promotion of economic development
(Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities (NLFM) 2005).
Arnolds Cove provides all road maintenance service to municipal roads, with the exception of the main
road through town, which is maintained by the Province. Maintenance includes all road repairs and
snow-clearing/salting services. The town also provides weekly residential and commercial garbage
collection and maintains a garbage compactor. All waste is transported to a landfill site maintained by
the Town of Southern Harbour. Most residential and commercial buildings are linked to a series of
sewer collector lines, which use lifts stations to pump waste into the ocean. The town does not provide
sewage treatment (W. Slade, pers. comm.).
Page 244
The town maintains three municipal buildings: the Town Hall, Municipal Depot and Fire Hall. The last is
fully equipped with a fire truck and emergency response vehicle, with a crew of 32 volunteer firefighters
on call. In addition to these vehicles, the town maintains a pick-up truck, two dump trucks and a
backhoe (W. Slade, pers. comm.).
Several recreation and sporting facilities are maintained by the town, including two walking trails, an
outdoor ice rink, ball field, playground and recreation centre (W. Slade, pers. comm.).
As of 2007, there are 54 fully serviced residential lots available and more than 7 acres of serviced
industrial land available within the municipal boundaries of Arnolds Cove. In addition, there are 100
acres of un-serviced commercial land (W. Slade, pers. comm.).
9.9.3.5 Policing and Safety
Newfoundland and Labrador is primarily policed by B Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP), with St. Johns, Corner Brook and Labrador City being policed by the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary (RNC). The Isthmus Area is policed by 21 officers through the Clarenville-Bonavista
District of the RCMP.
In the Isthmus Area there are 16 municipal fire departments composed entirely of volunteer firefighters,
including departments in Arnolds Cove, Come By Chance and Clarenville. The Arnolds Cove fire
department consists of 32 volunteers. The Come By Chance municipal fire department consists of 13
volunteers and the Clarenville municipal department consists of 29 volunteers. In addition to these,
there is an industrial fire department at the North Atlantic Refinery in Come By Chance (J. Beach, pers.
comm.).
9.9.3.6 Transportation
The provincially maintained highway most likely to be affected by the Project is Route 220 between the
Trans Canada Highway (TCH) and Arnolds Cove. This is a single-lane highway. Average Annual Daily
Traffic (AADT) for Route 220, manually collected during provincial traffic studies in 1996 showed 1,690
vehicles per day. As counts have not been conducted in recent years, historic data are increased by
two percent annually, providing an estimate of 2,101 vehicles on Route 220 in 2007. In 1996, the most
common type of vehicle on it was passenger cars, followed by pick-up trucks and mini-vans (Table
9.31).
Table 9.31
Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts by Vehicle Type, 1996
Highway
Route 220 (Exiting TCH toward
Arnolds Cove)
Passenger
Cars (%)
57
1996 Average Annual Daily Traffic

Single Unit
Transport
Pick-ups and
Trucks
Trucks and
Mini-Vans
(%)
Buses (%)
(%)
4
37
Total
Vehicles
1,690
Page 245
LAND USE
9.10
Land Use
9.10.1 Historical Land Use

9.10.1.1
Historical Resources Assessment Methods
In October 2006, a Stage 1 Historic Resources Assessment was conducted at Grassy Point, Placentia
Bay, for the proposed Project. In accordance with provincial guidelines (Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador 1992) the primary objectives of the study were to: a) identify and assess the historic
resources/archaeological potential or sensitivity in areas of proposed development: and b) recommend
the appropriate methodology and scope for further detailed impact studies in Stage 2, if indicated. The
Stage 1 Assessment included background research, a field study and preparation of a Baseline Study
Report (Jacques Whitford 2007c).
Background research for the assessment involved a review of literature related to a number of
archaeological surveys and excavations conducted in the vicinity of the Grassy Point area since the
1970s. Sources examined included reports and documentary information on file at the Provincial
Archaeology Office (PAO) in St. Johns and at Memorial University. As well, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Archaeological Site Record Inventory and Site Record Forms were reviewed to obtain details
on any archaeological sites registered for the region. The Project Archaeologist also spoke with
individuals knowledgeable about land use and whether any archaeological sites or artifacts had been
discovered within or adjacent to the Grassy Point area. Aerial photographs and 1:50,000 topographic
maps were examined prior to fieldwork to help identify any landforms and vegetation patterns that could
indicate zones of historic resources potential.
Typically, the field study for a Stage 1 Assessment is designed to gather physical evidence of any past
human activity that has occurred within a defined parcel of land. However, in this case, it was known
that a large portion of the peninsula to the southwest of the Grassy Point area had been used in the
19th and 20th centuries for farming and fisheries-related activities, and as a temporary camp for
Aboriginal hunter/gathers approximately 1,000 years ago. Therefore, rather than conducting extensive
testing within the former community of Bordeaux (where there was a high probability that
archaeological materials were present), the field study focussed on defining the northern limit of the
community and the precise locations of two known precontact 1 sites so that a buffer or exclusion zones
could be established, south of which no Project activity should occur. Within Bordeaux itself, the field
study was limited to a walkover and general evaluation of any visible surface remains.
The rationale for this approach was that it was certain if Project developments were proposed for the
area where archaeological remains were known or suspected to exist, the regulatory agency for historic
resources in the province, the PAO, would almost certainly require extensive testing and recording, and
possibly even total excavation of sites prior to releasing the area for Project purposes. Any such
activities would represent a measurable cost and could result in Project delays. Therefore, the field
component of the Stage 1 focussed on completing the following key tasks:
assessment of areas where Project infrastructure will be situated at Grassy Point, including
the access road from the Whiffen Head Transshipment Facility, the area of the proposed
tank farm and the shoreline of Placentia Bay where three jetties and a tug basin will be
constructed;
1 Precontact is defined as the period prior to the arrival of Europeans in North America and contact with Aboriginal peoples.
Page 246
LAND USE
a general evaluation of the historic resources potential of the former community of

Bordeaux; and
establishing a boundary within the parcel of land acquired by the Proponent, south of which
any Project development would likely trigger additional stages of historic resources
assessment.
Bordeaux Island to the south of Grassy Point was acquired by the Proponent. However, because no
Project development is proposed for that area, no field assessment was carried out.
The field study consisted of a ground survey, involving a walkover, thorough visual inspection of the
principal area of interest and subsurface testing of all locations considered to hold potential for either
precontact or historic remains. Where appropriate, rows of shovel test pits were dug at either 5 or 10 m
intervals along cut-lines or paths, and along natural linear features such as the shoreline, terrace edges
and on dry, level areas suitable for human settlement. The number and location of all test pits was
recorded and any remains of importance were noted on a site plan. In areas where historic resources
were identified, minimal shovel testing was conducted in order to make a determination of cultural
affiliation, the time period when the occupation had occurred and the physical extent of the remains. A
low-impact testing strategy as described eliminated any unnecessary site disturbance until appropriate
mitigation measures were drafted and approved by the PAO. Photographs were taken of survey and
subsurface testing zones and any archaeological sites or features located. All information regarding the
nature and integrity of the historic resources identified was documented on Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador Archaeological Site Record Forms.
Following the field study, a Baseline Study Report on the Stage 1 Assessment was prepared and
submitted to the PAO for review. The report included a discussion of methods and techniques,
summary of all study results and a Figure showing the survey areas and the location of all sites
observed and recorded. Recommendations for mitigation were provided where indicated and detailed
bibliographic references for all sources and individuals consulted were included (Jacques Whitford
2007c).
9.10.1.2
Assessment Results
Background Research
The results of the background research indicated that at least one archaeological survey was
completed within the Grassy Point area in 1971 as part of a more extensive research project into the
precontact occupation of Placentia Bay. However, due to the focus of that work, little or no effort was
directed toward the areas historic-period archaeological resources (Linnamae 1971). During the 1971
project, two Dorset Eskimo sites were identified at Bordeaux Head, one of which was situated on the
west side of a pond located in the centre of the headland, and the other on the east side (Figure 9.63).
Charcoal samples collected from Bordeaux West (Borden # CkAm-05 Figure 9.63), indicated that the
occupation had occurred approximately 850 AD. Due to disturbance and natural erosion at the other
site (Bordeaux East, Borden # CkAm-04 Figure 9.63), no dating of the remains was possible; however,
a small collection of stone materials recorded by the archaeologist did confirm it to be LatePaleoeskimo or Dorset in origin.
Page 247
LAND USE
Figure 9.63
Historic Land Use Areas
Information obtained from the Newfoundland and Labrador Site Record Inventory at the PAO indicated
that since the 1970s, a number of other archaeologists have visited the precontact sites at Bordeaux
Head; however, no additional field research has been carried out. A visit to the area by members of the
PAO in 2005 confirmed that both sites were more or less stable and that no notable disturbance had
taken place.
Historic Period
Secondary source research and local knowledge indicates that prior to the 19th century Bordeaux Head
had been used as a seasonal shore stations by Basque and French fisherman to process their catch.
From the early 19th century to the early 1960s, the community of Bordeaux, situated to the south of
Grassy Point, was used for farming and fisheries activities. After that time, residents moved to Arnolds
Cove. Gradually, the different buildings at Bordeaux were taken down and removed, leaving only a
dairy house. After 1968, Bordeaux had no permanent residents. Today, in addition to a number of
burials, there are many signs of previous habitation, including the concrete foundations of a barn and a
late 19th century house, and the remains of the first dwelling constructed in the 1830s. Evidence of
agricultural activity is visible throughout the area.
Page 248
LAND USE
Informant Interviews
Informant interviews conducted as part of the background research suggest that no sustained
occupation had occurred at Grassy Point where the Project is proposed. The only use in that area
seems to have been for berry picking and cutting firewood. It was reported by one former resident of
Bordeaux that her mother had discovered what she thought was a stone fireplace in one of the back
meadows. While by no means certain, given the known French occupation of the area prior to the 19 th
century, it is possible that she was describing a dilapidated oven used for baking bread.
Field Study
The two, approximately 1,000 year old archaeological sites registered with the province for the area
south of Grassy Point were visited during the field assessment, as was the area comprising the former
community of Bordeaux. No shovel testing of these sites was undertaken and their condition appears
stable, with no erosion or other disturbance noted. Within the former community of Bordeaux, ample
evidence of recent use and occupancy is present, including the remains of concrete foundations
(possibly for a barn), fencing and areas that had been farmed. Despite a report that the remains of a
stone fireplace were present in one of the back meadows, no such structure was located.
Five Ethnographic sites (i.e., areas of recent land-use), all of which appear to have been used during
the late 19th and early 20th centuries for farming, were identified during the field study of the Grassy
Point area. Based on current Project plans, it appears that only one - Ethno 03 will be affected as a
result of Project activities: in this case construction of an access road to the proposed jetties and tug
basin (Figure 9.57). Even though informant information suggested that a barn or shed was constructed
on the property in the 20th century, no evidence of this was found.
In other areas assessed, the terrain consists of either bog or open tundra and is hilly and/or heavily
wooded. Even along the coastal strip where archaeological sites would typically be expected to occur,
large segments of the shoreline are rugged and steep-sloped, with only a small percentage having
usable beach space. This is particularly true for the area north of the former community of Bordeaux
where development is proposed to occur. In summary, the conditions observed throughout most of the
proposed disturbance areas would likely not have been considered attractive for human occupation.
9.10.1.3
Recommendations
In accordance with provincial guidelines for historic resources (Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador 1992), a number of options for resource management are available for the site Ethno 03.
Included are: a) a Project redesign to avoid the site; b) further archaeological testing to acquire
additional data; and c) archaeological monitoring during the initial stages of road construction to ensure
no evidence or materials of significance are destroyed or lost. Due to the recent date and commonplace
nature of the site, the PAO has permitted work to proceed in the area with no further assessment
requirements. Also stated in a letter from the PAO dated June 04, 2007, was that if there are changes
to the Project that could result in other areas of ground disturbance over and above those already
proposed, details should be forwarded to that office for review prior to implementation. This would
include, for example, the shoreline adjacent to the Grassy Point area where other historic resources
could be present, or to the south of the buffer zone where there are two precontact Aboriginal sites.
As well, in the event of an inadvertent discovery of a historic or precontact artifact or archaeological site
during any phase of Project development, all work in the immediate area of the find should halt and
only resume once approval has been received from the PAO.
Page 249
LAND USE
9.10.2 Present Day Land Use

9.10.2.1
Municipal Planning in Arnolds Cove
The Town of Arnolds Cove, in association with the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs, prepared a Municipal Plan and Developmental Regulations in the early
1990s. This initial Plan was revised in 1996 to accommodate the construction of the NTT at Whiffen
Head. At the time, this land was zoned as Rural, permitting agriculture and recreational use and
discretionary use for transportation (including marine), and hazardous, general and light industry. In the
1991 Plan, Grassy Point was zoned as Rural GBS, permitting use similar to Rural (Town of Arnolds
Cove 1992; W. Slade, pers. comm.).
In April 2007, the Plan was amended, re-zoning the Grassy Point and Whiffen Head areas as Industrial
General, replacing the Rural GBS and Rural designations. The main purpose of Industrial General
land is accommodation of large industrial operations. It allows uses including antenna, conservation,
general industry, light industry, mineral exploration, office, shop and transportation (including marine
terminals), and also discretionary use including hazardous industry, mineral working and recreational
open space (Town of Arnolds Cove 2007a).
9.10.2.2
Recreational Land and Resource Use
There is limited hunting on Grassy Point Peninsula, but an occasional moose or duck is taken from the
area. River otters are trapped at Otter Pond, south of the storage tank footprint. There is very limited
recreational fishing at the pond of Labours Cove and Wild Cove. The Grassy Point Peninsula is
commonly used to pick blueberries.
There are two walking trails within Arnolds Cove: Bordeaux Trail; and Cabot Trail. The walking trail to
Putt & Paddle Park was opened in 1997 and follows the route of the old Cabot Highway. The walking
trial to Bordeaux, opened in 2003, recalls historic sites along its path (Town of Arnolds Cove
2007b).The Bordeaux Trail leads from Arnolds Cove, along the eastern shore of the Grassy Point
Peninsula. Along the trail, south of the Project, is a plaque marking the remains of James Adams and
the Adams farm, established on Adams Head in the late 1800s (Town of Arnolds Cove 2007b).
9.10.2.3
Landscape Aesthetics
Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal will be located about 1.5 km west of the
community of Arnolds Cove. The horse-shoe shape of Arnolds Cove harbour results in a long gravel
beach, ending in a marina area with wharves at the harbour front. From this vantage point, Grassy
Point is visible across the harbour, at the same approximate elevation as the community. The low hills
of the Grassy Point area are covered in shrub and low vegetation. The coastline slowly slopes upward,
with a backshore of small rocks and gravel, but few boulders. The Grassy Point area is clearly visible
from the Arnolds Cove beach and harbour front, but due to vegetation and hills, it is not seen from
most other parts of the community. The proposed facilities will therefore be noticeable mainly from the
waterfront. However, the marine infrastructure of the Project (e.g., dock, jetty) will be placed on the
western side of the Grassy Point Peninsula and therefore not visible from Arnold Cove.
The Town of Arnolds Cove itself is constantly improving, and residents take great pride in their land. It
won the Tidy Towns competition in 1998, and since then there has been a growing interest in
improvement of personal and town property. There are Communities in Bloom and Recreation
Committees, which organize improvement projects, including landscaping of community, commercial
and private properties. Other improvements include a wooden observational deck and new flower
Page 250
LAND USE
boxes at the War Memorial; landscaping around the sportsplex; lights for night walking, and a
community garden relying on volunteers.
There are a number of open spaces within the community which have naturalized over the years. Long
flowing grasses and wildflowers can be seen in these areas, and some have small ponds where wild
ducks land to feed. There is a unique bog which is bordered by the school, playground, Town Hall and
the Industrial Park. This bog boasts many of the native mosses, berries, potentilla, wild roses, and the
provincial flower, the Pitcher Plant.
9.10.2.4
Provincial Parks and Other Ecologically Sensitive Places
Jacks Pond Provincial Park Reserve is located less than 10 km from Arnolds Cove and is a
preservation area for several species of rare plants. It also contains barren vegetation, wetlands and a
forested stream valley (NLDEC 2007a).
The Big Pond Bird Sanctuary, located in the town of Arnolds Cove, is a migratory stop for several bird
species and is protected by provincial hunting regulations (Town of Arnolds Cove 2007b).
The Come By Chance Wetland Stewardship Zone is a wetland conservation area north of Arnolds
Cove. It comprises an area of more than 4,000 ha of estuarine and wetland habitats that are important
staging, nesting and rearing locations for several waterfowl species (NLDEC 2007b).
In addition to these ecologically sensitive locations and provincial parks, there is one recreational park
near Arnolds Cove. PuttnPaddle, located 3 km from Arnolds Cove, is a private park and provides unserviced and semi-serviced campgrounds, boating activities, and can be accessed from Arnolds Cove
via the Cabot Trail (Town of Arnolds Cove 2007b).
9.10.2.5
Land Acquisition
The Grassy Point LNG Transhipment and Storage Facility site is bounded by Newfoundland
Transhipment Limited (NTL) to the north, the Town of Arnolds Cove to the east, Placentia Bay to both
the west and south. Access to the site is obtained off Whiffen Head Road at the eastern boundary of
the NTL site.
To facilitate the construction of the facility several properties had to be purchased by Newfoundland
LNG Limited. During the summer of 2006, a registered Newfoundland Land Suveyor carried out land
surveys of the required properties. The properties in question were owned by a number of different
parties including:
William & Llewellyn Guy;
Typhenia Brinston;
William Wareham;
Harvey Guy;
Estate of James Adams;
Town of Arnolds Cove; and
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Crown Lands
Page 251
LAND USE
The total land area encompassed by the Project boundaries is approximately 418 acres (169 hectares).
Table 9.32 indicates the land area which has been acquired by Newfoundland LNG Ltd. from the
original owner.
Table 9.32
Acquired Land Area by Newfoundland LNG Ltd.

Property
William & Llewellyn Guy

Typhenia Brinston
William Wareham
Harvey Guy
Estate of James Adams
Town of Arnolds Cove
Crown Lands
Total
Area (+/-)
Acres
1.14
1.3
1.49
1.39
104.8
20.5
286.9
417.5
Hectares
0.46
0.52
0.60
0.56
42.4
8.24
116.1
168.9
The Province has conditionally approved Newfoundland LNG Ltds application for title to Crown land
(letter to Newfoundland LNG Ltd from NLDEC Lands Branch dated October 16, 2007).
In compliance with government regulations, a 15 m reservation has been applied to all boundaries
bordering public waters (i.e., Placentia Bay and Arnolds Cove).
9.10.3 Aboriginal Land Issues
Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge is defined as the knowledge that is held by, and unique to Aboriginal
peoples. It is a living body of knowledge that is cumulative and dynamic and adapted over time to
reflect changes in the social, economic, environmental, spiritual and political spheres of the Aboriginal
knowledge holders. It often includes knowledge about the land and its resources, spiritual beliefs,
language, mythology, culture, laws, customs and medicines (the Agency 2006). Aboriginal Traditional
Knowledge may be considered within the environmental assessment of a proposed project if that
project is likely to cause an indirect effect on the environment.
Currently, there is only one aboriginal community located on the island portion of Newfoundland and
Labrador. The Miawpukek Band Reserve is located in Conne River, on the South Coast of
Newfoundland. The Reserve covers an area of approximately 36 km2, with a population of
approximately 700. Currently, the Miawpukek Band does not have established traditional rights outside
the boundaries of the reserve.
The Project is located at the head of Placentia Bay, on the southern portion of the Avalon Peninsula, in
the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Project is not located within land settlement areas or
areas where Aboriginal groups assert traditional rights. The Miawpukek Band Reserve is located
approximately 450 km from the Grassy Point area by road and approximately 1,400 km by sea.
Aboriginal consultation, and the inclusion of Aboriginal Tradition Knowledge, was not deemed
necessary within this environment assessment given, 1) there is no known traditional Aboriginal fishing
or hunting areas near the proposed Project, 2) the distance of the Miawpukek Reserve from the Project,
and 3) traditional rights are not established outside the boundaries of the Miawpukek Reserve.
Page 252
HUMAN HEALTH
9.11
Human Health
9.11.1 Water Quality

The municipal water supply for Arnolds Cove is a surface water reservoir, and the source is Steves
Pond. The nearest Provincial water quality station is at Piper's Hole River. The most recent information
on water quality at Steves Pond is provided by the NLDEC through the Drinking Water Quality Index
Summary for Public Water Supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador 2007. Drinking Water Quality Index
(DWQI) is a means to summarize water quality data into simple terms (e.g., good) for reporting to the
public in a consistent manner.
The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality is published by Health Canada on behalf of the
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water (CDW). This summary Table is updated
regularly and published on Health Canada's website (www.healthcanada.gc.ca/waterquality). These
guidelines are based on current, published scientific research related to health effects, aesthetic effects
and operational considerations. Drinking water (source or tap) data received from the NLDEC is sorted
by season and type. The last source water sample for Arnolds Cove was collected during the summer
of 2006. Tap water was tested in winter 2007 (M. Goebel, pers. comm.).
Potential contaminant levels at source were checked against nationally accepted Guidelines for
Canadian Drinking Water Quality for the years 1985 to 2006. Occurrences where guidelines were
exceeded are rare for the Arnolds Cove water supply at Steves Pond. Turbidity exceeded the
guideline of 1 NTU in 1991, 1997, and 2006. The guideline states that turbidity shall be less than or
equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements made, or at least 95 percent of the time
each calendar month, and shall not exceed 1.0 NTU at any time. The only other parameter that
exceeded guideline values was lead concentration, during the years 1998 to 2002 inclusive. Levels
exceeded the Maximum Acceptable Concentration value 0.01 mg/L, with concentrations around 0.02
mg/L during that five year period. Notes made by the sampler indicated that this lead was probably
coming from the pipes. Since 2002, lead concentrations have been measured at 0 mg/L. All other
physical and chemical parameters were within the accepted concentrations for all years since 1985 for
Arnolds Cove.
Tap water sampling results for Arnolds Cove were reviewed for the years 2000 to 2007. The only
parameters that exceeded the accepted guideline values were color and pH. Color exceeded the
guideline value of <15 TCU (true color units) during some sampling in years 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004,
2006 and 2007, where values ranged between 21 and 33 TCU. The accepted pH range is between 6.5
and 8.5; however, the tap water in Arnolds Cove was below that range from 2000 to 2006, at an
average pH of 5.5. The last two samples taken, during 2006 and 2007, are within the accepted pH
range.
Chlorine disinfection of water can lead to the formation of a number of chlorination by-products of which
trihalomethanes (THMs) are only one subgroup. Among the many chlorination by-products, THMs are
most often present and in the greatest concentration in drinking water and as such, are used as
indicators of total disinfection by-product formation. The DWQI was not ranked for the Town of Arnolds
Cove due to the presence of a THM average of 166.75, which exceeds the current guideline of 100
parts per billion (ppb) or micrograms per litre (g/L). The guideline is based on an annual running
average of quarterly samples to account for seasonal variations. THM levels are generally highest in
the summer and lowest in the winter, and can vary within single water supply depending on the season,
Page 253
HUMAN HEALTH
water temperatures, amount of natural organic matter in water, pH, amount of chlorine added, point of
chlorination, time in distribution system, and other factors such as treatment processes used.
With respect to groundwater, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador drilled five wells from 1950 to
2005 with an average depth of 58.64 m, and an average yield of 2.58 L/min.
Arnolds Cove does not currently have any sewer treatment facilities, only direct outfalls to the ocean
(Wayne Slade, pers. comm.). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR) lists a Notice
of Commencement for an environmental assessment for a sewage main installation in Arnolds Cove,
on May 10, 2007. The Proponent plans to install a main sewage collection line in order to redirect
individual residential effluents to an existing ocean outfall along Main Road in Arnold's Cove. The
existing outfall is below the low water line and empties into Arnold's Cove Harbour. The new collector
line will be a 125 mm PVC pipe, approximately 480 m long. The new line will be installed in trenches
following the existing road right of way between Foodland and the existing ocean outfall. The individual
residential outfalls will be removed.
9.11.2 Air Quality
Newfoundland and Labradors ambient air quality is monitored by Environment Canadas
Meteorological Service in conjunction with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as a part of
the Atlantic Region Air Monitoring program. However, there are no ambient monitoring stations in the
vicinity of Arnolds Cove that are a part of the Atlantic Region Air Monitoring program.
Table 9.33 shows that the background air contaminant concentrations in both communities are within
air quality standards.
Maximum Background Concentrations in Arnolds Cove and Come By Chance
Table 9.33
Pollutant
SO2
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
Time Frame
Ambient Standard
1 hour
3 hour
24 hour
Annual
1 hour
24 hour
Annual
24 hour
Annual
24 hour
Annual
900
600
300
60
400
200
100
50
N/A
25
N/A
Community
Arnolds Cove
Come By Chance
348
279
220
169
79
74
2
5
100
75
2
10
1
1
14
14
7
7
10
10
5
5
Ambient SO2 and PM2.5 data is also collected at a monitoring station positioned at Tricentia Academy in
Arnolds Cove. This monitoring station is run by NARL. The maximum background concentrations of
SO2 and PM2.5 collected at this monitoring station between 2006 and 2007 are given in Table 9.34.
Table 9.34

Limited
Pollutant
SO2
PM2.5
Time Frame
1 hour
3 hour
24 hour
Annual
24 hour
Annual
Ambient Standard
900
600
300
60
25
N/A
Tricentia Academy Station

182
104
35
3
13
N/A
Page 254
HUMAN HEALTH
Background SO2 and PM2.5 concentrations at the Tricentia Academy monitoring station in Arnolds
Cove are well within air quality standards. From the ambient air quality data obtained, it appears that
the area of Arnolds Cove typically experiences good air quality with air contaminant levels meeting air
quality standards.
9.11.3 Ambient Noise
The only industrial activity near Arnolds Cove is at the Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal at
Whiffin Head, approximately 1.5 km west of the town. Noise from Newfoundland Transshipment
Terminal is not audible in Arnolds Cove. Ambient sound levels in Arnolds Cove are expected to be
similar to that of other rural areas, with average nighttime and daytime sound levels of 40 dBA and 50
to 55 dBA, respectively. However, ambient levels are considerably higher (e.g., 80 to 95 dBA) near
construction activity, the fish plant, transport trucks and motorized boats within Arnolds Cove.
Page 255
MARINE TRANSPORTATION
9.12
Marine Transportation
9.12.1 Traffic in Placentia Bay

Marine traffic data were compiled from Information Systems on Marine Navigation (INNAV), and the
Canadian Coast Guard, Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS). MCTS tracks and
promulgates marine traffic and management data for the efficient and effective use of the waterways.
MCTS or Placentia Traffic, are based in Argentia, where records of all reporting vessels operating
within the Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) zone are kept. The Vessel Traffic Services Zones Regulations
identify those vessels to which the regulations apply and those vessels must report to MCTS when in
the VTS zones. This information does not include local traffic which does not go outside the VTS zones
(e.g. tugs, service vessels and fishing vessels). These vessels are not required to report to MCTS, but
may do so voluntarily.
Both MCTS and INNAV maintain statistics for vessel traffic. The statistics maintained by MCTS include
vessels that operate only within Placentia Bay, which are not entered into the INNAV System (H Burge
pers. comm.) Consequently, the statistics for vessel traffic in Placentia Bay as maintained by MCTS
have been included in this document (Table 9.35).
Table 9.35
Reported Vessel Movements in Placentia Bay

In-Zone
Out-Zone
Total
Inbound
Outbound
Transit
In-Zone
Out-Zone
Total
Inbound
Outbound
Transit
In-Zone
Out-Zone
Total
General Cargo
January - December 2006
Transit
Tanker <50,000
DWT
Tanker >50,000
DWT
Chemical
Tanker
LPG/LNG
Carrier
Outbound
Vessel Type

Inbound
MONTH/YEAR
134
144
25
73
376
127
140
20
58
345
118
129
30
59
336
353
353
12
194
912
346
349
18
164
877
239
238
15
123
615
38
29
10
17
94
17
32
15
31
24
25
36
18
103
39
37
49
128
22
26
36
14
98
Bulk Cargo
15
29
12
16
11
29
Container
51
51
260
371
57
60
278
18
413
60
59
232
358
Tug
Tug with Oil
Barge
Tug with Chem
Barge
10
10
14
2022
2056
11
10
1929
1958
10
10
1630
1651
Tug with Tow
13
13
38
11
22
Government
40
42
15
117
214
52
57
23
205
337
35
34
35
74
178
Fishing
124
129
34
294
104
105
20
233
29
27
10
72
Passenger
Other (vsls
>20m)
13
1328
1336
10
1161
1184
935
949
Vessels < 20m

Sub-Total
Movements
16
18
989
1023
13
19
1056
1088
20
17
1009
1046
799
821
430
4808
6859
765
787
450
4628
6630
552
569
397
3874
5392
Ferry
39
40
1400
1488
44
46
1691
1787
40
40
29
1732
1841
Total
838
861
439
6208
8347
809
833
456
6319
8417
592
609
426
5606
7233
Page 256
These data illustrate the 33 percent decrease in large tanker (> 50,000 DWT) traffic in Placentia Bay
between 2004 and 2006. The point is made to illustrate the variability in annual tanker traffic in
Placentia Bay due to offshore production schedules.
9.12.2 Traffic Management
9.12.2.1
Pilotage
The APA is the Crown Corporation responsible for pilotage in the St. Johns, Holyrood and Placentia
Bay area (P. Gates, pers. comm.). The APA is regulated by the Pilotage Act and Regulations. There
are 12 marine pilots employed year-round at this time, and the APA is in the process of recruiting a
further four pilots for the region to meet the anticipated needs of the present services to the existing
terminals (P. Gates, pers. comm.). The number of pilots necessary to maintain the service is regularly
reviewed, and with the new development in Placentia Bay it is expected that more pilots will be
employed. The Compulsory Pilotage area is bound by a line between St Croix Point on Merchant Island
and Ragged Point on Eastern Head (Line B of Figure 9.64). Pilotage is compulsory to all terminals
within the compulsory Pilotage Area in accordance with the Atlantic Pilotage Regulations. The pilots
board from pilot vessels in the vicinity of 4720N 5406.5W, which is just south of Red Island.
Vessels operating in the Compulsory Pilotage Area must engage the services of a licensed pilot as
required by Section 4 of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority Regulations, or have a person who is a regular
member of the ships complement who holds a valid pilotage certificate. In effect, all vessels bound for
terminals and anchorages in Come By Chance are required to engage the services of a pilot. The APA
maintains records of all assignments performed by the pilots in Placentia Bay.
A pilotage assignment means the movement of a vessel within a pilotage area, from the pilotage
boarding station or a location within the pilotage area (berth or anchorage) to another point in the
pilotage area or the pilot boarding station when the pilot disembarks. Normally, a ship will engage the
services of a pilot inward and outward, but during that time, the services may be required to move the
vessel to or from anchorage, or to another berth. Each time that the services are engaged is designated
as an assignment.
The pilotage assignments for Placentia Bay for the two years finishing June 30, 2007, is provided in
Table 9.36.
Table 9.36
Pilotage Assignments in Placentia Bay
1 July 2005 30 June 2006

Type of Vessel
Number of Assignments
Bulk Carrier
8
Dredgers
0
Dry Cargo
2
Fishing
1
General Cargo
16
Tankers
1175
Tugs and Barges
5
Totals
1207
1 July 2006 30 June 2007

Number of Assignments
0
2
7
0
13
1051
9
1082
Source: J. Griffin, pers. comm.
Page 257
Notes:
T: Grassy Point
A-A1- Come By Chance Harbour Limits
B-B1- Seaward Limits of the Compulsory Pilotage Area.
C:- The Common Position identified in the routing and temporal boundaries
Figure 9.64
Placentia Shipping Lane
Page 258
9.12.2.2
Marine Communications and Traffic Services
Vessels report to the Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) centres in accordance with
the Eastern Canada Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) Zone Regulations. Eastern Canada VTS Zone
(ECAREG) receives information from vessels entering Canadian Waters. Placentia Traffic is the
Local VTS Zone centre monitoring information from and for vessels in the waters from Calling-in-Points
1E, 1S or 1W, at the entrance to the Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) commencing off Cape St
Marys. Their responsibilities include ship-to-shore communications and the monitoring of traffic
entering Canadian waters and local zones. MCTS is divided into two sectors. The boundary between
Sector 1 (Seaward) and Sector 2 (Northward) is a line 101/281 (T) through a position 470805N
543000W. Vessels in Sector 1 communicate with Placentia Traffic on VHF channel 14; and Sector 2
on channel 12 (Figure 9.65). MCTS has complete radar coverage for the eastern side of Placentia Bay,
covering all of the TSS and Routing and Come By Chance. MCTS also: advises vessels in the zones of
other vessels movements; receives and relays messages between the pilots, Harbour Authorities,
Government Agencies and ships; monitors and broadcasts information on hazards, weather conditions
and Notices to Shipping; advises on the safety of navigation in the area; and reports on noncompliance. MCTS does not control the movement of traffic, however they can direct traffic within the
zones as per the Regulations and the Radio Aids to Marine Navigation. They may recommend actions
to the Masters of vessels as required by the situation.
9.12.2.3
Traffic Separation Scheme
The eastern side of Placentia Bay has a traffic separation scheme (TSS) and two-way routing from the
entrance to Placentia Bay to Come By Chance Harbour (Figure 9.65). The TSS (i.e., shipping lane) is
made up of an inbound (northbound) lane, a separation zone and an outbound (southbound) lane.
Traffic using the TSS should proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow
for that lane. So far as possible, traffic should keep clear of a traffic separation line or separation zone,
and normally join or leave a traffic lane at the termination of the lane, but when joining or leaving from
either side, shall do so at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic flow as possible. Traffic
should as far as possible avoid crossing traffic lanes, but if necessary, should cross at right angles or
nearly right angles. The separation zone should not be entered except in an emergency. Fishing
vessels may fish in the separation zone and lanes, but must not impede the passage of a vessel that
can only operate within a lane. Fishing vessels may be moving in any direction. The two-way routing to
the north of the TSS has no separation zone or traffic lanes. Under the Collision Regulations, vessels
keep to the starboard side of the channel.
Vessels must give Pre-arrival Information and Reporting System (PAIRS) notice before entering
Canadian waters to TC Security and Emergency Preparedness in accordance with Section 221 of the
Marine Transportation Security Regulations. When possible, this notice is required 96 hours before
arrival, and less if the voyage is of a lesser duration. The report is made through ECAREG or the
vessels agents. A similar report must be made to Canada Border Services Agency (Customs). When
entering Canadian waters, the vessels must report to ECAREG and advise of their destination and
estimated arrival time. Vessels arriving northbound from the US cross the traffic bound to and from the
Gulf of St. Lawrence in the vicinity of the Grand Banks, east of 60W longitude. Vessels arriving from
the east merge with this traffic. Vessels entering the local VTS Zone from the east must remain to the
south of St Marys Cays, situated 11 km (6 miles) to the south of Cape St Marys. Vessels entering from
the west must remain south of Clou Rock, situated 11.5 km (6.2 miles) southeast of Ferryland Head.
Vessels entering from the south face no such hazards.
Page 259
Source: MCTS website.
Figure 9.65
MCTS Placentia Traffic Zone Limits, Sectors and Calling-in-Points
The TSS at the southern entrance is 19.5 km (10.5 miles) wide, the width of each lane being 5.5 km (3
miles) and the width of the separation zone 8.3 km (4.5 miles). Entering the TSS, vessels approaching
from the west must be aware of the possibility of encountering vessels departing the TSS outbound. At
the crossing location in the TSS, adjacent to Calling-in Points 1A, 2A, 1B and 2B, vessels must be
aware of the possibility of crossing traffic. The TSS is in deep water with depths of at least 128 m (70
fathoms) and the inbound routing lies adjacent to the 182 m (100 fathom) bathometric contour.
Approaching the Pilot Boarding Station, southeast of Red Island, the TSS narrows to 5.5 km (3 miles)
with each lane 1.8 km (1 mile) in width with a 1.8 km (1 mile) separation zone between the two. The
pilot boards in the Precautionary Area, bounded by Red Island to the west and the eastern side of the
Page 260
inbound lane to the east. Masters must be prepared to stop the vessel making any head way or
sternway through the water while awaiting the pilot. Inside the Precautionary Area there is no
separation zone. Departing the Precautionary Area with the pilot aboard, the TSS passes 1,110 m from
Red Island Shoal. At a point 4.8 km (2.6 miles) north of Red Island Shoal, the separation zones ceases,
and vessels then enter the two-way routing system. Charts are marked with the following caution:
Vessels should make maximum practical use of the two-way route but should depart
from it when required by the ordinary practice of seamen, the special circumstances of
the case or to avoid a close quarters situation, particularly in reduced visibility. Vessels
engaged in fishing activities may be encountered proceeding in any direction in or near
the two-way route.
The Collision Regulations require that vessels keep to the starboard side of the channel.
The two-way route has water depths in excess of 100 m (54 fathoms) until vessels are adjacent to
Grassy Point. During the transit, the eastern side of the two-way route passes 740 m from Haystack
Bank, 700 m from Coombes Rock and 1,110 m from Bordeaux Island. The two-way route expands into
Come By Chance, giving access to the terminals at Whiffin Head and Long Beach. North of Bread
Island, marked by the E7 buoy, the two-way route branches to anchorages BB and CC. In the
harbour, E10 and E11 buoys mark the end of the routing.
Outbound vessels enter the two-way route and proceed southward. The route on the west side passes
925 m from Bread Island, 741 m from Haystack, 960 m from Buffet Bank and 1,520 m from Ironskull
Rock. The vessels enter the TSS, the pilot disembarks and the vessel proceeds along the TSS to the
end. On the western side of the TSS, the lane passes 2,600 m from Red Island Rock and 3,900 m from
Southern Ridge.
9.12.2.4
Anchorages
Designated anchorages for large vessels at the head of Placentia Bay are AA, BB, CC and DD
(Figure 9.60). However, in an emergency during transit, the depth of water alongside the TSS and the
two-way route provide a safe anchorage for vessels. When the designated anchorages are full or when
the pilot boat is off-station, vessels are required to steam to the south of the entrance to Placentia
Bay.
These four anchorages are located within Come By Chance Harbour, which is under the jurisdiction of
TC who are responsible for the safety of operations in the Harbour under the Canada Marine Act and
Regulations (C. McDonald, pers. comm.). The waters of Come By Chance harbour are bound by the
Harbour Limits, defined in the south by a line between James Point on Bar Haven Island and the
southern point of Woody Island (Figure 9.66), (C. Osbourne, pers. comm.; C. McDonald, pers. comm.).
TC employs a Harbour Master for Come By Chance on a part-time basis that is responsible for
ensuring compliance with the regulations and the Practices and Procedures for Public Harbours,
developed under the Canada Marine Act.
Page 261
Figure 9.66
9.12.2.5
Head of Placentia Bay
Aids to Navigation
Aids to Navigation are the responsibility of the Canadian Coast Guard, which verifies that the lights and
shapes meet the National Levels of Service standards for all Canadian waters. These aids are
frequently reviewed and the reviews are subject to public consultation. The buoys in the Placentia Bay
and Approaches meet these standards; markers and range lights (identifying the designated tracks)
exceed these standards. The last Levels of Service survey was carried out in 2004, and a new survey
will be undertaken commencing in 2007. All the lighthouses on the track are fully automated. Smart
Page 262
buoys, from which hydrographic and weather data can be retrieved and promulgated, have been
deployed in the area (P. Bowering, pers. comm.). One buoy has been deployed in a position 1.8 (1
mile) southwest of the Pilot Boarding Station, and one buoy is to be placed in the vicinity of the
proposed NLRC Terminal (minutes of the Placentia Bay Traffic Committee Meeting, July 25, 2007).
With the carriage of electronic aids and the capability of monitoring the position of vessels in the MCTS
centres, the safety of navigation has increased. Electronic Aids to Navigation exist as follows and
receivers aboard enable the navigators to accurately identify the geographical position of the ships:
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS);
Loran C;
radar and racon beacons;
radio direction finders; and
Automated Identification Systems (AIS) (all vessels engaged in the Grassy Point LNG
Project are required to have AIS fitted by July 1, 2008, at the latest.)
9.12.3 Emergency Preparedness and Response
The Canadian Coast Guard, Environmental Response Division, is responsible for ensuring that oil
handling facilities, ships and ports are prepared for spills of persistent oils, and in the event of a
pollution incident, the Canadian Coast Guard is the agency responsible for overseeing the response.
Response Organizations (RO) are industry owned operations that are certified to meet the standards
required in the Canadian Shipping Act (CSA) Response Organization and Oil Handling Facilities
Regulations, to respond to oil spills from its members. There is a requirement to have Response
Organizations in port areas and to have these certified. The Canadian Coast Guard issues a certificate
of compliance to the RO, stating that it complies with the requirements.
Depending on the capability of the RO, it is certified to respond to spills of various sizes. These are
identified, in Table 9.37, as Tiers 1 through 4.
Table 9.37
Response Time of Response Organizations to Various Sized Spills
Size of Spill
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Quantity of Oil
150 tonnes
1,000 tonnes
2,500 tonnes
10,000 tonnes
Time Required to Respond

6 hours (for equipment to be deployed on-site)
12 hours (for equipment to be deployed on-site)
18 hours (for equipment to be on-site)
72 hours (for equipment to be on-site)
For certification, the RO is required to ensure that personnel are trained, that approved plans exist, and
that the plans are exercised. Ships carrying persistent oil and terminals handling persistent oils must
have a contract with a RO. LNG is not classed as a persistent oil, but the ships fuel, diesel or Marine
Fuel Oil (MFO), are persistent oils. In Placentia Bay and Approaches, the registered RO is the Eastern
Canada Response Corporation (ECRC). Placentia Bay is a Designated Port, with a 150 tonne (Tier 1)
capability in warehouses at Whiffen Head. St. Johns has a capability of 2,500 tonnes (Tier 3), spills
greater than this will require that personnel and equipment are cascaded in from Dartmouth or
Montreal. (C. Gregory, pers. comm.; G. Rose, pers. comm.)
Page 263
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITAT
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

10.1
Marine fish are those finfish and shellfish species which spend at least a portion of their life cycle in the
marine environment. Fish habitat includes the physical (e.g., substrate, temperature, water depth),
chemical (e.g., nutrients), and biological (e.g., fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, marine plants)
attributes of the environment that are required by marine fish to carry out the life cycle processes (e.g.,
spawning, rearing, feeding, overwintering, migration).
Environmental effects of the Project on the marine fish and fish habitat resulting from construction,
commissioning and operation are assessed in this section. Effects resulting from decommissioning are
assessed in Section 10.8. Cumulative environmental effects in consideration with other Projects and/or
activities, as well as accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events, are assessed in Chapter 11.
10.1.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component
Marine fish and fish habitat is selected as a VEC because of the potential for direct interaction with the
Project. Specifically, marine fish and fish habitat was selected as a VEC because of:
specific regulatory requirements of the Fisheries Act;
the direct interaction between marine fish and fish habitat and the Project activities such as
the construction of marine facilities and operation of the marine facilities, tankers and tugs;
the ecological, recreational and commercial importance of marine fish and fish habitat to the
public; and
the RAs have identified marine fish and fish habitat as a VEC for this assessment based on
public and regulatory input.
Although intrinsically related to marine fish and fish habitat, commercial fisheries, marine mammals,
and marine species at risk are assessed separately in Sections 10.2, 10.3 and 10.5, respectively.
10.1.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries
10.1.2.1
Spatial and Temporal
The spatial boundary for the assessment of potential environmental effects on the marine fish and fish
habitat VEC includes the area where interactions with the Project are likely to occur. Specifically, the
Assessment Area for marine fish and fish habitat is defined by the shoreline along the western side of
the Grassy Point peninsula within the Newfoundland LNG Ltd. water lot and the subtidal environment
from the shoreline to the boundary of the shipping lane (Figure 10.1).
Page 264
Buildings
Gravel Road
Berth Configuration
Roads
Shipping Lane
Marine Fish Habitat Assessment Area
Tug Basin
Tank Area
CLIENT:
PROJECT TITLE:

DRAWING TITLE:
Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment Area

Figure 10.1
Jacques Whitford
Bordeaux
Island
SCALE:
250
Metres
500
1:28,500
DRAWN BY:
EDITED BY:
CP
CP
DATE:
FEB 22, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
DRAWING No.:
MAP FILE:
Marine_Fish_Hab_UTM.mxd
The Assessment Area for the potential environmental effects of accidental events and cumulative
effects on marine fish and fish habitat covers Placentia Bay, north of Red Island (see Chapter 11).
The temporal boundary of the assessment is defined by the Projects potential interaction with marine
fish and fish habitat during construction and operation phases. Specifically, marine construction
interactions could occur from September 2008 to February 2010 while two berths and the tug basin are
constructed for Phase 1 of the Project and from possibly from May 2011 to April 2012 when the third
berth is scheduled to be constructed in Phase 3 of the Project. Operation and associated activities will
commence in 2010 and continue for an estimated 50 years.
10.1.2.2
Administrative and Technical
Marine fish and fish habitat are protected in Canada through federal legislation under the Fisheries Act.
Section 35 of the Act prohibits harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, while
Section 36 prohibits deposits of any substances considered deleterious to fish. Environment Canada
administers Section 36 of the Fisheries Act; while DFO administers Section 35 of the Act. Fish habitat is
also protected by the DFO Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO 1986). This policy applies
to all activities in or near water that threaten the productive capacity of fish habitats. The guiding
principle of this policy is to achieve no net loss of the productive capacity of fish habitat and to achieve
a net gain in productive capacity of habitat. Marine fish populations are also affected by the DFO
administration of commercial fishery quotas and closures.
The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) would also apply if there are any marine species within the
Assessment Area that are listed under SARA. Species at risk are assessed separately in Section 10.5.
Technical boundaries include the limitations of the available data for marine fish and fish habitat within
the Assessment Area and the limits of scientific knowledge specific to the interactions between Project
activities and relevant marine fish and fish habitat characteristics. However, the data which are
available to characterize marine fish and fish habitat with the Assessment Area and the existing
scientific knowledge regarding the potential environmental effects of the Project are considered
adequate to support the environmental assessment.
Specifically, the description of existing conditions for marine fish and fish habitat (Section 9.6) within the
Assessment Area was based on the following:
marine habitat survey conducted in September 2006 and August 2007 (Jacques Whitford
2007b);
recent scientific publications and databases relevant to Placentia Bay, including DFO
websites (http://inter01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/waves2/index.html), the Coastal Resource Inventory
databases (http://geoportal.gc.ca/index_en.html) and the Smart Bay website
(http://www.smartbay.ca/);
a broad literature search of existing information on fish and fish habitat in the area;
previous environmental assessment reports from the area (NTT 1996, Ledrew, Fudge and
Associates 1990);
experience of the study team in Come By Chance Harbour and Placentia Bay; and
personal communications.
Page 266
10.1.3 Significance Criteria

The criteria to evaluate the significance threshold for adverse environmental effects to marine fish and
fish habitat are defined as:
a significant adverse residual environmental effect of the Project on marine fish is one that
affects marine fish and/or invertebrates in such a way as to cause a decline in abundance or
a change in distribution of population(s) over one or more generations. Natural recruitment
may not re-establish species presence to baseline conditions within one generation; or
a significant adverse residual environmental effect of the Project on marine fish habitat is
one that results in an unmitigated or non-compensated net loss of fish habitat. This may
consist of a residual environmental effect that alters the marine fish habitat physically,
chemically or biologically in quality or extent so that fish and invertebrate use of the habitat
does not return to baseline conditions within five years.
An adverse effect that does not meet the above criteria is evaluated as not significant.
10.1.4 Potential Project-VEC Interactions
The primary Project activities during normal activities that could potentially interact, directly or indirectly,
with the marine fish and fish habitat VEC are:
construction and operation of the three jetties and tug boat basin;
vessel traffic; and
wastewater discharges.
The following sections provide details on key Project-VEC interactions, by Project phase. An analysis of
potential environmental effects from accidental events and cumulative effects is provided in Chapter 11.
10.1.4.1
Marine construction activities such as delivery of construction materials by barge, construction of the
tug basin, blasting, installation of the seawater intake and discharge pipes and installation of the piles
for the berths may affect marine fish and fish habitat through potential changes in habitat quantity,
habitat quality, habitat use and by direct mortality.
Marine traffic created by transportation of supplies and personnel by construction barges will affect the
quality of marine fish and fish habitat and therefore possibly the use of the affected habitat. The barges
will be secured by spuds or anchors, which will cause a small amount of substrate disturbance and
suspended sediment. Infilling and dredging required for the tug basin will create increased turbidity and
suspended sediments. Infilling and dredging for the tug basin will create a net loss of fish habitat. If
bedrock is encountered in the area to be dredged, blasting may be required. Blasting presents the risk
of fish mortality, especially of eggs and larvae.
Construction of seawater intake and wastewater discharge pipes will involve placing each pipe on the
seafloor from the shoreline to depths of 15 to 18 m. From the shoreline to the 5 m contour, a trench will
be dredged and the pipe buried. Blasting may be required to create the trench close to shore. Where
the pipe is not buried, it will be anchored by concrete blocks to prevent movement.
Page 267
During commissioning, seawater will be used for hydrostatic testing of the tanks. The seawater will then
be discharged to the sedimentation pond prior to discharge to the ocean. Most particulate will settle out
in the sedimentation pond prior to ocean discharge. The tanks will then be rinsed with freshwater from
tanker trucks and discharged to the ocean via the sedimentation pond. There is risk of elevated iron
concentrations in the discharge water and a decrease in salinity near the point of discharge. Both the
seawater and freshwater discharges will be tested for compliance with federal and provincial
regulations prior to discharge.
10.1.4.2
Operation
The primary activities during Project operation that could interact with marine fish and fish habitat are
vessel traffic and associated discharges, cooling water discharge and the intake of seawater. Each one
of these activities can change the habitat quality and, potentially, habitat use by some species:
vessels create underwater noise which may cause avoidance of the area by fish;
cooling water discharge during operations will create a thermal plume that may cause
attraction, avoidance or mortality of fish and invertebrates; and
the seawater intake pipe may result in entrainment.
There is also a risk of invasive species and oil contamination being released from shipping discharges.
However, there are several regulations in place to minimize the risk such as the Ballast Water Control
and Management Regulations, Discharge from Ships in Waters under Canadian Jurisdiction and the
Regulations of the Prevention of Pollution.
10.1.4.3
Summary
In summary, these phases of the Project can have potential environmental effects on marine fish and
fish habitat that may be categorized as:
a change in habitat quality;
a change in habitat quantity;
a change in habitat use; and
direct mortality.
A summary of the potential environmental effects, resulting from interactions between this Project and
marine fish and fish habitat, is provided in Table 10.1.
Page 268
Table 10.1
Potential Project Interaction with Marine Fish and Fish Habitat

Vessel Transportation (barging offshore structures, delivery of construction
materials and equipment)
Construction of Pier (placement of offshore structures, driving or
drilling/grouting of piles, placement of decking)
Construction of the Tug Basin (infilling, blasting, dredging, placement of
armour stone).
On-land Site Preparation (clearing and grubbing, blasting, grading)
Concrete Production
Installation of Project Components (tanks, ancillary facilities, BOG facilities)
Site Water Management (including wastewater management)
Site Waste Management
Land-based Vehicular Traffic
Equipment and Materials Storage
Watercourse Crossing (stream diversion, culvert installation, restoration,
temporary vehicle crossings)
Installation of Marine Intake and Discharge Pipes
Temporary Construction Office
Operation
Marine Vessel Traffic
Terminal Operation (noise, lights)
Water Management (seawater intake, cooling water discharge, site runoff)
BOG Handling
Marine Structures
Vehicular Traffic
Maintenance/Repairs (tanks, pier, road)
Mortality
Change in Habitat
Use
Change in Habitat
Quantity
Project Activities and Physical Works
Change in Habitat
Quality
10.1.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

This section provides an analysis of the potential environmental effects caused by key Project activities
and associated mitigations, by Project phase.
10.1.5.1
Potential effects on marine fish and fish habitat during construction and commissioning of the Project
arise from:
increases in total suspended solids (water quality);
habitat alteration;
blasting, and
noise during construction in water.
Page 269
Each of these effects can result in a change in habitat quality, habitat quantity, habitat use or direct
mortality of fish. A discussion of the magnitude, geographic extent, duration, reversibility and context of
each of these effects on marine fish and fish habitat is provided in the following sections.
Suspended Sediments
Increases in total suspended solids during construction and commissioning of the Project may be
caused by:
site runoff during site drainage;
installation of the jetty piles;
dredging and infilling of the tug basin area; and
discharge of seawater and freshwater used for hydrostatic testing.
Increased levels of suspended solids in the coastal marine environment are a common event in nature.
Sediments are suspended from river turbulence, tide and wave action and coastal upwelling. Nearshore
species are generally tolerant and have adapted to intermittent periods of suspended sediment.
However, if prolonged, high levels of suspended solids can be harmful to some species.
One effect of increased levels of suspended solids is a reduction in the amount of light that is able to
transmit through the water column. If elevated levels of suspended solids are sustained before or
during a plankton bloom, a decrease in primary productivity may result in the affected area. In turn, the
food supply for young fish and shellfish may be diminished. As an apparent adaptation to low light
levels, phytoplankton are able to assume resting stages, where they may survive for a time until water
conditions improve (Stockner and Antia 1976), or the plankton drift to a less turbid area. There may be
indirect effects on fish through alterations within the food web structures in the affected area. For
example, copepods, an important fish prey item, show negative effects and reduced numbers when
there is moderate loading of suspended solids (Robinson and Cuthbert 1996, and references therein).
This may have localized effect on prey selection for some fish species.
Shellfish are generally more susceptible to the effects of increased sediment load than finfish because
they are filter feeders (Petticord 1980). If the levels of suspended solids are sufficient, non-organic
sediment loading can cause macroinvertebrates to ingest sediment particles that may inhibit digestion.
Under extreme sediment loading, shellfish tend to stop feeding for as long as required.
Suspended solids may have lethal, sublethal or behavioural effects on finfish. Eggs and larvae of finfish
and shellfish are generally more prone to physical damage from increased levels of suspended
sediment because they are passive drifters and cannot avoid the affected area like the post-settlement
life stages. Total suspended solid (TSS) levels of 1,000 mg/L have caused mechanical damage to
herring larvae (Boehlert and Yoklavich 1984). Suspended sediment may cause respiratory and feeding
problems for finfish species in the area or they may simply avoid the area of construction activity
(Robinson and Cuthbert 1996, and references therein). The severity of effects of suspended sediments
increases as a function of sediment concentration and duration of exposure (Newcombe and Jensen
1996). Sublethal effects in several fish species have been reported after several days of exposure to
suspended sediment concentrations of approximately 650 mg/L or greater (Appleby and Scarratt 1989).
Concentrations of this magnitude would likely be localized to the immediate site of seabed disturbance
and within the area fish are expected to avoid due to construction activity. In conditions of extreme
sediment load, mortality of finfish and shellfish results from extreme oxygen deficient water or
Page 270
respiratory obstruction. Levels of 100,000 mg/L kaolin resulted in an average mussel (Mytilus edulis)
mortality of 10 percent after 5 and 11 days (Peddicord 1980).
Suspended sediments will resettle on the seabed after disturbance. The rate and location of this
process is dependent upon the sediment grain size and the water currents in the area. Fines (silt/mud)
will drift longer distances in the water column. Observed sediments within the area to be dredged are
comprised predominantly of sands and gravels with limited fine material. Given this substrate
composition, any re-suspended sediments would be expected to settle through the water column
relatively quickly. Hitchcock et al. (1999) monitored the settlement of sediment from a number of
dredging operations. The results indicated that in general, the majority of sediments settled within 10 to
15 minutes of release, and coarse sands (>2 mm) and gravels settled out virtually instantaneously.
Naturally occurring total suspended sediment concentrations in the Come By Chance Bay area have
ranged from 23.6 to 30.1 mg/l (Swiss and Osbourne 1976).
The sediments within the Assessment Area are not considered contaminated. Therefore, there is little
concern of suspended sediments making contaminants more bioavailable.
To minimize turbidity during dredging, the bucket will be an enclosed clamshell type, which has the tops
covered with a steel plate to minimize overflow of the dredged material. The bucket is also equipped
with rubber vents to allow water to escape during descent (buckets are open during descent) and
during the closing action of the bucket. Most of the turbidity occurs when the bucket hits the bottom so
ideally, only a single bite will occur on every cycle. Other mitigations to reduce the level of suspended
sediment during construction should be implemented as applicable:
no side-cast of the dredged material, (i.e., material will be placed on a barge for use as fill
material on land);
the use of washed rock for all fill material used in the construction of the tug basin;
the use of drill casements to encapsulate drill cuttings during pile installation;
development of an EPP that will detail procedures to control site runoff, including the use of
silt curtains and erosion control measures on land;
using minimal movement of barge anchors (only when necessary) to reduce resuspension
of sediments;
releasing water for hydrostatic testing only when it meets or exceeds criteria set out in the
Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and Sewer Regulations, 2003,
prior to discharge;
releasing water used in hydrostatic testing in a controlled discharge.
schedule work so as to avoid heavy precipitation;
immediately stabilize any disturbed areas along the shoreline to prevent erosion;
monitor water quality to ensure total suspended solid levels and contaminant concentrations
in the water column are within limits prescribed by the CCME Environmental Quality
Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (http://www.ccme.ca/publications/
ceqg_rcqe.html) when considered in conjunction with existing ambient water quality and
site-specific factors; and
take further mitigative actions as necessary based on monitoring results.
The localized area of effect from suspended solids, resulting depositional area and the high potential for
reversibility will limit the magnitude of effects as a result of sedimentation.
Page 271
Habitat Alteration
Boulder infill and dredging are required to build the tug basin, resulting in the harmful alteration,
disruption or destruction to fish habitat (HADD). Approximately 11,100 m2 is required for infilling and
approximately 15,000 m2 is required for dredging. When combined with the footprint of the seawater
intake and discharge pipe footprints, the total area of fish habitat affected is 29,220 m2. The habitat
within the Assessment Area is considered typical habitat within northern Placentia Bay and contains no
known unique or critical habitat for fish or shellfish. A detailed description of the fish habitat within the
Assessment Area is provided in Section 9.6.
In nearshore bedrock/boulder areas of the tug basin footprint there will be little change from current
substrate type after the armour stone is installed around the perimeter of the basin. However, habitat
alteration will occur in areas where there is currently a mix of sand, gravel and cobble substrate. Once
there is a measurable change in substrate, the benthic community around the footprint will also change.
Communities will become those more suited to boulder substrates. Kelp will likely grow along the length
of the causeway where there currently is very little leafy vegetation. Associated boulder species like
periwinkles, barnacles and blue mussels are likely to increase in abundance in the affected area. The
addition of boulders to a relatively flat sand/gravel habitat will attract fish and crab and lobster,
especially after the boulders become vegetated. Adult lobster will be attracted from marginal habitats in
the immediate area by newly created that the armour stone crevices will provide. Areas vacated by
these individuals will become available for new recruit lobsters. Other fish species expected to colonize
the tug basin are rock gunnel, eelpout, radiated shanny and longhorn sculpin. The tug basin not only
provides shelter for these species, but also creates a feeding ground for several additional fish and
shellfish species. Invertebrate species expected to inhabit the reef include rock crab, mussels,
polychaetes, starfish, brittlestars, periwinkles, barnacles, urchins, polychaetes and fan worms.
Rockweeds and Irish moss will colonize the intertidal portion of the armour stone and Laminaria,
Agarum, and Alaria will grow to a kelp forest in the subtidal zone, as they have at the NTL causeway.
The piles of the three jetties can be expected to become colonized with blue-green algae at the surface,
with mussels, anemones, hydroids, red algae and kelp as depth along the pile increases.
The majority of the infauna within the dredge area of the tug basin and the seawater intake and
discharge pipes will be lost when the material is disposed of on land. Once dredging is complete, a very
similar habitat to the existing substrate will be exposed and the area re-colonized from neighbouring
communities within one (e.g., polychaetes and amphipods) to several (e.g., scallop) years. This habitat
disturbance is therefore temporary and highly reversible. The substrate currently consisting of a mix of
cobble and boulder will be changed to sand and gravel once the surface layers are dredged. The
current benthic community on the cobble/boulder substrate is dominated by filamentous brown algae,
anemones, brittle stars, rock crabs, gastropods and mussels and will therefore be altered to resemble
the adjacent sand and gravel community of sea urchins, sea stars, sand dollars and scallops. A benthic
community in habitat exposed to bioturbation quickly becomes dominated by opportunistic species.
Many of the opportunistic species are characterized by high reproductive rates (McManus and Pauly
1990), so densities increase quickly (Warwick 1986), which may attract benthic feeding fish.
Macrobenthic species diversity may decrease briefly, but overall abundance and biomass of the benthic
community in most habitats will likely not decrease as opportunistic species move into and thrive in the
dredged area. The exception maybe within coralline algae substrates, where invertebrate abundance
and diversity is higher than most gravel/cobble substrates.
Coralline algae play an important role in nearshore ecology as habitat for invertebrates, as a food
source for a variety of gastropods (Mandeveldt et al. 2006) and by limiting the re-colonization of kelp
Page 272
species that have been harvested by urchins (Bulleri et al. 2002, Bulleri and Benedetti-Cecchi 2006).
The attraction of invertebrates to coralline algae beds results in the attraction of fish to feed in these
areas. There has been little study of the role of coralline algae as fish habitat in the western north
Atlantic.
A fish habitat compensation strategy is currently being developed for this Project in conjunction with
DFO and the area fishers. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. is fully committed to developing a habitat
compensation strategy to the satisfaction of DFO and area fishers.
Atlantic salmon and pelagic schooling species, such as herring, capelin and mackerel, will encounter a
new obstruction once the tug basin is completed. It may take some time for these species to find their
way around the structure, if their destination is further along the shoreline, or they may simply stay
seaward and avoid the tug basin area.
The Project may also alter marine fish habitat by discharges of freshwater to the nearshore
environment during site dewatering and hydrostatic testing. Commissioning of the LNG facility will
require seawater for hydrostatic testing, since there is an inadequate supply of freshwater on site.
Freshwater supplied by tanker trucks will be used to rinse the tanks after hydrostatic testing. All water
discharged from the hydrostatic testing will be tested prior to release to ensure compliance with federal
and provincial regulations.
Freshwater is less dense than saltwater, so the freshwater input into the nearshore can result in several
types of salinity profiles, dependent on factors such as tides and wind-driven circulation. A situation in
which vertical mixing is minimal will result in a distinct surface freshwater lens with an underlying
saltwater body, but this is not expected given the tides and exposure of the Assessment Area. If mixing
occurs throughout the water column, the effects of the freshwater input may be felt in the form of
decreased salinity at depth. The tolerance to this change in salinity will vary from organism to organism,
dependent on its ability to osmoregulate. The mobile epifauna may migrate to escape adverse
conditions such as decreased salinity. The benthic infaunal community may not be exposed to the
same salinity changes because the sediment salinity is much more stable than in the overlying water.
Except for the point of discharge, the change in salinity will be within normal range for the area. Mean
monthly salinities at the surface can range from 13.4 to 35.5 ppt within Come By Chance Bay (Swiss
and Osbourne 1976).
Mitigations to reduce the effects of habitat alteration during construction will be to:
restrict seabed disturbance to the area required for the tug basin and pipeline footprints;
mitigate net habitat lost and the resulting decrease in productive capacity with a Fish Habitat
Compensation Plan; and
use water for hydrostatic testing that will meet or exceed criteria set out in the Newfoundland
and Labrador Environmental Control Water and Sewer Regulations, 2003 prior to discharge.
Blasting and Noise
Background noise in the ocean can originate from a range of natural and anthropogenic sources,
including oceanic turbulence, thermal noise, surface wave action, animal communications and vessel
traffic. Deep ocean ambient noise above 500 Hz is primarily the result of wind and wave conditions. At
sound frequencies less than 500 Hz, shipping noise is an important factor.
Urick (1983) gives values for oceanic waters equivalent to peak-to-peak noise levels of 75 to 95 dB re
1Pa, depending upon proximity to shipping lanes. For deep, oceanic waters (greater than 200 m
Page 273
depth) distant from shipping lanes, a value of 95 dB re 1 Pa may be assumed (Richardson et al.
1995), but considerably higher levels will occur closer to shipping lanes. More variable is the ambient
noise in shallow waters (less than 200 m), especially in coastal bays and harbours, where there is
concentrated human activity. The main sources of noise in inshore areas are shipping and industry,
wind and the biological noise generated by marine mammals and other biota. Typical peak levels of
ambient noise range from 110 to 120 dB re 1 Pa in shallow water (Richardson et al. 1995), depending
on oceanographic conditions, shipping and other human activity. Therefore, typical peak background
values of 110 dB re 1 Pa are a reasonable assumption for shallow, Continental Shelf Waters, although
this value is very much dependent upon frequency. Noise levels at higher frequencies are typically
lower.
All species of fish have the ability to hear, and some use sound to find prey, detect and avoid predators
and for communication. The range of hearing for most fish is estimated to be below 1,000 Hz; however,
some fish can hear sound up to 3,000 Hz. The lack of scientific study, particularly field experiments on
the effects of noise on fish and invertebrates, makes it difficult to evaluate the effect of a particular type
of sound on a particular species. Effects can range from no measurable effect to internal damage. In
between, there are shifts in temporary or permanent hearing thresholds, and changes in avoidance and
social behaviour (Popper 2003).
Fish with swim bladders and specialized auditory couplings to the inner ear (e.g., herring) are
considered highly sensitive to sound pressure. Fish with a swim bladder but without a specialized
auditory coupling (e.g., cod and redfish) are moderately sensitive, while fish with a reduced or absent
swim bladder (e.g., mackerel and flounder) have low sensitivity (Fay 1988). Fay (1988) has developed
approximate thresholds for each of these three classifications of hearing sensitivity: the highly sensitive
group has a hearing threshold of less than 80 dB re 1 Pa; the moderately sensitive threshold is
between 80 and 100 dB re 1 Pa; and those fish with low threshold have a sensitivity of greater than
100 dB re 1 Pa. These sensitivity thresholds were derived under quiet laboratory conditions, so
thresholds to sound pressure in the ocean are thought to be 40 dB higher due to ambient noise. A
comparison of moderately sensitive species such as cod, haddock, pollock and redfish determined a
measurable behavioural response in the range of 160 to 188 dB re 1 Pa (Turnpenny and Nedwell
1994). Underwater ambient noise in bad weather is in the range of 90 to 100 dB re 1 Pa. Large
tankers, at full steam, may have a source noise level of 170 dB re 1 Pa at 1 m and average fishing
vessel emits noise between 127 and 146 dB at 100 m.
Noise generated during construction activity (vessels, barges, dredging, blasting and pile driving) may
cause temporary avoidance of the area by fish and shellfish. The noise from blasting nearshore is
expected to radiate into the marine environment and cause a startle response and temporary
avoidance of the area by some species.
Shock waves with high peak pressures and rapid rates of pressure can result in damage and death in
living organisms. Overpressure in excess of 100 kilopascals (kPa) can result in the mortality or injury of
fish as well as their eggs and larvae. Fish are susceptible to the effects of underwater blasting. In
finfish, the swimbladder is the most likely site of damage, but the kidney, liver and spleen may also be
ruptured. In comparison to finfish, benthic invertebrates and shellfish are less affected by sudden
pressure changes underwater because they do not have contained airspaces. Nevertheless, mortality
of sessile invertebrates in the immediate area of blasting is likely.
Page 274
Any blasting that may be required near the shoreline will comply with DFOs Guidelines for Use of
Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky 1998). Underwater blasting guidelines
include:
backfilling a loaded charge hole;
no explosive is to be detonated in or near fish habitat that produces, or is likely to produce,
an instantaneous pressure change (i.e., overpressure) greater than 100 kPa (14 psi) in the
swimbladder of a fish; and
no explosive is to be detonated that produces, or is likely to produce, a peak particle velocity
greater that 13 mm/s in a spawning bed during the period of egg production.
Use of underwater explosives will occur over a short (one to two weeks) period, and will be governed
by a detailed blasting program (as per Wright and Hopkey 1998) and a series of mitigation measures
designed to avoid potential effects. An EPP will commit to use of the lowest weight of explosives
necessary to break rock, to the decking of charges and to stemming all blasting holes.
Noise generated by pile driving is highly variable, depending on the driver and the substrate being
penetrated. Noise levels at 6 m deep, 100 m from a pile driving operation, were measured between 197
and 207 dB re 1 Pa. At 400 m, levels were 181 to 191 dB re 1 Pa and at 500 m, noise levels were
less than 160 dB re 1 Pa (Caltan 2001). Other pile drivers have been measured at 101 dB A at 15 m
(US Department of Transportation 2006).
Noise can affect the behaviour and physiology of fish. Turnpenny and Nedwell (1994) summarize the
following effects of noise on fish:
transient stunning at 192 dB re 1 Pa:
internal injuries at 200 dB re 1 Pa:
egg/larval damage at 220 dB re Pa; and
fish mortality at 230 to 240 dB re Pa.
Subtle changes in fish behaviour occur at 160 dB (Richardson et al. 1995). Dredging will likely create
avoidance by finfish, possibly out to several hundred metres. However, avoidance will be temporary
and since dredging will occur at the same time as blasting, it will pre-empt physical damage and
mortality of fish as a result of blasting. Behavioural effects of construction noise on benthic
invertebrates like lobster and crab are not well documented, but are of minor concern, because few
invertebrates have gas-filled spaces, so are not as affected by noise as are fish.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of noise during construction include:
compliance with DFOs Guidelines for Use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters
(Wright and Hopky 1998) for any blasting required near the shoreline;
use of acoustic harassment devices or a ramp-up of detonation pressures to encourage fish
to move away from the blasting area;
use of bubble curtains and other acoustic absorbents, where feasible; to contain shock
waves;
notification of area residents and fishers prior to blasting operations; and
identifying designated routes to and from construction site for construction vessel and
barges.
Page 275
Most available literature indicates that the effects of noise on fish are transitory and if short-lived and
outside a critical period, are expected not to translate into biological or physical effects. In most cases,
it appears that behavioural effects on fish as a result of noise should result in negligible effects on
individuals and populations. The issue of primary concern is the potential for interactions during
particularly sensitive periods, such as spawning. There are no confirmed spawning areas for fish within
the Assessment Area.
10.1.5.2
Operation
Potential effects on marine fish and fish habitat during operation of the Project arise from:
lights from ships and terminal;
noise from facility, tankers and tugs; and
seawater intake and cooling water discharge (water quality).
Lights
Operational lights used in or near the marine environment may affect pelagic migratory fish species.
Studies from the Pacific coast report changes in juvenile herring and sand lance distribution at night, in
artificially lighted areas (Nightingale and Simenstad 2002). Predators may also have been attracted by
the increase in juvenile herring and sandlance under the lights (Nightingale and Simenstad 2002).
Lights are also known to attract squid, if they are present in the area. Many planktonic species and life
stages are phototaxic; floating to near surface during the day and settling to deeper water at night. Any
lights on the water at night may attract nekton that have active swimming ability.
Mitigation to minimize any potential effects of lights on fish include the use of shielded, directional
lighting to illuminate only the immediate working area below the lamp, minimizing diffusion of light
laterally and above the lamp.
Noise
The volume of noise within the Assessment Area during operations will be relatively low, since the LNG
carrier will be under tug escort and the reduced speed will minimize the noise emitted. When the
carriers are at berth they will not emit any propeller noise, but auxiliary equipment may be in use that
could contribute to underwater noise in the range of 20 to 65 dB (Akamatsu et al. 2003), which is not
expected to have any effect on fish.
Water Management
Wastewater discharges to the ocean will consist of surface runoff from the site, domestic wastewater
(including treated sewage), and heated seawater from the cooling system. Sewage associated bacteria
(i.e., E. coli) are not expected to be of concern for this Project since most terrestrial bacteria cannot
survive in a marine environment (Parsons et al. 1984). The input of nutrients into marine water can
have a local effect on the phytoplankton and algal communities. However, any effect of nutrient loading
is dependent on the level of mixing and circulation in the area. Given the moderately exposed shoreline
at Grassy Point and the low level of nutrient input expected from such a facility, eutrophication along
the shoreline is not expected.
Screens on the seawater intake pipe will comply with the Freshwater Intake End-of-pipe Fish Screen
Guideline (DFO 1995), or other conditions applied on the Certificate of Approval to prevent entrainment
and impingement of fish greater than 25 mm. The intake pipe will be approximately 30 cm from the
seafloor, which will minimize the entrainment of eggs and larvae from the water column. The pipe will
Page 276
be supported on concrete footings, spaced 180 cm apart as to not impede lobster or flounder from
moving underneath the pipe.
The seawater cooling system is a closed loop, with no additives. The only difference from ambient
seawater at discharge will be temperature and the fact that treated wastewater will be added prior to
discharge back to the ocean. Wastewater volumes are estimated at 7,600 l/day. The anticipated
temperature differential of the influent seawater and the effluent seawater varies between seasons (0.5C to 16.5C) based upon the influent temperature of the seawater. Consequently, it is estimated
that the influent seawater flow requirements will vary from a minimum of 3,359 m 3/hour in the winter to
a maximum of 7,351 m3/hour in the summer. Diffusers will be installed at the end of the discharge pipe
to aid in the mixing of the thermal plume created at the point of discharge. Table 10.2 describes the
characteristics of the thermal plume as modeled using the Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System
(CORMIX) and the discharge and diffuser described in Chapter 2. The end of the discharge pipe will be
at a depth of approximately 15 m.
Table 10.2
Summary of the Thermal Modeling Results
Scenario
No.*
Season
Ambient Temperature
(oC)
SD1
SD2
SD3
Summer
Summer
Winter
8.6
16.5
-0.5
Excess
Temperature of
Discharge (oC)
21.4
13.5
30.5
Water Quality Standard: T=1.0oC

Distance
Plume Width
Depth (m)
from pipe (m)
(m)
20.74
56.82
3.41
8.38
53.20
1.60
11.23
53.62
1.81
*Source SNC Lavalin 2007.
The dimensions describing the plume in Table 10.2 are measured at the point the discharge is within
one degree of ambient, or background temperature. The size of the thermal plume does not change
substantially between the seasons, because the discharge volumes during the winter are less than 50
percent of the volume required during the summer. The largest plume is created when ambient water
temperatures are moderate, extending out approximately 20 m before reaching 1 degree Celsius of
ambient. The potential for interaction with marine fish and fish habitat is therefore spatially limited. The
project is not expected to cause changes in ambient salinity and temperature simultaneously.
Freshwater discharges from site de-watering will occur during the spring or early summer of 2008.
Freshwater discharges from tank rinsing will like occur several years later during the fall or early winter,
after the tanks are constructed. Cooling water discharge will not occur until after the tanks are
constructed and freshwater discharges have ended.
Juvenile and adult lobsters can tolerate temperatures from -1oC to 30.5C. Adults can survive abrupt
temperature increases of 16C within this range (Harding 1992). Larval lobsters occur in surface waters
between 6oC and 25C, but successful development to Stage IV seems to require a minimum of 12C
(Harding 1992). The upper acute temperature limit for larval lobster is 32C (Harding 1992), so larval
mortality is not expected. However, the metabolic rate of larval lobster is depressed above 25C.
Lobster larvae are most abundant in surface waters during the evening and early morning hours and
are typically found along shorelines exposed to prevailing winds (Wahle and Incze 1997). Larval fish,
amphipods, cladocerans, copepods and rock crab larvae are also expected within the Assessment
Area during summer. There is some risk of plankton and ichthyoplankton mortality resulting from rapid
changes in temperature. The pelagic life stages of most species are tolerant and adaptive to some
fluctuation in temperature, given diel migrations between surface waters and depth, so the effect will be
determined by the magnitude of the increase in temperature and duration of exposure. Given the
dynamic nature of the Grassy Point area, any eggs and larvae within the thermal plume will be exposed
to increased temperatures for limited duration.
Page 277
The biological consequences of a thermal plume were limited to 50 and 25 m on either side of the
outfall at the Holyrood power generation station (Whittick and Hooper 1977). The biological effect of an
increase in temperature enhanced the growth and abundance of several species near the point of
discharge at this station including filamentous red and brown algae, rockweeds, Irish moss, isopods
and amphipods (Whittick and Hooper 1977).
Most inshore fish species move into deeper water in the fall and return in the spring, thus removing the
potential interaction with the thermal plume when the temperature gradient is greatest. However
cunners overwinter in the nearshore and may therefore be attracted to the warmer water within the
cooling water plume.
Surface runoff from the tank sub-impoundments will be treated with an oily water separator if needed
and circulated to the sedimentation pond, prior to discharge. Recovered oil will be disposed of
according to provincial regulations. All discharges will be tested prior to discharge and treated as
required, to comply with the general prohibition against the deposit of a deleterious substance into
waters frequented by fish (Section 36, Fisheries Act), the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental
Control Water and Sewage Regulations, 2003, and conditions applied to the Certificate of Approval.
As part of normal operations during loading of LNG from the facility to a carrier, ballast water must be
discharged. Ballast discharges fall under the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations.
Ballast water in LNGCs is carried in tanks that are segregated from all other tanks and void spaces,
and which are designed only for the carriage of water ballast. The piping from the tanks is dedicated for
this purpose. The ballast water in the tanks will have been exchanged (or treated, when the process is
approved and developed), meeting the requirements of the Canadian Regulation for treatment and
management. The management includes logging the location, times and quantities of ballast water
exchanged. Notwithstanding this, the Terminal will audit the ballast management system and program,
and satisfy itself that the ballast to be discharged meets the standards of the regulations. No ballast will
be discharged until this has been determined. Any LNGC not meeting the criteria of the Ballast
Management program, will not be received at the Terminal, and will not be permitted to discharge the
ballast in Canadian waters.
LNGCs arriving at Grassy Point terminal to discharge LNG will have no ballast aboard on arrival. During
the discharge, the LNGC will take on ballast water. Ballast water will only be discharged from vessels
that are arriving at Grassy Point to receive transshipped LNG. All these vessels carrying water ballast
must comply with Canadians regulations. Failure to comply will disallow the pumping of the ballast. A
record of the ballast management procedures undertaken is required to be maintained aboard all
vessels. A requirement is in place for vessels to carry and implement a Ballast Water Management
Plan. The plan must include the logging of the events of taking on ballast, exchanging ballast and
pumping ballast. These events are required to be reported to the Minister of Transport on an approved
form. The Terminal will audit the ballast management system and program, and satisfy itself that the
ballast to be discharged meets the standards of the regulations. No ballast will be discharged until this
has been determined.
At the international level, vessels are subject to the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
regulatory framework for pollution controls covered under the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or the MARPOL 73/78 convention, relating to oil, packaged goods,
sewage, garbage and air emissions. Domestic pollution regulations are found in Part XV of the CSA
Pollution Prevention and Response. IMO regulations prohibit vessels from discharging sewage within
7.4 km of the nearest land, unless they have an approved treatment plant in operation. Discharge within
7.4 km to 22.2 km must be broken down, diluted and disinfected prior to discharge.
Page 278
All garbage from all Project vessels will be disposed of at a landfill site which will be arranged through
the ships agent, who will also arrange for any required approvals. International Garbage is waste
foodstuffs that need to be handled by an approved landfill site. The approval is given by both the
municipality and the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Health.
Sludge from fuel tanks, lubricating oil tanks, oily water separator, engine room and pump room bilges,
is retained in an onboard tank and discharged onshore into trucks for disposal at an approved facility.
Black water (sewage) is retained in an onboard tank and discharged onshore into trucks for disposal at
an approved facility.
The TERMPOL review process will further address ballast water control measures for LNGCs arriving
at the Grassy Point LNG Terminal.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of water management during operations include:
compliance with the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and Sewer
Regulations, 2003;
compliance with applicable guidelines of the Freshwater Intake End-of-pipe Fish Screen
Guideline; and
compliance with applicable Regulations of the Canada Shipping Act.
10.1.6 Evaluation of Significance
Changes in marine fish and fish habitat will occur during construction of the tug basin and jetties.
Increased levels of suspended sediments and noise can be expected within the Assessment Area.
Construction activities that decrease the quality of fish habitat may lead to temporary avoidance by
some species and potentially some eggs and larval mortality due to blasting. In accordance with the
DFO policy of no net loss of fish habitat, a reduction in the quantity of fish habitat will be offset through
implementation of a habitat compensation program developed in conjunction with DFO and area
fishers. Some mortality of benthic species is expected as a result of dredging and infilling for the tug
basin, but these species are ubiquitous throughout the area and the tug basin will become colonized
with these species in a few years. During commissioning of the facility, seawater will be used for
hydrostatic testing of the tanks and pipes, which will be followed by a rinse with freshwater. Both the
seawater and the freshwater will be tested for compliance with provincial and federal regulations prior
to discharge. The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the extent of these potential residual
environmental effects on marine fish or fish habitat is localized, of short duration and reversible and is
not likely to be significant (Table 10.3).
During operation of the facility, the primary environmental effects on fish and fish habitat result from
noise created by vessels, terminal lights and water discharges. The Grassy Point LNG facility will follow
the applicable provincial and federal regulations for discharge of surface runoff, wastewater and cooling
water thereby containing any potential effects to a localized area. All vessels will be required to comply
with the CSA Regulation for discharge of ballast water and other discharges. The RAs, in consultation
with FAs, conclude that these residual environmental effects are localized, intermittent and reversible;
therefore, potential effects on marine fish or fish habitat are not likely to be significant (Table 10.4).
Page 279
Table 10.3
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Fish and Fish Habitat (Construction

and Commissioning)
Tug Basin
Dredging and Blasting
Change in Habitat Quality

as a result of a HADD
Change in Habitat Use
Direct mortality
Tug Basin Construction
Jetty Construction
Seawater Pipe
Construction
Water Management
(wastewater and
hydrostatic testing)
Vessel Traffic

Change in Habitat and

Habitat Use


Mortality
Guidelines for Use of

Explosives in Canadian
Fisheries Waters
erosion control and silt
curtains
compliance with EPP
closed clamshell dredge
on-land disposal of dredge
DFOs Guidelines for Use
of Explosives in Canadian
Fisheries Waters.
fish habitat compensation
plan
use of washed rock for infill
fill will not be placed outside
footprint
plan
compliance with EPP
use of drill casings
jetties are pile construction,
no infill.
plan
compliance with EPP
compliance with EPP
all discharges will meet or
exceed Environmental
Control Water and Sewer
Regulations, 2003
Vessels will be at minimal
speeds approaching and
departing the berth
Vessels will be under the
control of licensed marine
pilot.
Ecological/
Socioeconomic
Context

Reversibili
ty
On-land Site
Preparation (clearing,
blasting, grubbing and
grading)
Mitigation
Duration/
Frequency
Potential Environmental
Effect
Geographi
c Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude

1/2
2/2
R/I
2/1
2/2
1/1
2/2
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of marine fish or fish habitat limited
to the Assessment Area, with no permanent loss or degradation of
critical habitat.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of marine fish or fish habitat
limited to the Assessment Area with no loss of critical fish habitat.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of marine fish habitat critical to the
survival of fish species or loss of population or stock.
Geographic Extent:
1 = Environmental effects restricted to Project footprint.
2 = Environmental effects extend beyond the Project footprint but
remain with Assessment Area.
Duration:
1 = Short term: Effects are measurable for <1 year.
3 = Long term: Effects are measurable for >5 years.
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
1 = Area is relatively pristine or not adversely affected by human
activity.
2 = Evidence of existing negative environmental effects (e.g.,
existing stream crossings).
Page 280
Table 10.4
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Marine Fish and Fish Habitat

(Operation)

Water Management
(seawater Intake and
discharge for terminal
and vessels)

Vessel Traffic (carriers

and tugs)

Presence of Marine
Structures
compliance with EPP

compliance with operations
permits to minimize lights
and noise
compliance with all
provincial and federal
regulations
Fish Habitat Compensation
Plan
jetties are pile construction,
no infill.
compliance with EPP
all discharges will meet or
exceed Environmental
Control Water and Sewer
Regulations, 2003
ballast water and other
discharges will comply with
CSA Regulations
Intake screens in
compliance with DFO
guidelines
equipment maintenance for
accidental release and leak
prevention
designated travel routes to
and from site.
Compliance with EPP
Reversibility

Mitigation
Duration/
Frequency
Terminal Operation
Effect
Geographic Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude

3/3
3/4
3/4
3/4
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of marine fish or fish habitat limited
to the Assessment Area, with no permanent loss or degradation of
critical habitat.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of marine fish or fish habitat
limited to the Assessment Area with no loss of critical fish habitat.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of marine fish habitat critical to the
survival of fish species or loss of population or stock.
Geographic Extent:
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
activity.
Duration:
Page 281
COMMERCIAL AND AQUACULTURE FISHERIES
10.2
This section assesses the potential effects of routine events during construction, commissioning and
operation of the Project on commercial fisheries. Effects resulting from decommissioning are assessed
in Section 10.8. For the purposes of this assessment, commercial fisheries consist of commercial wild
fisheries, aquaculture and fish processing. There are no aboriginal fisheries within the Assessment
Area. Cumulative effects (i.e., effects on commercial fisheries resulting from this Project in combination
with other existing activities, industries and projects, and in combination with known or anticipated
future projects and activities) and accidental events are considered in Chapter 11.
This section is concerned with the industrial and economic aspects of the commercial fisheries VEC.
Physical and biological effects on fish species (whether commercial wild, aquaculture or prey) are not
considered here, as these are assessed in Section 10.1, which deals with potential physical effects on
marine biota and their habitat.
Consultations with fishers who harvest species in the Grassy Point area, as well as fishers based in
other Placentia Bay homeports, also helped Newfoundland LNG Ltd. identify potential interactions for
both phases. For commercial wild fisheries, the issues considered here are the process of accessing
and returning from fishing grounds, the use of the grounds, the deployment and integrity of fishing gear
and related equipment, the success of the harvesting activities (catch rates) and the marketability of the
fish to buyers.
For aquaculture operators, this assessment considers the condition and integrity of aquaculture gear,
facilities and related equipment, the ability to seed, tend and harvest the stock, the marketability of the
fish to upstream buyers and the future economic viability of the operation.
For fish processors, the chief aspect considered is security of supply of raw materials for processing
and sale to mid- and -downstream buyers.
Commercial fisheries in Placentia Bay represent a significant contribution to the economy of the area.
The commercial wild fisheries, primarily lobster, snow crab and cod, had an average annual value of
almost $3 million between 2003 and 2006 (Placentia Bay harvest landed in Statistical Section 30 ports).
Consultation has determined that there are seven to eight fisheries using established grounds in the
immediate vicinity of the Grassy Point terminal for cod and lobster harvesting. Public consultation has
also indicated local concerns that the Project could have indirect effects on secondary industries (i.e.,
fish processing plants and their workers). While aquaculture in Placentia Bay is currently limited,
NLDFA aquaculture managers believe that Placentia Bay has significant growth opportunities.
Given the planned construction and operation activities associated with this Project, the RAs (Transport
Canada and DFO) have specifically required the Proponent to consider the effects of the Project on
commercial fisheries and aquaculture, including change/degradation of the productive capacity of
aquatic systems (addressed in Section 10.1) and interferences between bulk carriers, commercial
fisheries, and aquaculture sites.
Page 282

10.2.2.1
Section 9.7.4 describes the established fisheries in the commercial fisheries study area, which includes
the waters adjacent to Statistical Section 30 within Placentia Bay (Figure 10.2). This area will also serve
as the boundaries of the Assessment Area for commercial fisheries. As discussed in Section 9.7.4,
wild fisheries occur in this part of Placentia Bay throughout most of the year. Existing aquaculture
operations (blue mussels) are situated in the more sheltered areas of the Assessment Area. Fish
processing activities are located in several communities within Placentia Bay, including within the
Assessment Area.
Figure 10.2
Commercial Fisheries Assessment Area
Page 283
Based on information obtained from several local area fishers for this assessment, it is estimated that
approximately nine enterprises usually fish various species in the Grassy Point area. Future
consultations and discussions with area fishers and FFAW representatives will determine the exact
number of enterprises with established harvesting activities in this area.
During lobster season (late April until the end of June), pots are set relatively close to shore out to a
maximum of 18 to 21 m (10 to 12 fathoms). Cod are harvested primarily in June and July, as well as in
the fall months. Most (approximately 90 percent) of the cod is taken with gillnets, though trawls may
also be used. Gillnets are set relatively close to shore in water depths as shallow as 27 to 36 m (15 to
20 fathoms).
Fishers also harvest herring in this area, primarily for use as lobster bait. This species is taken, with
nets, beginning approximately two weeks before the lobster season until the end of June. Fishers report
occasional harvests of flounder and scallops in the area as well. Another enterprise based in Arnolds
Cove also harvests sea urchin on kelp beds in water depths between 3 to 12 m between Bordeaux Gut
and Whiffen Head. This species is taken during the winter months.
Marine construction interactions with commercial fisheries could occur from September 2008 to
February 2010 while two berths and the tug basin are constructed for Phase 1 of the Project and from
possibly from May 2011 to April 2012 when the third berth is scheduled to be constructed in Phase 3 of
the Project. Operation and associated activities will commence in 2010 and continue for an estimated
50 years.
10.2.2.2
Administrative and Technical Boundaries
The Assessment Area is located within DFO Unit Area (UA) 3PSc. The specific boundaries of the
Assessment Area correspond to the marine area adjacent to Statistical Section 30. The statistical data
and analysis in this report are based primarily on time-series data from DFO, Newfoundland and
Labrador Region and Maritimes Region9, describing the quantity, month and location (by fisheries
management UA) of fish harvesting (2003 to 2006). The overview of past and current aquaculture
activities is based on information obtained from NLDFA. The report also draws on background
information from existing agency reports, other research studies and the consultants files. The
description of aquaculture activities also draws on consultations undertaken with all of the existing
licence holders in Placentia Bay, as well as with NLDFA managers and other industry participants
exploring the potential for new aquaculture development opportunities in the area. The data available to
characterize the commercial fisheries and aquaculture activities within the Assessment Area is
considered sufficient for the purposes of this assessment.
10.2.3 Significance
A significant adverse socioeconomic effect on commercial fisheries/aquaculture is defined as one that
is likely to cause any one or more of the following:
excludes fishers from using 10 percent or more of the fishable area for the targeted species
for all or most of the fishing season;
10 percent or more of the vessels in a fishery are excluded from the fishable area of the
targeted species for all or most of the fishing season;
9
A small proportion of the harvest from within Unit Area 3PSc is landed in the Maritimes (Nova Scotia) Region (less than 15
tonnes in 2005); these datasets are included within the Newfoundland and Labrador Region data and are used in this analysis.
Page 284
a measurable reduction in fisher income (profitability) due to a decrease in catchability of

target species in 10 percent or more of the fishable area for the targeted species;
uncompensated damage to fishing gear or vessels.
A non-significant adverse socioeconomic effect on commercial fisheries is defined as one that excludes
fishers from using less than 10 percent of the fishable area for the targeted species for all or most of the
season; and/or less than 10 percent of the vessels in a fishery are excluded from a targeted species
fishable area for all or most of the fishing season; and/or results in a reduction in profits due to a
decrease in catchability of target species in less than 10 percent of the fishable area for the targeted
species.
10.2.4.1
Construction, Commissioning and Operation
The principal marine activities during the construction phase will be the preparation of the tug basin and
associated construction work, the placement of the intake and outfall pipes, and the construction of the
LNG jetties (two in the first construction year, and a third approximately five years after LNG operations
begin). The principal activities during operation will be vessel traffic, presence of permanent marine
structures and Project-related noise.
The construction and operation activities that could interact with commercial fisheries (wild fisheries,
aquaculture and processing) within the Assessment Area are identified in Table 10.5.
Construction
Marine terminal and marine
infrastructure (tug basin, jetties)
Intake pipe
Outfall pipe
Construction and support vessels
Construction activities
Pile driving, underwater drilling,
dredging, blasting other construction
Vessels
Materials barges; other construction
traffic
Marine terminal and marine
infrastructure (tug basin, jetties)
Operation
Marine Terminal (tug basin, jetties)
Intake pipes/Outfall pipes
Approaches to the Marine Terminal
Presence of marine facilities
Tugs and other support vessels
LNG Carriers
LNG Carriers, tugs
Pathway
Effect
Construction activity around

Project site and construction
safety zone
Lost fishing grounds
Vessel traffic
Debris
Noise
Gear damage
Vessel traffic; deviation around

construction safety zone
Interference (reduced
opportunity)
Fish scaring (reduced

catchability)
Permanent marine facilities
Lost fishing grounds
Vessel traffic / vessels; deviation

around facilities
Vessel traffic
Interference / reduced
opportunity
Gear damage
Noise
Fish scaring (reduced

catchability)
Processing
Project Activity
Aquaculture
Potential Project Interactions with Commercial Fisheries

Wild Fisheries
Table 10.5
Page 285
The potential effects during the construction and operation phases on commercial fisheries, the
pathway and the specific project activity potentially causing the effect are also identified in Table 10.3.
Whether or not an interaction is potentially expected for each VEC component is also identified. The
assessments that follow focus on those activities where a potential interaction is indicated with the
particular VEC component being considered, and where the interaction could result in an environmental
effect of concern.
10.2.4.2
Summary of Potential Effects
In summary, the potential effects of these Project phases on commercial fisheries, aquaculture and fish
processing can be categorized as:
lost fishing grounds;
gear damage;
fish scaring; and
interference.
Each of these potential effects is assessed below for both construction and operation.
10.2.5.1
Construction
Commercial Wild Fisheries

Lost Fishing Grounds
Following Project approval, and before the start of construction activities, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will
establish a Fisheries Liaison Committee (FLC) to facilitate and formalize its ongoing fisheries-industry
consultation process. The FLC will be mandated to advise the Project on all aspects of the marine
facilities construction phase as they relate to fisheries operations. This will help to ensure that potential
negative effects are addressed and minimized, to the extent that this is possible. In addition to
individual area fishers, the FLC would also include representatives of the FFAW.
Immediately before the start of marine construction activities, it will be necessary for Newfoundland
LNG Ltd. to establish a Construction Safety Zone (CSZ) in the nearshore area off Grassy Point to
ensure safe project construction (Figure 10.3). The CSZ will extend along the shoreline approximately
1700 m and out about 400 m from Grassy Point, or about 200 m from the berths that will be
constructed. The CSZ will be established in consultation with the FLC. The perimeter of the CSZ will be
clearly marked with buoys.
Fisheries activities (including fishing boat transits) will be excluded from this area, as required, from
September 2008 to February 2010 while two berths and the tug basin are constructed for Phase 1 of
the Project and from possibly from May 2011 to April 2012 when the third berth is scheduled to be
constructed in Phase 3 of the Project.
During this period, fishers will have to seek alternate fishing grounds and will have to deviate around
the CSZ in order to reach other fishing areas. This could have an adverse effect on the harvesting
activities and vessel operations of the enterprises that have fished lobster, cod and/or other species in
the CSZ.
Page 286
Figure 10.3
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will designate a Fisheries Liaison Manager (FLM) to develop, maintain and
facilitate a close working relationship between Newfoundland LNG Ltd., its sub-contractors and those
fishers that will be affected by the Projects marine construction activities.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd., in consultation with the FLC, will establish a program to compensate fishers
for actual economic loss due to the exclusion of, and interference with, fish harvesting activities within
the CSZ during Project construction activities. The compensation program will provide appropriate
economic protection and compensation for all fishers who may be genuinely and legitimately affected
by the presence of the Projects marine construction CSZ. The purpose of the program would be to
compensate the fishers for lost fishing income specifically due to the closure of the CSZ. This program
would pay financial compensation to eligible full-time fishers who have historically (e.g., in the previous
five years) fished grounds within the CSZ.
Following Project approval, Newfoundland LNG Ltd and the FLC will establish the principles,
components, species fisheries and eligible participants of this program. The scope, content,
compensation approach, payment procedures, and other operational aspects of this program, will be
discussed and established in principle prior to the start of marine construction activities. This would be
expected to take the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Newfoundland LNG
Ltd., the FLC, affected fishers, and the FFAW. The principles and components of the compensation
program will be similar to other fisheries compensation programs that have been established for other
marine construction projects in Atlantic Canada.
With the described mitigations in place, the effects on the commercial wild fisheries of lost fishing
grounds because of construction activities within the CSZ are predicted to be not significant.
Gear Damage
Construction-related vessels could damage fixed fishing gear during routine activities. Mobile gear
should not be an issue as fishing vessels and Project vessels should be aware of each other. The
establishment of the CSZ will reduce the likelihood of conflict because most construction-related
activities will be confined to this area, with the exception of vessels delivering materials by sea. Fishers
will be made aware of the boundaries of the CSZ. Fishers will be kept up-to-date on activities (and the
boundaries of the CSZ) and Project vessel operators will be informed about fishing activities and
locations in the area. Communications (in both directions) will be facilitated through the FLC and the
FLM.
Appropriate precautions will be taken during construction to prevent the escape of debris from onshore
and marine sites. However, debris from routine construction work might float into fixed gear and
damage it.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will establish a Fishing Gear and Vessel Damage Compensation program to
cover any damage to fishing gear, equipment or vessel resulting from an incident involving contact with
any Project vessel or debris. The program will also cover lost catch directly as a result of the damage or
loss. This gear and vessel compensation program will be similar to those currently operating within the
Provinces offshore area (e.g., documented claims made through a central location, known to fishers in
the area). The purpose of the program will be to provide fair and timely compensation to fishers who
may sustain actual damage as a result of Project-related activities of Newfoundland LNG Ltd., or its
contractors.
With the described mitigations in place, the effects on the commercial wild fisheries of gear damage
because of construction activity are predicted to be not significant.
Page 288
Fish Scaring (Reduced Catchability)

Marine construction activities will create sound in and near the water, in particular, impact pile driving.
Dredging, and possibly some rock blasting, will also be required to construct the tug basin. The
installation of the piles will involve several pieces of marine equipment, including a crane barge, piling
barge and concrete barge.
Very loud noise in the marine environment can scare fish (particularly finfish) away from their usual
grounds, or make them less catchable. Similar effects are not usually documented for benthic
invertebrates (such as lobster and crab); see for instance Christian et al (2003) or Parry and Gason
(2006). Biophysical and behavioural effects of sound on biota (including commercial and prey species)
are considered in Section 10.1, where effects are considered to be not significant with mitigations in
place.
Each individual pile will be placed in a pile-driving template and driven to refusal into the underlying
bedrock. Tension piles will have anchors installed in the annulus and will be grouted to achieve a bond
between the anchor and pile. The anchors will be installed in pre-drilled holes in the bedrock and
grouted in place.
At any given time, there would likely be no more than three vessels (a crane barge, piling barge and
concrete barge) operating within the CSZ. If the piles are fabricated at Cow Head in Marystown and
barged to the Project site, approximately 24 barge trips will be needed for the first two jetties, and a
further 12 when the third jetty is constructed. The noise from ships associated with construction is not
expected to be different from those usually associated with other vessels in the bay, such as fishing
boats and other marine industries.
As described above, the CSZ will be established in consultation with area fishers to reduce the effects
of construction on fishing, and to enhance safety. Since the construction noise will be connected with
activities entirely within this exclusion area, there will be a sound attenuation buffer between Project
construction activities and fisheries operations beyond the boundary of the CSZ. If the noise were to
divert fish from the CSZ, fish catches beyond this zone might improve, although no effect is predicted.
Effects on catch rates, to the extent that economic effects would occur, are not expected from sound
generated by Project activities. Given this, and with mitigations in place, the effects of construction
noise on the commercial wild fisheries will be not significant.
Interference
Construction-related vessels could cause interference with fishing boat transits en route to or from
fishing grounds adjacent to the CSZ. As noted, fishers will not be permitted to harvest lobster, cod and
other species within the CSZ during the construction period and will therefore need to temporarily seek
alternate grounds for these species beyond the CSZ. Avoiding the construction area will require longer
transit times to alternate fishing grounds and increased operating expenses. Project vessels (e.g.,
barges delivering prefabricated piles) will be operating in the area between the end of the shipping lane
and the entrance to the CSZ. Increased traffic will increase the risks of collision between vessels
operating in the area.
The installation of the piles will involve several pieces of marine equipment including a crane barge,
piling barge and concrete barge. Once these vessels arrive by sea, they will remain inside the CSZ until
their work is completed. The CSZ will be established so as to contain most of the marine vessel
Page 289
operations associated with construction activities. This will provide a level of certainty to fishers
planning transits around the perimeter of the CSZ.
If the piles are fabricated on site and transported to the piling barge to be installed, the amount of traffic
delivering construction materials by sea will be at a minimum, as they would be delivered via the road
network. If a jacket structure is used, piles will likely be fabricated at Cow Head in Marystown and
barged to the site. Each of the planned jetties will require approximately 12 barge trips, for a total of 24
trips during the initial jetty construction 10 month construction period from September 2008 to February
2010, and a further 12 months when the third jetty is constructed.
As described above, Newfoundland LNG Ltd.s compensation program will compensate fishers for
actual economic loss associated with the closure of the CSZ to harvesting activities by eligible Arnolds
Cove and Come by Chance fishers who have traditionally fished that area. Marine construction
activities will be contingent on weather during the initial phase of construction, so the CSZ may not be
continuous. With the various mitigations in place and additional planning and communications, the
overall effects are predicted to be not significant.
Aquaculture
For aquaculture, the only potential interaction anticipated is through construction-related debris
escaping from the CSZ, and causing damage to aquaculture gear or infrastructure. Since there are no
aquaculture sites within the immediate vicinity of Project construction activities, no grounds will be
occupied, and no vessel traffic will transit through any aquaculture sites. The distance between Project
construction activities and the closest aquaculture operation, approximately 25 km, will ensure that
sound will not be an issue.
Gear Damage
If construction-related debris escapes from the site, it has the potential to cause damage to aquaculture
gear or infrastructure. Appropriate precautions will be taken during construction to prevent the escape
of debris from onshore and marine construction areas.
As described above, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will establish a program to cover any damage to fishing
gear, equipment or vessel resulting from an incident involving contact with any Project vessel or debris.
This will include aquaculture equipment and infrastructure, and the value of any harvest lost directly as
a result of the damage.
With the described mitigations in place, the effects on aquaculture operators because of construction
activity are predicted to be not significant.
Processing
Each of the factors discussed above for commercial wild fisheries have a potential to affect fish
processors by reducing the amount of raw materials (fish harvest) available to processing plants.
However, as described in Section 9.7.4, for most plants none, or only a small part, of the harvest comes
from the construction area. There is no specific mitigations recommended to reduce Project effects to
fish processing beyond those applicable to fish harvesting. Since the assessments conducted for
commercial fisheries concludes that effects on the construction on harvesting success will be not
significant, the effects on plants are predicted to be not significant.
Page 290
10.2.5.2
Operation

Lost Fishing Grounds
Fishing grounds will be occupied by the Project marine terminal facilities (tug basin, jetties, intake and
outfall pipes and anchorage areas). During the Projects operational phase, access restrictions to
fishing grounds in the Waterlot Lease Area (WLLA) will be minimized (Figure 10.4). Once construction
is complete, fishing vessels will again be allowed in the former CSZ area, and fishers will be able to
harvest in the area of the tug basin, jetties and the intake and outfall pipes. The grounds that will no
longer be fishable will be limited to those portions under the new jetties and facilities associated with
the tug basin, and the areas occupied by LNG carriers when they are in port.
For the fish habitat lost because of the presence of permanent facilities, the Project will establish a Fish
Habitat Compensation Plan with DFO to ensure that there will be no net loss of fish habitat because of
the Project.
The Projects marine infrastructure has been designed so that the jetties will be able to accommodate
all carriers transhipping LNG to or from the facility. Project operations will not involve the use of existing
designated anchorages within Placentia Bay, with the possible exception of emergency situations and
unsafe berthing conditions.
Though there will be some loss of former grounds within the WLLA for the eligible fishing enterprises,
the area affected will be minimized and the habitat fully compensated through the Fish Habitat
Compensation program. With the described mitigations in place, the effects on the commercial wild
fisheries of lost fishing grounds because of the presence of Project facilities are predicted to be not
significant.
Interference / Reduced Opportunity
LNG carriers will enter and leave Placentia Bay using the Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) and the
two-way routing system. LNG Carriers will be escorted by tugs through the two-way route from a
position in the vicinity of Calling-in Point 7, and the same tugs will assist in the berthing and departure
from the berth at the Grassy Point marine terminal. It is estimated that Project operations will involve
104 LNG carriers a year starting in 2010, eventually increasing to 400 within five to eight years, if the
Project proceeds as planned.
Fishers travelling into Come by Chance Harbour from Arnolds Cove (and vice versa) will have to make
a short deviation around the jetties and LNG carriers (LNGCs), if the latter are present. This might
result in some lost time for these fishers. However, this will be a very minor deviation occurring only
under specific circumstances and will not result in identifiable economic loss.
Page 291
Figure 10.4
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will maintain the FLC (established in the construction phase) to facilitate and
maintain ongoing consultations and communications with fisheries participants about vessel traffic and
other marine issues. The FLC will advise Newfoundland LNG Ltd. on relevant aspects of Project
operations, as they relate to commercial fisheries activities within the area between the Marine
Terminal area and the northern end of the existing shipping route. Ongoing consultations and
communications with the FLC will ensure that potential negative interactions are identified, addressed
and minimized to the extent that this is possible. As noted above, in addition to individual area fishers
and aquaculture operators, the FLC would also include representatives of the FFAW.
As in the construction phase, Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will identify a FLM to develop, maintain and
facilitate a close, ongoing working relationship between Project operations and all fisheries participants
during the operations phase of the Project. A chief mandate will be to help minimize interference with
fisheries activities in the general vicinity of, and approaches to, the marine terminal area.
Placentia Bay has an established Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) which extends from the southern
limit of Placentia Bay to just north of Red Island. A two-way traffic route has been established for traffic
between Red Island and the head of Placentia Bay. The location of these lanes is well known to fish
harvesters. When in the areas serviced by the Vessel Traffic Services (VTS), all Project vessels will
remain within these lanes to minimize the areas of potential interference. LNGCs approaching and
departing from the marine terminal will use the TSS at all times, unless an emergency situation requires
them to do otherwise. Consultations with Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard indicate
that the TSS has sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated Project-related traffic levels.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will work collectively with other industry partners in discussing issues related to
the fisheries in Placentia Bay and make every attempt to any mitigate issues that may arise by being
pro active in conflict resolution.
With the above mitigations in place, and with additional planning and ongoing communications through
the FLC, the effects on the commercial wild fisheries are predicted to be not significant.
Gear Damage
Project shipping, including LNGCs, tugs and other support vessels could transit through and damage
fixed fishing gear. Mobile gear is not expected to be an issue as fishing vessels and Project vessels
should be aware of each other. This could have an adverse effect on commercial fisheries activities.
In such cases, fishers will be fully and fairly compensated for any gear damage that might result. The
program will also cover lost catch directly as a result of the damage or loss. This gear and vessel
compensation program will be similar to those currently operating within the Provinces offshore area
(documented claims made through a central location, known to fishers in the area). The purpose of the
program will be to provide fair and timely compensation to fishers who may sustain actual damage
which occur as a result of Project-related activities of Newfoundland LNG Ltd.
With the described mitigations in place, the effects on the commercial wild fisheries of gear damage
because of operational activity will be not significant.
Fish Scaring (Reduced Catchability)
Section 10.1 considers the potential biological effects of noise on commercial fish species and
concludes that these effects will not be significant.
Page 293
Apart from this, there might be concern that noise from Project-related shipping will scare finfish from
harvesting areas and fishing gear. This would not be expected to be the case for benthic invertebrates,
including such species as lobster and crab, as discussed in the construction phase assessment.
It is expected that, initially, there will be an average of two vessels a week associated with LNG
Terminal operations; at full build-up, there would be approximately seven vessels a week. The noise
from LNGCs is not expected to be different from those usually associated with other vessels in the Bay,
such as fishing boats and other marine industries.
No specific mitigation is recommended here, but the containment of Project vessel traffic within agreed
routes away from fishing will reduce or eliminate the potential for overlap of activities. Effects on catch
rates, to the extent that economic effects would occur, are not expected from sound generated by
Project operations. The overall effects will be not significant.
Aquaculture
Considering the location of Project activities in relation to present aquaculture operations, no potential
interactions are expected as a result of routine operation of the LNG facility. There are no aquaculture
sites within the marine terminal area or near routes to be used by Project-related vessels. The closest
aquaculture operation is approximately 25 km distant from the Projects marine facilities.
Processing
As discussed in the construction phase assessment, while the factors discussed for commercial wild
fisheries have some potential to affect fish processors by reducing the amount of raw materials (fish
harvest) available to processing plants, as described in Section 9.7.4, for most plants none or only a
small part of the harvest comes from the marine terminal area.
There is no specific mitigations recommended to reduce Project effects to fish processing beyond those
applicable to fish harvesting. The only way that Project operations could affect plant operations is
through a negative effect on the fisheries. Since the assessments conducted for commercial fisheries
conclude that effects from operation on harvesting success will be not significant, the effects on
processing plants will also be not significant.
The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that provided the recommended mitigative measures are
implemented, no significant adverse residual environmental effects on commercial fisheries are likely to
occur. A summary of the residual environmental effects during construction and operation and
recommended mitigative actions for the commercial fisheries VEC is provided below in Tables 10.6
(Construction and Commissioning) and 10.7 (Operation).
Page 294
Table 10.6
Effects Assessment Matrix: Commercial Fisheries (Construction and

Commissioning
Geographic
Extent
Duration/
Frequency
Reversibility
Ecological/Socioeconomic
Context
Project Activity
Magnitude

2/4
2/2
Location of CSZ
2/2
Minimize CSZ
2/2
Potential
Environmental Effect
Mitigation
Wild Fisheries
Project site within the CSZ
Lost fishing
grounds
Vessel traffic; debris
Gear damage
Noise
the CSZ
Fish scaring reduced

catchability
Interference /
reduced
opportunity
Minimize CSZ as much as

possible
FLC
compensation
CSZ / vessel management
Debris containment
Gear compensation
Aquaculture
Gear damage
Gear compensation
Debris containment

Project site and related CSZ
Lost fishing
grounds
As above
2/4
Vessel traffic; debris
Gear damage
As above
2/2
As above
2/2
As above
2/2
Debris
2/2
Fish Processing
Noise
CSZ)
KEY

catchability
Interference / lost
opportunity
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of commercial fisheries and
aquaculture limited to or resulting from the water lot lease area.
2 = Moderate: Temporary disturbance of commercial fisheries and
aquaculture within to the Assessment Area.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of commercial fisheries and aquaculture
within to the Assessment Area.
Geographic Extent:
Duration:
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
human activity.
Page 295
Table 10.7
Effects Assessment Matrix: Commercial Fisheries (Operations)
Geographic Extent
Duration/
Frequency
Reversibility
Project Activity
Magnitude

Residual Effects
No net habitat loss following

implementation of fish habitat
compensation program;
fisheries loss of access compensation.
3/4
FLC
use of existing TSS
3/3
gear damage compensation program
3/2
LNCs will be under tug escort, so noise

will be minimized by reducing speed
3/2
None required
3/2
As above
3/4
As above
3/3
As above
3/2
As above
3/2
Potential
Environmental
Effect
Mitigation
Wild Fisheries
Vessel traffic
Vessel traffic
Noise from vessel operations
Lost fishing
grounds
Interference /
lost
opportunity
Gear damage
catchability
Aquaculture
Vessel traffic
Gear damage
Fish Processing
Vessel traffic
Vessel traffic
Noise from vessel operations
Lost fishing
grounds
Interference /
lost
opportunity
Gear damage
catchability
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of commercial fisheries and
aquaculture limited to or resulting from the water lot lease area.
2 = Moderate: Temporary disturbance of commercial fisheries and
3 = High: Permanent alteration of commercial fisheries and
Geographic Extent:
Duration:
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
activity.
Page 296
MARINE MAMMALS
10.3
Marine Mammals
The assessment of marine mammals includes baleen whales (Mysticetes), toothed whales
(Odontocetes), dolphins (Delphinids), seals (Pinnipeds) and river otters. The existing environment for
marine mammals is described in Section 9.7.5. River otters are described in Section 9.3.3.4. Species of
marine mammals and all other species listed under SARA or considered at risk by COSEWIC are
assessed within the Species at Risk VEC (Section 10.5). Those mammals that are not considered at
risk and are most likely to occur within Placentia Bay, and therefore interact with the Project, are
assessed in this section. Although intrinsically related to marine mammals, marine fish and fish habitat
is considered as a separate VEC (Section 10.1), as are commercial fisheries (Section 10.2).
Environmental effects of the Project on marine mammals, resulting from construction, commissioning
and operation, are assessed in this section. Effects resulting from decommissioning are assessed in
Section 10.8. Cumulative environmental effects in consideration with other Projects and/or activities, as
well as accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events, are assessed in Chapter 11.
Marine mammals play an important role in the marine ecosystem. This importance is manifested in
regulatory protection, scientific research and public concern. The whale-watching industry and the
annual seal harvest are important economic considerations in Newfoundland and Labrador, as are
interactions of marine mammals with the commercial fishery. For these reasons, marine mammals are
considered a VEC and the effects analysis focuses on whale and seal species that are most likely to
interact with the Project.
Specifically, marine mammals were selected as a VEC because of:
regulatory requirements of the Fisheries Act;
the direct interaction between marine mammals and the Project activities, such as the
construction of marine facilities and operation of the marine facilities, carriers and tugs;
the direct interaction between marine mammals and the Project as a result of accidents or
malfunctions in LNG transport, offloading and storage,
the ecological, recreational and commercial importance of marine mammals to the public,
and;
the RAs have identified marine mammals as a VEC for this assessment based on public and
regulatory input.
10.3.2.1
The spatial boundary for the assessment of potential environmental effects on marine mammals
includes the area where interactions with the Project are likely. Specifically, the Assessment Area is
defined by the shoreline along the western side of the Grassy Point peninsula within the Newfoundland
LNG water lot lease area and the subtidal environment from the shoreline to the boundary of the
shipping lane (Figure 10.5). The Assessment Area for the potential effects of accidental events and
cumulative effects on marine mammals covers Placentia Bay, north of Red Island (see Chapter 11).
Page 297
Gravel Road
Berth Configuration
Roads
Marine Mammals Assessment Area
Tug Basin
Tank Area
CLIENT:
PROJECT TITLE:

DRAWING TITLE:
Marine Mammal Assessment Area

Figure 10.5
Jacques Whitford
Bordeaux
Island
SCALE:
1:28,500
DRAWN BY:
250
Metres
500
EDITED BY:
CP
CP
DRAWING No.:
MAP FILE:
DATE:
FEB 22, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
Marine_Mammals_UTM.mxd
MARINE MAMMALS
The temporal boundary of the assessment is defined by the Projects potential interaction with marine
mammals during construction and operation phases. Specifically, marine construction interactions with
marine mammal could occur from September 2008 to February 2010 while two berths and the tug basin
are constructed for Phase 1 of the Project and from possibly from May 2011 to April 2012 when the
third berth is scheduled to be constructed in Phase 3 of the Project. On-land construction is scheduled
to begin in June 2008. Operation and associated activities will commence in 2010 and continue for an
estimated 50 years.
10.3.2.2
Marine mammals are protected in Canada through federal legislation under the Fisheries Act. Section
35 of the Act ensures no harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, while
Section 36 ensures no deposits of any substances considered deleterious to fish. Marine mammals are
included in the definition of fish under the Act. Environment Canada administers Section 36 of the
Fisheries Act, while DFO administers Section 35 of the Act. Also part of the Fisheries Act, the Marine
Mammal Regulations stipulate that No person shall disturb a marine mammal except when fishing for
marine mammals under the authority of these regulations.
Technical boundaries include the limitations of the available data for marine mammals within Placentia
Bay and the limits of scientific knowledge specific to the interactions between Project activities and
relevant marine mammal characteristics. However, the study team considers the data which are
available to characterize marine mammals within the Assessment Area and the existing scientific
knowledge regarding the potential effects of the Project as adequate to support the environmental
assessment. Specifically, information on marine mammals in Placentia Bay was derived from a search
of scientific literature and from personal communications with a DFO marine mammal scientist, as well
as previous environmental assessment reports. The DFO websites for literature searches
(http://inter01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/waves2/index.html), the Coastal Resource Inventory databases
(http://geoportal.gc.ca/index_en.html) and the Smart Bay website (http://www.smartbay.ca/) were also
useful.
The criteria to evaluate the significance threshold for adverse environmental effects to marine
mammals are defined as follows:
A significant adverse residual environmental effect of the Project on marine mammals is one
that affects marine mammals in such a way as to cause a decline in abundance or a change
in distribution of a population(s) over one or more generations. Natural recruitment may not
re-establish species presence to baseline conditions within one generation.
The primary routine construction and operational Project activities that could potentially interact, directly
or indirectly, with marine mammals are:
construction of the three jetties and tug boat basin;
placement of the seawater intake and discharge pipes;
Page 299
MARINE MAMMALS
carrier and tug traffic; and

site water management.
The following sections provide a discussion of key Project-VEC interactions, by Project phase.
10.3.4.1
Construction of the tug basin, dredging, and installation of piles for the berths may affect marine
mammals through changes in habitat quality (e.g., increased noise), habitat use (e.g., avoidance) or
direct mortality through collisions with vessels. Construction activities may also include blasting within
the tug basin and/or during trenching of the seawater intake and discharge pipes. Installation of
seawater intake and discharge pipes will also generate intermittent underwater noise.
During commissioning, seawater will be used for hydrostatic testing of the tanks. After hydrostatic
testing is complete, the tanks will be rinsed with freshwater which will then be discharged to the ocean.
This freshwater discharge is not expected to result in any measurable effect on marine mammals, their
habitat quality or potential prey and therefore will not be considered further.
10.3.4.2
Operation
The Project activity most likely to interact with marine mammals during routine operations is vessel
traffic. Tug and carrier traffic and the noise created by vessels can change the habitat quality and
potentially the habitat use by some mammal species, so these interactions will be fully assessed. The
intake of seawater and cooling water discharge, however, will only have a limited spatial overlap with
marine mammals (i.e., only if marine mammals were present temporarily in the nearshore area). As
well, as assessed in Section 10.1, the intake of seawater and cooling water discharge will have a
minimal effect on nearshore prey. Therefore, this interaction will not be considered further in this
section. Similarly, the environmental effect of ballast water discharge is also expected to have limited
spatial and temporal interaction with marine mammals and, therefore, will not be considered further in
this section.
10.3.4.3
Summary
In summary, construction, commissioning and operation of the Project can have potential effects on
marine mammals that may be categorized as:
a change in habitat use; and
direct mortality.
Potential environmental effects resulting from interactions between this Project and marine mammals
are summarized in Table 10.8.
Page 300
MARINE MAMMALS
Table 10.8
Potential Project Interactions with Marine Mammals
Mortality

Vessel Transportation (barging offshore structures, delivery of construction materials
and equipment)
Marine Construction (infilling, blasting, driving or drilling/grouting of piles, placement of
decking)
Construction of the Tug Basin (infilling, blasting, dredging, placement of armour stone)
On Land Site Preparation (clearing and grubbing, blasting, grading)
Concrete Production
Site Water Management (includes wastewater management and hydrostatic testing)
Watercourse Crossing (stream diversion, culvert installation, restoration, temporary
vehicle crossings)
Operation
Water Management (seawater intake, cooling water discharge, site runoff))
BOG Handling
Marine Structures
Vehicular Traffic
Change in
Habitat Use
Change in
Habitat
Quality

This section provides an analysis of the potential effects caused by key Project activities, and
associated mitigations, by Project phase.
10.3.5.1
Marine construction activities will include:

placement of the infill to create the tug basin;
placement of the cooling water intake and discharge pipes;
dredging inside the tug basin; and
installation of piers and dolphins for three LNG carrier berths.
Each of these activities will require a barge and support vessels to transport personnel and supplies.
Underwater noise will be generated from dredging, barges, vessels, pile driving and potentially blasting.
Page 301
MARINE MAMMALS
Potential effects on marine mammals during construction and commissioning of the Project arise from:
communications masking and physiological effects of noise and potentially blasting;
avoidance; and
collisions with vessels.
mortality of marine mammals. A discussion of the magnitude, geographic extent, duration, reversibility
and context of each of these effects on marine mammals is provided in the following sections.
Noise
There are several sources of underwater noise during Project construction. The primary sources of
underwater noise are pile driving, blasting, dredging, rock fill placement, vessels and barges.
Installation of product transfer piping and top-side berth infrastructure may contribute to minor
underwater acoustic disturbances.
Generally, vessel noise is a function of vessel size, but it is also associated with vessel speed and
design. Large vessels create louder and lower frequency sounds, while smaller vessels create higher
frequency sounds (Richardson et al. 1995). The vessels used for construction of the marine
infrastructure will include:
crane barge complete with 150 to 350 tonne crane;
pile driving barge;
grout/concrete barge;
two tugs for moving barges; and
work boats and crew boats for ferrying workers between barges and shore.
The piles used to support the berths will be anchored into bedrock and require the use of an impact pile
driver. Underwater noise from impact pile driving is quite variable, depending primarily on the driver
being used and the substrate composition where the piles are being installed (Blackwell et al. 2004).
The highest sound pressure levels have been measured at 151 re 1 Pa (rms) at 63 m (Blackwell et al.
2004), 165 re 1 Pa (rms) at 1.5 km (Greene 1999, as cited in Blackwell et al. 2004) and 170 dB re 1
Pa (rms) at 250 m (Wursig et al 2000, as cited in Blackwell et al. 2004). Sound pressure levels from
impact pile drivers are typically lower.
The tug basin will require dredging of loose overburden to achieve a water depth of 7 m above Chart
Datum. Noises from clamshell dredges are quite variable as well, and have been measured from 150 to
162 dB re 1 Pa-m at 250 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995). Richardson et al. (1995) reported that the
loudest source of noise during dredging was from the winch motor, at approximately 167 dB re 1 Pa-m
above sea surface. Noise from the tug and barge used during dredging were reportedly louder than the
clamshell itself (Richarson et al. 1995). Noise from small vessels (i.e., speed boats and longliners) used
to ferry passengers and materials during construction have recorded sound levels of less than 160 dB
re 1 Pa at 1 m (Richardson et al. 1995).
If bedrock outcrops are encountered during dredging of the tug basin, or trenching of the seawater
pipes, blasting maybe required to attain a water depth of 7 m within the tug basin. Although underwater
blasting will be restricted in duration, the detonation of explosives may be lethal to marine mammals,
cause auditory damage (under certain conditions) and may induce changes in behaviour (Richardson
Page 302
MARINE MAMMALS
et al. 1995; Wright and Hopky 1998). Detonation of explosives in or near water, produces postdetonation compressive shock waves, characterized by a rapid rise to a high peak pressure followed by
a rapid decay to below ambient hydrostatic pressure (Wright and Hopky 1998). In mammals, organs
containing gas are most affected by underwater detonation of explosions (Keevin and Hempen 1997).
The estimate of safe ranges from underwater explosions for marine mammals is dependent on both
size and depth of the animal and type of explosive charge (Richardson et al. 1995). It has been
calculated that slight injuries to lungs and intestines of marine mammals may occur at distances greater
than 500 m under certain blasting conditions (Wright and Hopky 1998). One of the physiological effects
of in-water blasting on marine mammals is temporary or permanent reductions in hearing sensitivity.
Since marine mammals rely heavily on acoustic cues for communication and navigation, the effects of
acoustic trauma have been well studied.
Marine construction will be ongoing at the same time as blasting, so marine mammals are expected to
avoid the area and are not expected to be near the construction site during blasting. In a study of
marine construction activity in Trinity Bay, humpback whales were less likely to be resighted near the
construction site when dredging was the predominant activity and actually exhibited movement away
from the site (Bohggard 1996). No such changes were observed during blasting in 1992 (Todd et al.
1996) or during vessel activity (Bohggard 1996). Furthermore, minke whale resightings occurred in an
area of heavy vessel activity in 1995. No observable change in humpback whale behaviour was noted
after exposure to underwater blasting charges of 1,000 to 2,000 kg and peak source levels of 140 dB re
1 Pa (Todd et al. 1996).
Reactions by individual cetaceans to blasting appear to depend on the type of industrial activity. But as
a precaution, the EPP will commit to: the use of the lowest weight of explosives necessary to break
rock; the decking of charges; stemming all blasting holes; and an extensive marine mammal
observation program prior to each blast. Prior to each blast, a speed boat will be deployed with a
dedicated observer to survey an area of 1000 m radius from the blast site. The survey boat will cruise
at not more than 5 knots along parallel transects. The spacing of transects will be at the limits of
visibility, but not more than 200m apart. The duration of the marine mammal survey will therefore
depend on visibly, but will not be less than 30 minutes. No detonation will occur at night or while a
marine mammal is observed inside a 1000 m radius of the blast.
Predominant sources of noise during construction are pulsed (e.g., pile driving) or intermittent (e.g.,
vessel movement and dredging). For pulsed sounds, a broadband received sound pressure level of 180
dB re 1 Pa (rms) or greater is used as an indication of potential concern for temporary and/or
permanent hearing impairment to cetaceans and a received level of 190 dB re 1 Pa (rms) or greater
for pinnipeds (NMFS 2003; Madsen 2005). A broadband received sound pressure level of 160 dB re 1
Pa (rms) or greater is currently the best estimate available to indicate potential concern for disruption
of marine mammals behavioural patterns (NMFS 2003); however, noise levels below 160 dB re 1Pa
have also been known to elicit behavioural disturbances in marine mammals (NRC 2005). It is unlikely
a mammal will be subject to a broadband received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 Pa (rms) or
greater during construction of the Grassy Point facility, but mammals very near the source of some of
the construction sound pressure levels may be exposed to 160 dB re 1 Pa (rms) or slightly higher.
Marine mammals are highly dependent on sound for communicating, detecting predators, locating prey
and, in toothed whales, echolocation. Underwater ambient or anthropomorphic sounds may prevent an
animal from detecting another sound through a process known as masking. The sea is a naturally noisy
environment and even in the absence of anthropogenic sounds, this natural sound can drown out or
mask weak signals from distant sources. Marine mammals have evolved in an environment that
Page 303
MARINE MAMMALS
contains a variety of natural sounds and as such, some degree of masking occurs naturally. As a result,
marine mammals have evolved systems and behaviour to reduce the impacts of masking (NRC 2003),
such as increasing the average vocalization level, frequency and durations (see Wartzok et al. 2004).
Marine animals themselves also contribute to the level of natural ambient noise. The calls of a blue
whale have been recorded for 600 km (Stafford et al. 1998). A sperm whale call can be as loud as 232
dB re 1Pa at 1 m (rms) (Mhl et al. 2003), and a species of shrimp has been recorded at 185 to 188
dB re 1Pa at 1 m (Au and Banks 1998). In areas where natural background noise is relatively high,
such as near a shelf break or high surf, anthropomorphic noise itself can be masked and reduce the
area in which it is detectable. The anthropomorphic noise is undetectable for marine mammals once it
falls below ambient noise level or the hearing threshold of the animal. Given this, and the fact that
mammal response will vary by species and between individuals, the zone of potential influence of noise
on marine mammals is highly variable.
Toothed whales (e.g., dolphins, pilot whale and sperm whale) communicate using two types of sounds:
1) continuous, narrowband, frequency-modulated signals, which range in duration from several tenths
of a second to several seconds and range in frequency from approximately 2 to 25 kHz (Tyack and
Clark 2000); and 2) broadband click trains with peak frequencies that vary from tens of kilohertz to well
over 100 kHz (Norris and Evans 1966; Au 1980). Click trains contain few to hundreds of clicks and are
used for communication, navigation and object detection and discrimination (Au 1993). The low
frequency spectrum of industrial noise generally will not overlap with the high frequency echolocation of
toothed whales.
Baleen whales (e.g., minke, humpback, and fin whales) communicate using low frequency sounds
(generally between 25 Hz and 4 kHz (Erbe 2002; Richardson et al. 1995)) that can propagate for long
distances. These sounds range in duration from 50 msec thumps produced by minke whales (Winn and
Perkins 1976; Thompson et al. 1979) to moans produced by blue whales, which can have durations up
to 36 sec (Cummings and Thompson 1971). Therefore, the noise frequencies created during marine
construction can potentially overlap in frequency with the sounds of baleen whales and could reduce
the area of auditable sound for the whale. Low frequency noises attenuate rapidly in nearshore regions
(Richardson et al. 1995), which will help to reduce any area within which masking or avoidance may
occur. Since little is known about the importance of how a temporary interruption in sound detection
affects mammals (Richardson et al. 1995), it is very difficult to assess the environmental effect. In
general, the environmental effect of both natural and anthropogenic noise is less severe when it is
intermittent rather than continuous (NRC 2003). The most likely activity of marine mammals at the head
of Placentia Bay is feeding and some communications may occur between baleen whales during
feeding. Although baleen whales may feed on capelin within the Assessment Area, if mammals are
discouraged from this area by construction disturbance or feeding efficiency is diminished as a result of
masking, any effect will be temporary and of limited spatial extent. The Assessment Area is not known
to offer any unique mammal habitat or food supply for marine mammals (see Section 9.7.5)
Most pinnipeds (i.e., seals) produce sounds with dominant frequencies between 0.1 and 3 kHz
(Richardson et al. 1995). Underwater hearing of true seals (Phocidae) is characterized by a relatively
flat response over the range of 1 to 30 kHz. Hearing sensitivity has not been measured at frequencies
below 1 kHz except in one harbour seal, where the 100 Hz threshold was measured at 96 dB re 1 Pa
(Kastak and Schusterman 1995). In general, in-air pinniped hearing is thought to deteriorate above 11
kHz and frequency decreases below 2 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995). River otter hearing sensitivity is
assumed to be similar to pinnipeds. Pinnipeds communicate using both air and waterborne
vocalizations. Males use airborne vocalizations to establish and defend territories, to communicate
Page 304
MARINE MAMMALS
dominance and to attract mates. Females use airborne vocalizations to establish mother-pup bonds
critical for locating offspring when returning to crowded colonies after extended foraging periods. The
primary purpose of underwater vocalizations is uncertain, but it is thought to be used for social
communication. These vocalizations are typically limited to barks and clicks at frequencies ranging from
<1 to 4 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995). It is generally accepted that pinnipeds do not engage in
echolocation (Schusterman et al. 2000). The underwater hearing capabilities of seals are not as acute
as those of other mammals that spend their entire lives under water (Richardson et al. 1995). Many
seals and river otters spend a considerable amount of time on land and because of the need to hear in
both air and water, they do not possess acute hearing in either of these media (NRC 2003).
In a study of ringed seal behaviour during pile driving, Blackwell et al. (2004) observed little or no
adverse reaction by the seals; some seals actually approached the operation. The authors speculated
that these particular seals may have been habituated to industrial activity.
To mitigate the potential effects of noise on marine mammals (cetaceans, pinnipeds and river otters),
the EPP will commit to: use of the lowest weight of explosives necessary to break rock; the decking of
charges; and stemming all blasting holes. The following mitigation strategies will also be detailed in the
EPP:
any blasting required in the marine environment or near the shoreline will comply with DFOs
Guidelines for Use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters;
dedicated marine mammal surveys will be conducted within a 1000 m radius of blasting;
acoustic harassment devices or a ramp-up of detonation pressures will be used to
encourage marine mammals to move away from the blasting area;
where feasible, bubble curtains and other acoustic absorbents will be used to contain shock
waves; and
construction vessel and barges will have designated routes to and from construction site.
Avoidance
The reaction of marine mammals to construction activity will vary by species and even by individual.
Some species appear to be more sensitive than others and if individual mammals have been exposed
to similar noise and activities in the past, they may become habituated to a familiar disturbance.
In some cases, humpbacks have been noted to avoid approaching vessels at distances of several
kilometres and in other cases, there is no observed reaction (Watkins 1986). Humpback mother and
newborn calf groups have been seen avoiding near-shore waters where human activities are intense
(Richardson et al. 1995). In another study, the primary reaction of humpbacks to approaching small
boats was an increase in swim speed (Scheidat et al. 2004). Studies in Alaska summering grounds
observed that humpback whales retreat and alter respiration and diving cycles when vessels were
within a few kilometres but that on other occasions, they made no response to tankers passing within
800 m (Richardson et al. 1995; Scheidat et al. 2004). Humpbacks are more likely to respond to a
sudden increase in sound pressure levels than to one that is continuously present (Malme et al. 1985).
Minke whales are more inclined to approach stationary or slow moving vessels (Richardson et al.
1995). Sei whales are reported to exhibit more avoidance behaviour than fin whales when approached
by a vessel (Perry et al. 1999). Fin and right whales are more likely to tolerate a stationary noise source
than one that is approaching (Watkins 1986).
Page 305
MARINE MAMMALS
Responses of toothed whales to vessels also vary within and among species and range from avoidance
to bowriding (Baird and Stacey 1991a; 1991b; Stacey and Baird 1991; Mullin et al. 1994a; 1994b). For
dolphins, reaction to vessels appears to be related to the dolphins activity and their history of
harassment. Dolphins that are resting tend to avoid vessels, those that are foraging tend to ignore
vessels and those that are socializing may approach vessels (Richardson et al. 1995). Dolphins that
have been sensitized by previous harassment tend to avoid vessels (Au and Perryman 1982). Larger
toothed whales, such as sperm whales and beaked whales, generally seem to avoid vessels (Sorensen
et al. 1984).
If seals or river otters are hauled out when a vessel approaches, they are likely to enter the water and
swim away from the vessel. Seals in the water appear to be less sensitive to approaching vessels, but
there are few documented observations (Jensen and Silber 2003). Ringed seals demonstrated little or
no reaction during impact pile driving operations in Alaska (Blackwell et al. 2004).
Habituation is possible when the same boats regularly visit a site (Bonner 1982). The current level of
commercial and industrial activity in Placentia Bay may have habituated resident harbour seals, river
otters and repeat visitors of other mammal species. Construction activity does not inhibit whales from
returning to an area once the activity ceases (Davis et al. 1987). The Assessment Area offers no
unique habitat or feeding areas for marine mammals (9.7.5). Similar alternate sites are available in the
immediate area, so the normal functioning of any species of marine mammals will not be affected in
any way that will substantially alter feeding or behavioral patterns.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of avoidance during construction are the same as those applied to
mitigate the effects of noise.
Collisions
Collisions of vessels and barges with marine mammals during Project construction are not likely, but
are possible. The smaller vessels required during construction are more manoeuvrable than LNGCs, so
if a mammal is in the path of a vessel, every safe effort will be made by the vessel operator to avoid
collision, if the mammal has not moved upon approach.
Worldwide, there were 292 reported vessel collisions with marine mammals from 1975 to 2002, but
many collisions go undetected or unreported (Jensen and Silber 2003). The percentage of reported
collisions by vessel type is listed in Table 10.9.
Table 10.9
Percentage of Reported Collisions with Mammals by Vessel Type
Vessel Type
Navy Vessels
Container/Cargo Ships/Freighters
Whale-watching vessels
Cruise Ship Liners
Ferries
Coast Guard Vessels
Tankers
Recreational Vessels and Steamships
Fishing Vessels
Dredge Boat, Research Vessel, Pilot Boat and Whaling Catcher Boat
Percentage*
17.1
14.9
14.2
12.7
11.9
6.7
6.0
5.2
3.0
0.75 each
*Source: Jensen and Silber 2003.
Page 306
MARINE MAMMALS
Of the 58 incidents where vessel speed was reported, 26 percent of incidents occurred when vessels
were traveling between 22 and 28 km/hr (12 and 15 knots); 16 percent occurred when vessels were
traveling between 30 and 33 km/hr (16 and 18 knots) and 12 percent when traveling between 35 and
39 (19 and 21 knots) (Jensen and Silber 2003).
When approached by a vessel, whales usually dive or make changes in swimming speed or direction
(Watkins 1986), but the reaction can be quite variable between species and even within a species.
There are several biotic and abiotic factors that may influence the reaction, such as whether the animal
is feeding and the speed and size of the approaching vessel.
To mitigate against the risk of collisions between vessels and marine mammals:
all vessels participating in construction activities will be required to maintain speeds of less
than 10 knots;
construction vessel and barges will have designated routes to and from the construction
site; and
within the EPP, operators of vessels will be instructed to reduce speed and alter coarse to
avoid collision with a marine mammal.
10.3.5.2
Operations
As discussed in Section 10.3.4.2, LNGC and tug traffic is the main activity during Project operation with
the potential to affect marine mammals. Potential effects on marine mammals from vessel traffic
include:
avoidance;
collisions; and
masking or physiological effects of noise.
Each of these effects can result in a change in habitat quality, habitat quantity habitat use or direct
mortality of marine mammals. Below is a discussion of the magnitude, geographic extent, duration,
reversibility and context of each of these effects on marine mammals.
Avoidance
The primary source of underwater noise during Project operations will arise from tugs and LNGCs.
Resident seals and regular marine mammal visitors to the head of Placentia Bay have likely been
exposed to large and small vessel traffic. Humpback, minke and fin whales have demonstrated
habituation to tour boats after several years (Watkins 1986). Humpbacks behaviour changed from
some negative reaction to strongly positive reaction to tour boats. Minke whales behaviour changed
from positive interest to generally uninterested reaction and fin whales changed from negative
behaviour to uninterested behaviour (Watkins 1986).
General avoidance of the Assessment Area by marine mammals is not expected during the operations
phase of the Project. A vessel start up to full power may illicit a startle response, causing increased
heart rate, and breathing or a change in swimming path, but these responses are not considered
biologically important (Erbe 2000). If the opportunity for feeding is presented to mammals within the
Assessment Area, they may tolerate noise which otherwise may be avoided while feeding (Wartzok et
al. 2004) and then move out of the area.
Page 307
MARINE MAMMALS
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of avoidance during Project operations include:
vessels will be manoeuvring at minimal speeds approaching and departing the berth, and
vessels will be under the navigational control of a licensed marine pilot.
Collisions
Although the risk is low, whales and other marine mammals are more vulnerable to ship collisions
during the operations phase of the Project, because LNG carriers are not as manoeuvrable as smaller
vessels. The likelihood of collision is further reduced by planned LNG carrier speed of less than 26
km/hr (14 knots) through Placentia Bay. Vanderlann and Taggart (2007) found that the probability of
lethal injury drops below 50 percent when vessel speed is below 22 km/hr (11.8 knots). Most severe
and lethal injuries are caused by vessels travelling at greater than 26 km/hr (14 knots) (Laist et al.
2001). Laist et al. (2001) concluded that serious injuries to whales are likely infrequent when vessel
speeds are less than 26 km/hr (14 knots) and rare when vessel speeds are less than 18.5 km/hr (10
knots). By nature of the operation, tugs and LNG carrier vessels will be moving very slowly within the
Assessment Area.
Most marine mammal-vessel collisions occur near the surface, where acoustical reflection and
propagation can limit the ability of marine mammals to hear and locate approaching vessels (Gerstein
et al. 2005). Of the 11 species known to have been victims of vessel collision, fin whales are struck the
most frequently; right whales, humpback whales, sperm whales and gray whales are also commonly
struck (Laist et al. 2001). However, when these frequencies are corrected for species population size,
the North Atlantic Right whale is struck most frequently per capita, followed by the southern right whale
(Vanderlann and Taggart 2007), which is a function of the right whales tendency to linger at the surface
more than other species.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of collisions during operations include:
Noise
The berthing of an LNG carrier will require two or three tugs. Tug boats will only use full thrust for short
bursts and the carrier will be engaged primarily at idle during berthing. In general, all vessels create
noise by similar means. Most broadband noise is produced by propeller cavitation, where dominant
tones are dependent on propeller blade rate (Richardson et al. 1995). Broadband source levels from a
laden supertanker in transit has been recorded in excess of 205 dB re 1 Pa at 1m, but source levels
for supertankers are typically less than 180 dB re 1 Pa at 1m (Richardson et al. 1995). For large ships,
tonal noise dominates up to approximately 50 Hz and broadband noise extends up to 100 kHz, peaking
at 50 to 150 Hz. Source levels emanating from an idling VLCC (propellers not turning) will be
approximately 160 dB re Pa at 1 m and will likely decrease to approximately 120 dB re Pa at 100 m
(Hannay 2006).
Whales may be disturbed by continuous noises above a criterion level of 120 dB re 1 Pa (rms),
according to current NMFS standards. Baleen whales have been shown to respond to drillship noises
at or above 120 dB (Richardson et al. 1990). The same criterion levels are currently used for pinnipeds.
Based on the literature reviewed in Richardson et al. (1995), it is apparent that most small and medium-
Page 308
MARINE MAMMALS
sized toothed whales exposed to prolonged or repeated underwater sounds are unlikely to be displaced
unless the overall received level is at least 140 dB re 1 Pa.
Acoustic emissions generated from Project vessels will be at a similar frequency as those used by
baleen whales for communication. Therefore, communication masking (emissions above ambient
levels) may occur throughout the Assessment Area. Potential masking effects to humpbacks will
depend on their proximity to the transiting vessels, the distance between whales and the strength of a
call. However, humpbacks using the head of Placentia Bay have likely encountered tankers and may
have habituated. The biological relevance of these effects are unknown, but for them to be biologically
important, animals would have to be repeatedly disturbed during important behaviour (e.g., nursing,
mating, foraging) or be permanently scared away from critical habitat (Erbe 2003).
Extended periods of moderate noise levels under water can cause a reduction in hearing sensitivity in
some marine mammals, called a temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Au et al. 1999; Kastak et al. 1999;
Schlundt et al. 2000; Kastack et al. 2005). At TTS exposure levels, hearing sensitivity is generally
restored quickly after the sound dissipates. TTS has been observed in captive marine mammals
exposed to pulsed sounds in experimental conditions (Finneran et al. 2002), but the likelihood of these
effects occurring have not been evaluated under field operating conditions. There is currently no
agreement as to what level of TTS and time to recovery would present unacceptable risk to a marine
mammal. US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) policy is under review and currently states that
cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsive sounds exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1 Pa
(rms), respectively (NMFS 2000). A similar exposure threshold is assumed for river otters. Exposure to
high-intensity pulsed sound can cause other, non-auditory physical effects such as stress, neurological
effects, bubble formation, resonance effects and other types of organ or tissue damage (NRC 2003,
LGL 2005). The area of potential physiological damage to mammals is limited due to the source level
emitted within the Assessment Area. Thus, species that show behavioral avoidance, including most
baleen whales, some toothed whales and some pinnipeds, would not likely experience TTS or other
physical effects (LGL 2005).
A permanent threshold shift (PTS) (i.e., hearing loss is not recovered) (Finneran et al. 2002) may be a
symptom of physiological damage and may alter the functional sensitivity at some or all frequencies.
Although there are no data to quantify sound levels required to cause a PTS, it is believed that a source
level would have to far exceed the level required for a TTS, the exposure would have to be prolonged,
or the rise level would be extremely short (LGL 2005). Richardson et al. (1995) hypothesized that
permanent hearing impairment of marine mammals would not likely occur with prolonged exposure to
continuous anthropogenic sound of approximately 200 dB re 1 Pa-m. This level of sound pressure is
not expected to be produced while the carriers are at berth or when transiting to and from the shipping
lane, but this level is possible while a laden carrier is in transit. Even if a mammal is swimming
alongside the vessel, exposure to vessel noise will be too short to cause PTS.
An increase in acoustic emissions from the Project is not expected to alter the prey composition or
abundance for marine mammals.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of noise on marine mammals during operations include:
Page 309
MARINE MAMMALS

Changes in the quality of marine mammal habitat will occur during construction of the tug basin and
jetties as a result of increased levels of noise and vessel traffic within the Assessment Area.
Construction noise and activities that decrease the quality of habitat may lead to temporary avoidance
by some species. With appropriate mitigation measures in place, physiological effects of blasting on
marine mammals are not expected. The monitoring program will ensure there are no mammals within
1000 m prior to each blast. The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the extent of these
potential residual environmental effects on marine mammals during construction and commissioning is
localized, of short duration and reversible and is therefore not significant (Table 10.10).
Page 310
MARINE MAMMALS
Table 10.10
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Marine Mammals (Construction and

Commissioning
Magnitude
Geographic Extent
Duration/ Frequency
Reversibility

On-land Site
Preparation (clearing,
blasting grubbing and
grading)
Change in Habitat
Quality
Compliance with Guidelines for

Use of Explosives in Canadian
Fisheries Waters
Erosion control and silt curtains
1/2
Tug Basin Dredging
Change in Habitat
Quality
Closed clamshell dredge

On-land disposal of dredge spoils
from tug basin
1/2
Tug Basin
Construction
Change in Habitat
Quality
Mammal monitoring prior to

blasting
1/2
1/2
2/2
Project Activity
Effect
Jetty and Pipe

installation
Change in Habitat
Quality
Vessel Traffic
Change in Habitat
Quality
Mortality
Mitigation
Compliance with EPP

Acoustic harassment devices or
a ramp-up of detonation
pressures
Where feasible, bubble curtains
and other acoustic absorbents
Compliance with Freshwater
Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen
Guideline
Mammal monitoring prior to
blasting
Vessels will be manoeuvring at

minimal speeds approaching and
departing the berth, and

navigational control of a licensed
marine pilot
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of marine mammals or habitat limited to
the Assessment Area with no permanent loss or degradation of critical
habitat.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of marine mammals or habitat
limited to the Assessment Area with no loss of critical marine mammal
habitat.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of habitat critical to the survival of marine
mammal species or loss of population or stock.
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Geographic Extent:
2 = Environmental effects extend beyond the Project footprint but remain
with Assessment Area.
human activity.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
Duration:
Page 311
MARINE MAMMALS
During operation of the facility, a potential interaction with marine mammals will be noise created by
vessels, which presents the potential for masking of marine mammal communication. The intermittent
nature of vessel traffic, along with the low number of marine mammals expected in the Assessment
Area at any one time, will limit potential interactions to a few individuals of any species. The risk of a
collision between Project vessels and marine mammals is minimized by a reduced vessel speed within
the Assessment Area. Potential effects on marine mammals are characterized as moderate in
magnitude, local in geographic extent, long term in duration, regular in occurrence and highly
reversible. Therefore, the residual environmental effects during operation are rated as not significant
(Table 10.11).
Table 10.11
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Marine Mammals (Operation)
vessels will be manoeuvring

at minimal speeds
approaching and departing
the berth, and
vessels will be under the
navigational control of a
licensed marine pilot
Reversibility

Mortality
Mitigation
Duration/
Frequency
Vessel Traffic
(carriers and tugs)
Effect
Geographic Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude

3/3
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of marine mammals or habitat
limited to the Assessment Area with no permanent loss or
degradation of critical habitat.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of marine mammals or habitat
limited to the Assessment Area with no loss of critical marine
mammals habitat.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of habitat critical to the survival of
marine mammals species or loss of population or stock.
Geographic Extent:
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
activity.
Duration:
Page 312
MIGRATORY BIRDS
10.4
Migratory Birds
The vulnerability of migratory birds to human activities was acknowledged nearly a century ago with the
approval of the Migratory Birds Convention in 1916. Since that time many programs have been
established to protect and monitor migratory birds in Canada. Environmental assessment provides an
opportunity to assess the potential environmental effects of projects on migratory birds so that informed
decisions can be made to minimize disruption to birds and their habitats (Milko 1998).
Migratory birds refers to migratory game birds, migratory insectivorous birds, migratory non-game
birds, and includes eggs and young (Migratory Birds Convention Act 1994). A population of migratory
birds will be defined as the total of the birds of a single species in a location at a specific time. This
assessment of migratory birds includes all the terrestrial and marine migratory birds that occur within
the Assessment Area at any time of year.
Species of migratory birds listed under SARA or considered at risk by COSEWIC are assessed within
the Species at Risk VEC (Section 10.5). Those migratory birds that are not considered at risk and are
most likely to occur within Placentia Bay and interact with the Project are assessed in this section.
Environmental effects of the Project on migratory birds, resulting from construction and commissioning
and operation are assessed in this section. Effects resulting from decommissioning are assessed in
Section 10.8. Cumulative environmental effects in consideration with other Projects and/or activities, as
well as accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events, are assessed in Chapter 11.
10.4.1 Rationale for Selection as a Valued Environmental Component
Newfoundland has seabird colonies of world significance and they number among the world's largest
and most easily accessed colonies (Important Bird Areas 2007). Migratory birds were selected as a
VEC because of the potential interactions with Project activities or infrastructure that could affect their
habitat, behaviour, breeding success and ecological role. They are important members of ecosystems
and occupy several niches, from terrestrial insectivores, carnivores and granivores (seed-eaters), to
aquatic piscivorous (fish-eating) seabirds, to generalists that opportunistically exploit several niches.
Birds have been shown to be effective ecological indicators of ecosystem condition and environmental
change (Morrison 1986; Bradford et al. 1998; Canterbury et al. 2000). Birds also integrate ecological
responses of lower trophic levels, making them an effective indicator of obscure changes lower in the
food chain.
Migratory birds are vulnerable to changes to their environments (Milko 1998). Most migratory bird
species occupy their breeding habitat for a short time frame and must breed during this time if they are
to successfully rear young each year. They also tend to specialize in diet (often insects) more so than
some resident (non-migratory) birds that may forage on different foods according to season.
Migratory birds have recreational importance and aesthetic appeal to the public. Many Newfoundland
and Labrador residents hunt migratory waterfowl. Others enjoy bird watching as a hobby, which has
grown in popularity in Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years.
Page 313
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Specifically, migratory birds were selected as a VEC for the following reasons:
their importance to ecological function and integrity;
their role as ecological indicators due to their vulnerability to ecosystem change;
the direct interaction between migratory birds and Project activities;
requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act;
the ecological, recreational, and aesthetic importance of migratory birds to the public;
Placentia Bay being a particularly important area for migratory birds, especially marine birds;
and
the RAs have identified migratory birds as a VEC for this assessment based on public and
regulatory input.
10.4.2.1
The spatial boundaries for the Assessment Area include the footprint of the Project, where activities
associated with construction, commissioning, and operation could affect habitat or individuals of
migratory birds (Figure 10.6). Each species may have differing spatial boundaries according to their
preferred habitats, diets, foraging strategy, and distribution. The Assessment Area represents
cumulative migratory bird habitat and includes the Grassy Point peninsula and the marine environment
for the western shoreline of the Peninsula to the shipping lane.
The temporal boundaries of the Project begin with the construction phase, which is scheduled to begin
in June 2008 and continue until March 2010. Operations are scheduled to begin in June 2010 and
continue for an estimated 50 years. The annual temporal boundaries depend on each bird species, as
each has a different breeding phenology and may react differently to disturbance depending on the time
of year. Collectively, migratory birds can be affected by the Project year-round.
10.4.2.2
Migratory birds and their habitats are federally protected under Environment Canadas Migratory Birds
Convention Act (Government of Canada1994a) and Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations (Government
of Canada 1994b). Prohibition 5.1 (1) of the Act states that No person or vessel shall deposit a
substance that is harmful to migratory birds, or permit such a substance to be deposited, in waters or
an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such waters or
such an area.
Environment Canadas Migratory Birds Environmental Assessment Guideline (1998) and Environmental
Assessment Guideline for Forest Habitat of Migratory Birds (1998) outline the requirements of migratory
birds relating to environmental assessments. The federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (Government
of Canada 1991) provides guidelines for protecting water bird habitat. The Newfoundland and Labrador
Endangered Species Act, the federal SARA and COSEWIC provide legislation and/or protection for bird
species at risk that may occur within the Assessment Area.
Page 314
Gravel Road
Berth Configuration
Roads
Shipping Lanes
Migratory Birds Assessment Area
Tug Basin
Tank Area
CLIENT:
PROJECT TITLE:

DRAWING TITLE:
Migratory Birds Assessment Area

Figure 10.6
Jacques Whitford
Bordeaux
Island
SCALE:
1:28,500
DRAWN BY:
250
Metres
500
EDITED BY:
CP
CP
DATE:
FEB 22, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
DRAWING No.:
MAP FILE:
Migratory_Birds_UTM.mxd
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Technical boundaries include the limitations of the available data for migratory birds within Placentia
Bay and the limits of scientific knowledge specific to the interactions between Project activities and
migratory birds and their habitat. Data on migratory birds in Placentia Bay was provided by the CWS
and Important Bird Areas of Canada. These data were used in conjunction with information gathered
from a search of scientific literature and previous EA reports. Terrestrial migratory bird data were
collected by Jacques Whitford in 2006 and 2007. The study team considers that the data available to
characterize migratory birds within the Assessment Area and the existing scientific knowledge
regarding the potential effects of the Project are sufficient to support the environmental assessment.
Section 9.3.4 provides detailed information on the status and distribution of migratory birds in the
Assessment Area.
The criteria to evaluate the significance threshold for adverse environmental effects to migratory birds
include:
A significant residual environmental effect on migratory birds is one that affects the
population of a species of migratory birds or portion thereof in such a way as to cause a
decline or change in abundance or sustainability of the population over one or more
generations. This can occur through the alteration of nesting, foraging, or migration staging
habitat, either physically, chemically, or biologically, so that the ecological function of the
habitat is affected. Recruitment may not be sufficient to re-establish the population to former
levels within one or more generations.
An adverse effect that does not meet the above criteria is deemed to be not significant.
The primary routine construction and operational Project activities that could potentially interact, directly
or indirectly, with migratory birds are:
vessel transportation;
construction of the pier, the tug basin;
on-land site preparation and installation of Project components; and
on-land vehicular traffic
The following sections provide a discussion of key Project-VEC interactions, by Project phase.
10.4.4.1
Vessel transportation, construction of the pier, construction of the tug basin, on-land site preparation,
installation of project components, site water management, site waste management, land-based
vehicular traffic, equipment and materials storage, watercourse crossing, installation of marine intake
and discharge pipes, and the construction of a temporary construction office may all potentially affect
migratory birds. For example, vessel traffic will generate noise and disturbance that may decrease the
habitat quality for marine migratory birds. Some species are known to be attracted to ships, while some
avoid interactions with vessels. Lights on vessels during construction can attract seabirds such as
petrels. Blasting in the marine environment may be required thereby potentially affecting marine
migratory birds though changes in habitat quality and cause temporary avoidance. Noise will also be
generated on land by blasting and site preparation activities that would affect habitat quality through
Page 316
MIGRATORY BIRDS
avoidance. Site preparation will reduce habitat quantity for terrestrial migratory birds. During
commissioning, seawater will be used for hydrostatic testing. The tanks will then be rinsed with
freshwater and discharged to the ocean, but the effects of this activity on migratory marine birds is
considered minor. Thus, water discharge will not be considered further for migratory birds.
Likewise, tree harvesting, blasting, noise, lights, human presence and land-based vehicle traffic can all
interact with terrestrial birds. The terrestrial area designated for clearing to accommodate the storage
tanks will reduce habitat quantity and quality for terrestrial species currently using that area. Other
habitat loss will result from access road, terminal and building construction.
The construction of the access road, and the vehicle traffic during construction and commissioning of
the Project both have potential to cause disturbance to migratory terrestrial birds by reducing habitat
quantity and quality, respectively. Studies on the effects of vehicle noise on songbirds by Reijnen and
Foppen (1994) and Reijnen et al. (1995) discovered woodland bird density was lower near roads, due
to louder noise levels that disturbed communication between birds and distorted male song.
10.4.4.2
Operation
Operation of the Project will increase marine vessel traffic to the Assessment Area. These activities
could potentially affect marine bird and shorebird behaviour and habitat. Terrestrial migratory birds
would primarily be affected by operations due to an increase in land-based vehicle traffic and the
potential for direct mortality. Maintenance/repairs will increase human presence and noise in the area,
causing disturbance and/or avoidance for migratory birds.
10.4.4.3
Summary
In summary, these various phases of the Project can have potential effects on migratory birds that may
be categorized as:
direct mortality; and
habitat fragmentation
A summary of the potential interactions between the Project and migratory birds is provided in Table
10.12. The Table is organized by Project activities within the Project phases of construction,
commissioning, and operations.
Page 317
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Table 10.12
Potential Project Interactions with Migratory Birds

Construction of Pier (blasting, placement of offshore structures, driving or
Construction of the Tug Basin (infilling, dredging, placement of armour
stone)
On-Land Site Preparation (clearing and grubbing, blasting, grading)
Operation
Terminal Operation
Water Management (process, potable)
BOG Handling
Marine Structures
Habitat
Fragmentation
Direct
Mortality
Change in
Habitat
Quantity
Change in
Habitat Quality

10.4.5.1
A discussion of the magnitude, geographic extent, duration, reversibility and context of each of the
above identified effects on migratory birds is provided in the following sections.
Change in Habitat Quantity
Terrestrial avifauna within the Assessment Area will be affected by the removal of habitat during tree
harvesting, blasting, excavation, grubbing, grading, construction of foundations, road construction and
infilling of the small pond in the tank footprint.
Different species occupy different niches in the ecosystem and have different habitat preferences.
Many species use trees, as well as brush, deadfalls and other low-lying vegetation for nesting, feeding,
shelter and cover. Removal of trees, shrubs, grassland, or wetland area removes the substrates on
which breeding landbirds construct their nests. For this Project, the breeding season is defined as the
time encompassing all breeding activities from courtship and nesting to the rearing and fledging of
young.
Page 318
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Raptors and owls will potentially be affected by construction and commissioning in primarily the same
ways as other terrestrial birds, with a permanent loss of habitat due to harvesting, excavating and
construction. This could affect the number of potential nesting sites in the area. Any raptor nests that
are found during the construction phase will be addressed in consultation with Environment Canada.
Merlin were confirmed to breed within the Assessment Area from 2006 surveys, and Bald Eagle, which
is listed as S4B by the ACCDC, is known to nest in the area around Grassy Point. S4B represents a
breeding species that is usually widespread, fairly common, and apparently secure with many
occurrences, but of longer-term concern (ACCDC 2006). Bald Eagle is not on the provincial or federal
Species at Risk lists. There is abundant raptor species habitat of equal quality in the vicinity of Grassy
Point and throughout eastern insular Newfoundland to which the individual could relocate.
Empetrum heath habitat would be less diverse and have lower abundances of migratory birds than the
other habitats, due to a limited vertical structure, consisting primary of shrubs. Typical avifauna in this
habitat would consist of migratory sparrows, such as Savannah Sparrow. Balsam fir forest habitat
would be most important for terrestrial migratory birds, given its vertical structure. Tuckamore is
important for species such as Blackpoll Warbler and Fox Sparrow. Wetland habitat (bog) within the
Assessment Area is not an important habitat type for many migratory birds, given its basic vertical
structure and lack of foraging or nesting substrates for most migrants. It is important to the species that
specialize in that habitat type like some warblers and flycatchers. Territory sizes vary among terrestrial
bird species from less than a hectare for many songbirds to tens of square kilometres for raptors. From
the areas of each habitat to be removed for site infrastructure (Table 10.13), between 1 to 20
individuals of each songbird or woodpecker species and between 1 to 5 individuals of each raptor
species present could be affected.
All of the habitat types that will be removed in the Assessment Area are common and abundant habitat
types adjacent to the Assessment Area so displaced birds are expected to find alternate suitable
habitat nearby.
Table 10.13
Percentage of Vegetation Cover Types to be Removed from the Classified

Assessment Area, including the Tank Area and Access Road
Vegetation Cover
Type
Open Water
Wetland
Balsam Fir Forest
Empetrum Heath
Tuckamore
Total
Tank Area
(ha)
Access Road
(ha)
Total in Footprint
(ha)
0.3
4.7
5.3
8.7
2.6
21.6
0.0
0.8
5.4
0.8
3.3
10.3
0.3
5.5
10.7
9.5
5.9
31.9
Total in Classified
Assessment Area
(ha)
2.40
23.1
61.6
30.0
25.7
144.5
Removal of snags during site preparation would remove potential nesting trees for cavity-nesters, such
as the woodpecker species and some ducks. There are few snags in the Assessment Area that have
adequate diameters for cavity-nesters. There were some snags in the Balsam Fir habitat that would be
suitable for woodpeckers, chickadees, and nuthatches. No suitable snags were found in areas of
suitable waterfowl habitat on 2006 surveys.
The Grassy Point area has open-water wetlands, marshes, bogs, and small ponds that may be used for
breeding or as stopover migration habitat for birds that rely on freshwater habitats. Two open-water
wetlands will be filled in for the construction of the foundation for the storage tanks, which would reduce
potential waterfowl habitat for foraging, staging or moulting. These two wetlands are very small and low
in productivity; therefore, they would likely provide insufficient resources for breeding habitat for most
Page 319
MIGRATORY BIRDS
species. There are many other wetlands throughout the vicinity of Grassy Point and eastern
Newfoundland that would provide equivalent habitat for freshwater birds.
Migratory birds, their nests, eggs, and young are protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act
that must be complied with during all phases of Project development. Site preparation will potentially
affect nests, eggs, and young. If a nest is found to be active outside of the regular nesting season the
nest site and neighbouring vegetation should be left intact and undisturbed until the young have fledged
from the nest.
Summarized mitigations to minimize change in habitat quantity include:
some vegetation along the shorelines of waterbodies and the coast will be maintained;
any raptor nests that are found during the construction phase will be addressed in
consultation with Environment Canada; and
any migratory bird nests or colonies found in the Assessment Area and Placentia Bay will be
buffered during breeding season whenever possible until young have fledged, and nests
will be left intact and undisturbed.
Raptors and owls could be affected by the increased traffic in the area during construction and
commissioning. Raptor species that scavenge carrion may be susceptible to motor vehicle-impact
injuries (Buehler 2000). Many owls hunt at headlight level making them common victims of vehicle
collisions (Jacobson 2005). Raptors and owls will also be indirectly affected with a reduction of prey
species habitat and assumed decline of prey species in the area.
Noise and human presence will accompany the construction and commissioning phase. Noise has
been found to create fright reactions, resulting in increased heart rates, modified egg-laying schedules,
flushing and nest abandonment (Dufour 1980). High decibel levels can also cause hearing loss for
birds. These issues could affect marine migratory bird behaviour and breeding in and around the
Assessment Area. Blasting and/or construction during breeding season (late spring to mid-summer)
could result in nest abandonment, or failure to lay eggs due to disturbance. This could affect
recruitment in the subsequent year for certain species.
Only the Alcidae (Dovekie, Common Murre, Thick-billed Murre, Razorbill, Black Guillemot and Atlantic
Puffin) spend measurable time underwater during forage dives. They typically spend 25 to 40 seconds
underwater during each dive (Gaston and Jones 1998) and have the potential to be exposed to the
sounds of blasting. Most species of seabirds that may be present in the marine portion of the
Assessment Area spend only a few seconds underwater during a foraging dive; therefore, there would
be minimal opportunity for exposure. General construction activities will likely deter birds from the
construction area. Blasting activities will be coordinated and scheduled to minimize the number of
blasts required. In order to minimize the seismic effect, blasting patterns and procedures will be used to
reduce the shock wave and noise. It is likely that the human presence accompanying the blasting would
deter birds from the area prior to blasting.
Traffic noise may affect migratory terrestrial bird habitat by reducing the habitat quality. Environmental
noise has been linked to higher song amplitudes, and the noise subsequently affects the behavioral
ecology of singing males (Brumm 2004). Noise affects the ability of males to transmit song to attract
females and defend territories, potentially influencing breeding success. Noise in this area could deter
Page 320
MIGRATORY BIRDS
raptor species from frequenting the area for foraging or nesting, lessening the habitat quality. Raptors
are known to avoid areas with increased human presence and activity (Stalmaster 1987).
Colony-nesting seabird behaviour can be affected by human activity around their breeding colonies,
influencing nesting success by lessening habitat quality. To mitigate the disturbance around colonies
like those at Goose Island (or others if they were established in the future), boat activity will be
restricted near colony-nesting birds. In any case, shipping traffic from the NLNG Project would not be in
close proximity to Goose Island due to its distance from the shipping lane. Also, access to colonies
from land (should they become established) will be restricted within the Assessment Area as entering
the colony can result in the destruction or abandonment of nests. The only potential interaction of the
Project with the colony-nesting gulls of Goose Island would be during foraging trips from the colony. If
individuals moved into the shipping lane to forage they could encounter increased shipping traffic
during operations. However, given the tendency of Ring-billed and Herring Gulls to congregate near
wharves and vessels, it is unlikely they would be affected by the ships. Black-legged Kittiwakes could
experience some disturbance from the increased shipping traffic if they were foraging in the shipping
lane. These disturbances would be temporary and these individuals are likely accustomed to shipping
traffic and noise since Goose Island is situated in Arnolds Cove.
The delivery of the materials to complete construction and commissioning will increase shipping traffic
in the area. The most likely result will be avoidance of the area by some marine and coastal bird
species that use the coastal and marine components of the Assessment Area. Seabirds could be
attracted to these vessels for shelter or roosting, or due to attraction to lights. Some species, such as
Leachs Storm Petrels, could be more attracted than others to the vessels because of their
predisposition towards lights. The terminal area itself will have considerable lighting as well. Seabirds
primarily navigate by sight, and lights can be an eye-catching visual cue (Wiese et al. 2001). In
addition, storm-petrels and other Procellariformes (tube-nosed seabirds) are nocturnal foragers on
bioluminescent prey and are, therefore, naturally pre-disposed to attraction to light of any kind (Imber
1975). While additional lighting may cause a decrease in habitat quality in the area, it is likely that birds
in the area are habituated to this type of lighting due to the other projects currently operating in
Placentia Bay.
Directional lighting, shielding or filtering upward radiation could mitigate the effects of light attraction to
a degree (Telfer et al. 1987). A study by Reed et al. (1985) concluded that shielding upward radiation
decreased seabird attraction by approximately 40 percent. The shielding consisted of a hood that
projected nearly the lights full radiation downward but could not be seen above the elevation of the light
itself. Directional lighting should also accomplish this task, by directing lights towards the ground.
Motion-detected lighting would also be an option in areas of low foot traffic. This would reduce the time
the lights are on and would reduce any attraction by birds.
Summarized mitigations to minimize changes in habitat quality include:
all migratory bird nests in the Assessment Area will be buffered during breeding season to
minimize impacts wherever possible;
blasting activities will be coordinated and scheduled to minimize the number of blasts
required;
should any colonies become established, boat activity would be restricted near colonynesting birds within the Assessment Area. Also, access to colonies from land would be
restricted;
Page 321
MIGRATORY BIRDS
the sedimentation pond will be tested regularly to ensure compliance with provincial
regulations prior to discharge to minimize potential impacts on waterfowl; and
directional lighting, motion-detected lighting, or shielding or filtering upward radiation could
mitigate the effects of light attraction.
Direct Mortality
Attraction to lights can potentially result in disorientation, especially during periods of drizzle and fog
(Weir 1976, Wiese et al. 2001) and collision with the vessel lights or infrastructure. Attraction could also
result in continuous circling around the lights, using energy and delaying foraging or migration, and can
result in starvation (Bourne 1979).
An increase in on-land traffic will potentially increase the number of collisions of migratory birds with
vehicles. However, under the standard industrial site speed limits, mortality will be minimized.
There is potential for direct mortality of migratory birds during the construction and commissioning
phase during site preparation with clearing and blasting. This risk would primarily apply to eggs,
nestlings, or young birds that are not yet mobile enough to move away from construction activities.
Summarized mitigations to reduce potential for direct mortality include:
mitigate the effects of light attraction and reduce bird strikes and mortality;
during construction all efforts will be taken to avoid active nests; and
industrial site speed limits will help minimize the number of bird-vehicle collisions on the
access roads.
Habitat Fragmentation
Fragmentation is the breaking up of habitat into smaller parcels. With the clearing of land, construction
of roads, and creation of infrastructure, the Project will contribute to habitat fragmentation for migratory
birds in the Assessment Area. Fragmentation of habitat can have several implications, including
displacement of migratory bird individuals that have established territories in the area in the past. Many
birds affected would be migrants that would be temporarily displaced to nearby habitats. This could
cause an ephemeral crowding effect in the surrounding area, which would likely return to regular
densities after a couple of years, assuming that surrounding areas are currently at capacity. Several
landbird species are known to avoid gap-crossing, with roads acting as a barrier to movement. A study
by Desrochers and Hannon (1997) concluded that the majority of birds, when given the choice of
traveling through forest or across an unforested gap, would choose forest, even though it was three
times longer. Gap avoidance can therefore impede breeding activities and dispersal. Habitat along the
sides of the road will be converted from forest or wetland to edge habitat and open habitat. Some
species of birds are known to avoid edge habitat and will therefore be displaced by construction. These
linear disturbances will contribute to terrestrial habitat fragmentation in the area.
Several research studies have documented crowding of birds in habitat fragments immediately
following fragmentation, followed by relaxation of the community in subsequent years (Whitcomb et al.
1981; Darveau et al. 1995). A study by Schmiegelow et al. (1997) found that the crowding effect after
fragmentation was dependent on migration strategy. Neotropical migrants showed the greatest
crowding effect following fragmentation followed by short-distance temperate migrants, with a moderate
degree of crowding and, finally, residents showed no measurable effect with respect to crowding.
Schmiegelow et al. (1997) concluded that the differences could be related to breeding phenology
Page 322
MIGRATORY BIRDS
(timing). Since harvesting occurred in early spring, residents had longer to respond to fragmentation
before seeking breeding sites. Neotropical migrants had a much shorter window of time, for
reproductive activities. It was hypothesized that this effect would decline over time as site fidelity would
likely be lost with adult mortality and the juveniles would find new territories when they return. To
reduce the impacts of fragmentation, it is desirable to leave small patches of trees wherever possible to
maintain connectivity. The terrestrial migratory species most affected by habitat fragmentation would be
the warbler, flycatcher, sparrow, thrush and kinglet species. Refer to Section 9.3.4 for a complete list of
species known from the area.
Summarized mitigations to minimize habitat fragmentation include:
leaving small patches of trees wherever possible to maintain connectivity;
maintaining the vegetation around water bodies and the shoreline;
minimizing the number of access roads to the coast;
minimizing the amount of land to be cleared; and
creating soft edges wherever possible (vegetated edges as opposed to abrupt changes).
10.4.5.2
Operation
Project operational activities potentially affecting migratory birds will include:

LNGC and tug traffic;
on-land operations; and
on-land vehicular traffic.
Routine on-land operation of the facility is expected to have moderate interaction with migratory birds.
All habitat removal will occur during the construction phase. During operation of the facility, the primary
disturbances would likely be increases in marine vessel traffic and land-based vehicle traffic in the
Assessment Area.
Potential effects on migratory birds during operation of the Project arise from:
change in habitat quality; and
direct mortality.
Each of these effects can result in a change in habitat quality or direct mortality for migratory birds. A
discussion of the magnitude, geographic extent, duration, reversibility and context of each of these
effects on migratory birds is provided in the following sections.
The increase in vessel traffic, terminal operation, water and waste management, the presence of
marine structures, the increase in on-land vehicular traffic, and routine maintenance and repairs all
have potential to cause disturbance to migratory terrestrial birds during operation. Disturbance during
the breeding season (late spring to midsummer) from excessive traffic, noise, or human presence could
result in nest abandonment, or failure to lay eggs and would violate the Migratory Birds Convention Act
which prohibits the disturbance of nests or eggs. Therefore a buffer will be maintained around any
occupied nest found on site. Human presence and noise can affect songbird breeding success due to
avoidance of the area and the potential inability to effectively transmit songs and calls. Human
Page 323
MIGRATORY BIRDS
presence and noise would be increased due to the increase in land-based vehicle traffic and
maintenance/repairs on site during the operation phase. However, most birds that were sensitive to
these disturbances would likely have abandoned the area prior to operation (during the construction
phase).
With increased shipping traffic, some avoidance of the area by marine birds may occur. This will
depend on the species, as some are deterred by vessels while some are attracted. Since there are no
known colonies within the Assessment Area, the effects of avoidance (or attraction) during operation
would be considered minimal. There are many colonies of several species in Placentia Bay, all of which
are likely accustomed to heavy vessel traffic in Placentia Bay from other projects.
Summarized mitigations for change in habitat quality include:
any nests or colonies found will be left undisturbed until the young have fledged.
Direct Mortality
Due to their mobility, birds are often overlooked with respect to the effects of collisions with vehicles.
Bird mortality from vehicle collisions affects some groups of birds more than others (Jacobson 2005),
but overall should be minimal under standard industrial site speed limits. Avoidance is more likely than
mortality for most species.
The attraction of birds to lights is well-documented in scientific literature. As discussed in the
construction phase, attraction to lights can potentially result in disorientation and collision with the
vessel lights or infrastructure. Lights from NLNG vessels, aircraft navigation lights, and from terminal
operation could attract birds, potentially causing disorientation, accidental strikes, circling behaviour,
and sometimes death. Nocturnal migrants (including most migratory songbirds) and night-flying
seabirds are especially at risk of collisions with lights, as they use light cues for migration orientation or
are attracted to the light because of an association with land. Birds may also collide with each other if
they are disoriented by lights. Attraction could also result in circling the lights and expending energy
and delaying foraging or migration, and can ultimately result in starvation (Bourne 1979). Other
possible results of exhaustion from circling are depredation from terrestrial or marine predators or the
stranding of individuals on vessels.
Directional lighting, shielding or filtering upward radiation could mitigate the effects of light attraction to
a degree (Telfer et al. 1987). Motion-detected lighting would also be an option in areas of low foot
traffic. This would reduce the time the lights are on and would reduce any attraction by birds.
Summarized mitigations to reduce direct mortality of migratory birds include:
mitigate the effects of light attraction and reduce bird strikes and mortality;
road and parking lot lighting will also be shielded so that a minimal amount of light escapes
skyward;
only the minimum amount of aircraft navigation lights and obstruction avoidance lighting will
be installed around the NLNG site;
only strobe lights should be used on tall structures at night, and they will use minimum
intensity and the longest duration between flashes as per the regulations of Transport
Canada;
Page 324
MIGRATORY BIRDS
the minimum number of lights will be used and the use of solid-burning or slow-pulsing red
warning lights will be avoided at night;
the duration that lights are left on will be minimized or avoided, especially during the
migration season and on humid, foggy or rainy nights;
during operations all efforts will be taken to avoid active nests; and
industrial site speed limits will help reduce the number of bird-vehicle collisions on the
access roads.
Changes in the quantity and quality of migratory bird habitat will occur during construction of the berths
and tug basin and on-land infrastructure. These changes will mainly result from noise, increased vessel
traffic and subsequent avoidance, and on-land site preparation and operation. Some of these changes
will be temporary and restricted to the construction and commissioning phase. Others will continue for
the life of the Project during operation, such as increased vessel and vehicular traffic and increased
lighting in the area. The extent of the potential residual environmental effects on migratory birds during
construction and commissioning is localized, of short duration, but is irreversible with respect to the
land conversion and infrastructure. The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the effects are
deemed not significant for migratory birds (Table 10.14).
Page 325
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Table 10.14
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Migratory Birds (Construction and

Commissioning
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quantity
Minimize disturbance near colonynesting birds if possible if colonies are

established within the Assessment Area
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quantity
Direct Mortality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quantity
On-Land Site Preparation

(clearing, blasting grubbing
and grading)
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quantity
Direct Mortality
Change in Habitat
Quality
maintain vegetation around waterbodies

and shoreline
buffer all migratory bird nests if found
nests and colonies will be left
undisturbed until the young have fledged
and shoreline
and shoreline
Installation of Project
Components (tanks,
ancillary facilities and
buildings)
Site Water Management
(including wastewater
management)
Land-based vehicular
traffic
Installation of Marine
Intake and Discharge
Pipes

Change in Habitat
Quality
Erosion and sediment controls

EPP
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quantity
EPP
conditions of operations permits
limit speed to minimize noise effects
limit speeds to reduce bird mortalities
Minimize disturbance near colonynesting birds if possible if colonies are
established within the Assessment Area
Ecological/
Socioeconomic
Context
Vessel Transportation
(barging offshore
structures, delivery of
construction materials and
equipment)
Construction of Pier
(blasting, placement of
offshore structures, driving
or drilling/grouting of piles,
placement of decking)
Construction of the Tug
Basin (infilling, dredging,
placement of armour
stone)
Reversibility
Mitigation
Duration/
Frequency
Effect
Geographic
Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude
Evaluation Criteria for

Assessing Residual
1/2
1/2
1/2
2/1
2/1
2/3
2/3
2/3
1/1
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of migratory birds limited to the Assessment Area,
with no permanent loss or degradation of habitat critical to migratory bird species.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of terrestrial or marine bird habitat limited to the
Assessment Area, with no loss of habitat critical to migratory bird species.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of terrestrial or wetland environments critical to the
survival of migratory bird species. Also includes direct mortality of a migratory
species of special conservation concern.
Geographic Extent:
Assessment Area.
Duration:
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
1 = Area is relatively pristine or not adversely affected by human activity.
2 = Evidence of existing negative environmental effects (e.g., existing
stream crossings).
Page 326
MIGRATORY BIRDS
During operation of the facility, the primary interactions with migratory birds will be increases in vessel
and vehicular traffic, noise and human presence, and potential for collisions with vehicles. Increased
water and land traffic may cause increased avoidance of the area. Noise and human presence can
affect migratory bird behaviour and breeding success, but most species that are sensitive to these
effects would have abandoned the area during the construction phase. Potential effects on migratory
birds are characterized as moderate in magnitude due to the noise, traffic, and human disturbance that
will continue to alter the habitat quality of migratory birds for the life of the project. Effects of the
operation will be local in geographic extent, long term in duration, regular in occurrence and reversible.
The geographic extent of effects of the operation will vary according to each bird species and their
distribution and ecology. Marine birds will be influenced by more vessel traffic in Placentia Bay and
there will be a small reduction of habitat for terrestrial bird species. These effects are modest given the
amount of traffic already in Placentia Bay and the alternate terrestrial habitat in close proximity of
Grassy Point. The residual environmental effects during operation are rated as not significant (Table
10.15).
Page 327
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Table 10.15
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Migratory Birds (Operation)
Land-based Vehicular
Traffic
Maintenance and
Repairs
KEY
EPP
erosion and sediment controls

EPP
conditions of operations permits
minimize human presence around
known nests and/or colonies during
breeding season
speed limit in place to minimize noise
effects
EPP
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of migratory birds limited to the Assessment
Area, with no permanent loss or degradation of habitat critical to migratory bird
species.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of terrestrial or marine bird habitat limited to
the Assessment Area, with no loss of habitat critical to migratory bird species.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of terrestrial or wetland environments critical to the
survival of migratory bird species. Also includes direct mortality of a migratory
species of special conservation concern.
Geographic Extent:
Assessment Area.
Water Management
(process, potable)
Site Waste
Management
Marine Structures
compliance with operation permits and

EPP
minimize human presence around
known nests and/or colonies during
breeding season, if they exist
shielded or directional lighting
Reversibility
Terminal Operation
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quantity
Direct Mortality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quantity
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Mitigation
Duration/
Frequency
Effect
Geographic Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude

Assessing Residual
3/3
3/4
3/3
3/3
3/4
3/3
3/3
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
1 = Area is relatively pristine or not adversely affected
by human activity.
Duration:
Page 328
SPECIES AT RISK
10.5
Species at Risk
For the purpose of this CSR, species at risk refers to those species listed federally under SARA and/or
designated by COSEWIC, which may occur in the Grassy Point Area and therefore potentially interact
with the Project. This VEC includes species of marine fish, mammals, birds, and reptiles, as well as
terrestrial birds, insects and plants. It also considers their associated habitats, as protected under
SARA.
Many of the issues of concern, potential interactions with the Project, as well as mitigations and
management strategies for species at risk are similar to that presented elsewhere in this report for nonlisted species in the Assessment Area, such as for marine mammals (Section 10.3). On an ecosystem
basis, the listed and non-listed species and their habitats are often highly integrated. This section
assesses the potential effects of Project commissioning, construction and operation on species at risk.
Effects resulting from decommissioning are assessed in Section 10.8. Cumulative environmental
effects in consideration with other Projects and/or activities, as well as accidentals, malfunctions and
unplanned events, are assessed in Chapter 11.
10.5.1 Rationale for Selection as a Valued Ecosystem Component
Species at risk is a VEC for this assessment for several key reasons:
species at risk and their habitat are legally protected under federal legislation and the
Proponent is therefore required to demonstrate that the Project will not result in significant
effects on these species;
due to their nature, species at risk can be more vulnerable to human-induced changes in
their habitat or populations levels and can therefore require special consideration with
respect to mitigation strategies;
several federally listed marine and terrestrial species at risk have the potential to occur in
the Grassy Point area; and
the RAs have identified species at risk as a VEC for this assessment based on public and
regulatory input.
10.5.2.1
The spatial and temporal boundaries will vary depending on the ecology of each species at risk given
the different ecological niches associated with marine and terrestrial species. However, the potential
interactions with species at risk and routine operations for this Project are most likely to occur within the
Grassy Point peninsula and the area of the marine terminal. The spatial boundary for the Assessment
Area therefore includes the area of the Project where routine land-based and marine activities
associated with construction, commissioning and operation could affect habitat or individuals of species
at risk. The Assessment Area is delineated by the Grassy Point peninsula and the marine environment
from the western shoreline of the Grassy Point peninsula to the shipping lane (Figure 10.7).
Page 329
Gravel Road
Berth Configuration
Roads
Species at Risk Assessment Area
Tug Basin
Tank Area
CLIENT:
PROJECT TITLE:

DRAWING TITLE:
Species at Risk Assessment Area

Figure 10.7
Jacques Whitford
Bordeaux
Island
SCALE:
1:28,500
DRAWN BY:
250
Metres
500
EDITED BY:
CP
CP
DRAWING No.:
MAP FILE:
DATE:
FEB 22, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
Marine_Mammals_UTM.mxd
SPECIES AT RISK
The temporal overlap between routine activities of the Project and the occurrence of species at risk
within the Assessment Area will depend on the phenology of each species at risk and whether they are
migratory or sedentary/resident. Collectively, species at risk potentially can occur in the Assessment
Area year-round. The temporal boundaries of the Project begin with the start of Phase 1 on-land
construction in June 2008 for an estimated 22 months. Phase 1 operation is scheduled for June 2010
for an estimated 50 years. Phase 2 and 3 construction activities will be ongoing during Phase 1
operations.
10.5.2.2
The terrestrial, wetland and marine environments are protected through federal and provincial
legislation. The Newfoundland and Labrador Endangered Species Act (NLESA) and SARA prohibits the
interference, disturbance, or destruction of endangered species or critical habitats for listed species.
The official federal list of wildlife and plant species at risk in Canada is Schedule 1 of SARA. The
purposes of SARA are to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies and distinct populations of
wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened
species, and to encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk.
Section 32 of SARA prohibits killing, capturing and destruction of critical habitat for those species listed
on Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered and threatened. Critical habitat is defined as the habitat that
is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species'
critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. The environmental effects of
habitat loss or degradation on species at risk are assessed within the context of the terrestrial and
marine habitats prior to construction.
Current information and data on terrestrial and marine species at risk in the vicinity of Grassy Point
were compiled from:
Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS);
Important Bird Areas (IBA) of Canada;
baseline marine survey of the terminal site;
baseline terrestrial bird surveys of the Assessment Area;
Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (ACCDC), and
primary and secondary literature review.
The criteria to evaluate the significance threshold for adverse environmental effects to species at risk
are defined as follows:
A significant, adverse residual effect is one that, after application of all feasible mitigation
and consideration of all reasonable Project alternatives, will jeopardize the achievement of
self-sustaining population objectives or recovery goals; is not consistent with applicable
allowable harm assessments; will result in permanent loss of critical habitat as defined in a
recovery plan or an action strategy; and/or for which an incidental harm permit would not
likely be issued. Due to the sensitive nature of species at risk, residual adverse effects on
one individual may be considered significant.
Page 331
SPECIES AT RISK
A non significant, adverse residual effect is one that, after application of all feasible
mitigation and consideration of all reasonable Project alternatives, results in effects to
individuals, residences or critical habitat of listed species that does not jeopardize the
survival or recovery of the species; is consistent with applicable allowable harm
assessments; does not result in permanent loss of critical habitat; and/or for which an
incidental harm permit would likely be issued.
10.5.4 Potential Project-valued Environmental Component Interactions
Species that are assessed include those that are listed on Schedule 1 of SARA and/or on the
COSEWIC list and have some potential to occur within the Assessment Area. These species are
briefly summarized below in Table 10.16, but are described in detail in Section 9.8.
Table 10.16
Species
Birds
Barrows
Goldeneye
Federal Species at Risk that may occur in the Assessment Area

Status
SARA: Schedule 1
Species of Special Concern
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
Eskimo Curlew
SARA: Schedule 1
Endangered
COSEWIC Endangered
Harlequin Duck
SARA: Schedule 1
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
Ivory Gull
SARA: Schedule 1
COSEWIC Endangered
Piping Plover
melodus
subspecies
SARA: Schedule 1
Endangered
COSEWIC Endangered
Red Crossbill
SARA: Schedule 1
Endangered
COSEWIC Endangered
Rusty Blackbird
SARA: Under
Consideration for inclusion
on Schedule 1
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
Typical Habitat
occurs in small numbers in
marine waters of Atlantic Canada
during winter
in Atlantic Canada, nesting has
only been confirmed in Quebec
(Eadie et al. 2000)
historic migration route brought
them past Newfoundland but
unknown whether they still exist
Breed only in treeless tundra
regions of the Arctic
Mostly occur at the mouth of
Placentia Bay near Cape St.
Marys, where some individuals of
the species overwinter. Also
some observations further north
near Patricks Cove and
Gooseberry Cove.
winters in the Arctic and is known
to winter off the coast of
Newfoundland
nests in sandy coastal areas on
the southwest coast of
Newfoundland (Amirault 2006)
nearest known nesting areas are
on the western side of the Burin
Peninsula (Environment Canada
E-Map Database 2007)
primary habitat is mature
coniferous forest
Preferred habitat in
Newfoundland is wetlands
Occurrence in the Assessment

Area
Could occur within the
Assessment Area during winter
Assessment Area could have

some migration stopover habitat
for Eskimo Curlew; no breeding
would occur in the area
There are no known records of
Harlequin Duck in the
Assessment Area
Could occur rarely in the

Assessment Area during winter,
although no records of this
occurring
There are no known records of
Piping Plover in the Assessment
Area, and there is no sandy
habitat, but could occur rarely in
the area
Small quantities of mature forest

are present within the
Assessment Area, which could
be removed during construction.
May be disturbed by human
presence
Could occur in Assessment Area
in spring and summer and during
fall migrations (although not
found during Project surveys).
Construction activities could
result in loss of habitat. May be
disturbed by human presence
Page 332
SPECIES AT RISK
Species

Status
Typical Habitat

Area
Could occur in Assessment Area.
Construction could result in loss
of habitat and construction and
operation could result in
disturbance
Construction could result in
temporary disturbance of foraging
during migratory stopovers.
Short-eared
Owl
SARA Schedule 3
species of special concern
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
Newfoundland is wetlands
Peregrine
Falcon
SARA
(under review for Schedule
1)
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
SARA
Endangered (under review
for Schedule 1)
COSEWIC Endangered
Newfoundland is shoreline for
hunting on migratory stopovers.
Newfoundland is sandy shoreline
for foraging on migratory
stopovers.

Construction could result in
temporary disturbance of foraging
during migratory stopovers.
SARA: Schedule 1
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
The species is not common in

Newfoundland, but accidentals
arrive on occasion, likely blown
off course during fall migration
(J. Brazil, pers.comm.)
Could occur in Assessment Area

and construction could result in
loss of habitat
SARA: Schedule 1
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
Grows on trunks and branches of

trees (primarily balsam fir) in
moist, mature forests
Potential habitat in the

Assessment Area is minimal, and
species was not found during
field survey. Construction could
result in loss of minimal habitat
Occur during late winter or spring

along the south coast of
Newfoundland
Rare to Placentia Bay, but could
occur (DFO marine mammal
sightings database does not have
any records of blue whales in
Placentia Bay) (J. Lawson, pers.
comm.)
commonly occur during spring,
summer and fall in Placentia Bay
(TERMPOL Review Committee
1999), but they may occur in
other months (Lawson 2006).
likely to occur in coastal
Newfoundland waters from April
to October, although reports of
harbour porpoise at the mouth of
Placentia Bay extend into
November.
often seen in small groups, but
may occasionally form very large
groups.
attracted to prey-rich areas, such
as capelin and herring
mostly found in waters of ~90 to
240 m and in surface water
temperatures of 11oC to 14.5C,
so if they were to occur in
Placentia Bay, it would most likely
be in the channels during
summer or early fall
Could occur rarely in the

Assessment Area during late
winter or spring.
Red Knot
Butterflies
Monarch
butterfly
Lichens
Boreal Felt
Lichen
Marine Mammals
Blue Whales
SARA: Schedule 1
Endangered
COSEWIC Endangered
Fin Whales
SARA: Schedule 1
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
Northwest
Atlantic
population of
harbour
porpoise
SARA: No Status
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
North Atlantic
right whale
SARA: Schedule 1
Endangered
COSEWIC Endangered
May occur in the Assessment

Area in spring, summer and fall
May occur in the Assessment

Area from April to November
Not likely to occur within the

Assessment Area.
Page 333
SPECIES AT RISK
Species
Reptiles
Leatherback
sea turtles

Status
Typical Habitat

Area
SARA: Schedule 1
Endangered
COSEWIC Endangered
sighted throughout Placentia Bay,

between June and October, but
most common in late summer.
Could occur in the Assessment

Area between June and October
SARA: No Status
COSEWIC
Endangered
COSEWIC Threatened
Cod in Placentia Bay are part of

3Ps stock, which is a component
of the Laurentian North
population. These fish are moving
throughout the Bay.
American eel
SARA: No Status
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
primarily benthic inhabitants,

using substrate and bottom
debris as protection and cover.
Atlantic (or
striped) wolffish
SARA: Schedule 1
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
Northern
Wolffish
Spotted
Wolffish
Porbeagle
Shark
SARA: Schedule 1
Threatened
COSEWIC Threatened
Shortfin Mako
Shark
SARA: being considered for

inclusion on Schedule 1
COSEWIC Threatened
Blue Sharks
SARA: No Status
COSEWIC Species of
Special Concern
found over hard clay bottoms at

depths from 101 to 350 m
occur in nearshore waters during
the summer; mature fish migrate
to shallow, inshore waters in the
spring and spawn in September
(Simpson and Kulka 2002).
Deep water species preferring
depths of 151 to 600 m
Deep water species preferring
depths of 200 to 750 m
may occur singly or in schools
occasionally found closer to
shore in shallow water during the
summer
not abundant in Canadian waters,
due to their preference for warm
waters, but not uncommon
prefer temperate to tropical
waters, with temperatures
between 17C and 22C.
occur off southeastern
Newfoundland and the Grand
Banks, mainly between July and
December.
most commonly encountered
offshore between the surface and
350 m
prefer offshore habitats, but have
been observed inshore on
occasion
Cod are fished within the

Assessment Area by gillnet
during early summer and fall.
Although there is some suitable
habitat, there were no juvenile
cod observed during the habitat
surveys conducted in the Grassy
Point area in September 2006 or
in August 2007.
Eels may migrate past the
Grassy Point area as they enter
or leave the Come By Chance
River or Pipers Hole River.
Could occur in the Assessment
Area, but no Atlantic wolffish
were observed during the 2006 or
2007 marine surveys
Marine Fish
Atlantic cod:
NL
population
Laurentian
North
population
10.5.4.1
SARA: No Status
COSEWIC Endangered
Unlikely to occur in relatively

shallow waters of the
Assessment Area
Not likely to occur in the
Assessment Area
Would rarely occur in Placentia

Bay; unlikely to occur in
Assessment Area
Not likely to occur in the

Assessment Area
Construction and commissioning has the potential to affect the terrestrial and marine habitats for some
species at risk, if they occur within the Assessment Area. As noted in Table 10.16, the habitat likely to
be affected is marginal and limited in extent. Most species that may occur in the Assessment Area
would only occur occasionally or rarely (i.e., the Assessment Area does not represent habitat routinely
used by these species). There were no species at risk found within the Assessment Area during the
terrestrial and marine surveys of 2006 and 2007 (See Section 9.8).
Page 334
SPECIES AT RISK
Birds
The greatest potential for interaction between bird species at risk and Project construction and
commissioning activities is through the change in habitat quality and quantity. The clearing and
grubbing required for Project construction will remove a limited amount of potential habitat for the
Eskimo Curlew, Red Crossbill, Rusty Blackbird and the Short-eared Owl. Marine construction activities
and vessel traffic may diminish the quality of potential habitat for Barrows Goldeneye, Harlequin Duck
and the Ivory Gull.
Butterflies
Site preparation, clearing and grubbing may decrease the quantity of potential habitat for the monarch
butterfly.
Lichens
Construction activities could remove potential habitat for the colonization of the boreal felt lichen.
During commissioning, the air emissions (i.e., nitrogen and natural gas vapours) released during the
cool down of the LNG tanks and pipes may inhibit the colonization of boreal felt lichen.
Marine Mammals
Construction of the tug basin, dredging and installation of seawater pipes and piles for the jetties and
berths may potentially interact with any marine mammal species at risk in the area through changes in
habitat quality, habitat use and direct mortality. The noise generated by marine construction activities
and vessels may cause avoidance if any marine mammal species at risk were in the area. Vessel traffic
also creates the risk of collisions with marine mammals. If blasting is required, there is a risk of the blast
directly or indirectly affecting marine mammal species at risk through mortality or a decrease in habitat
quality.
Reptiles
As with marine mammals, construction activities nearshore have the potential to interact with the
leatherback sea turtle. Sea turtles are more likely to occur within the area in late summer or early fall,
since they are associated with warm water. Noise created by construction activities and vessels may
deter the leatherback sea turtle from the area, if they were approaching. Vessel movement and blasting
have the potential to injure or kill sea turtles.
Marine Fish
Construction of the tug basin, dredging and the installation of piles for the jetties and berths may
potentially interact with any marine fish species at risk through changes in habitat quality, habitat use
and direct mortality. The noise generated by marine construction activities may cause avoidance if any
marine fish species at risk were in the area. If blasting is required, there is a risk of fish mortality and a
decrease in habitat quality. The discharge of freshwater during commissioning can also have an
interaction with marine fish species at risk.
10.5.4.2
Operation
During the operations phase of the Project, there is potential for interaction with marine species at risk
through vessel traffic, process water discharge, and seawater intake. An interaction with terrestrial
species at risk may occur through noise, vehicle traffic, and human presence.
Page 335
SPECIES AT RISK
Birds
Although there is limited potential for any of the bird species at risk to occur within the Assessment
Area, the operational activities of the Project may reduce the quality of any potential habitat. Noise,
vehicle and vessel traffic may reduce the quality of the remaining habitat for any potential habitat
remaining after the facility is constructed.
Butterflies
During operations, any potential habitat for the monarch butterfly may be reduced in quality due to the
vehicular traffic, which may also cause some direct mortality, if the butterflies were present.
Lichens
During operations, any remaining potential habitat suitable for the colonization of the boreal felt lichen
may be compromised by air emissions released from LNG carriers, tug boats and backup generators.
Lichens are known to be sensitive to air pollution.
Marine Mammals
During operations, the Project activity most likely to interact with marine mammal species at risk is
vessel traffic. Vessel movement and the noise created by tugs and LNG carriers can change habitat
quality and potentially habitat use. Vessel movements also present the risk of collision with marine
mammal species at risk.
Reptiles
Vessel movement is also the primary interaction between the Project and the leatherback sea turtle
during the operations phase. The noise from vessels will decrease habitat quality and present a risk of
collision with the leatherback sea turtle.
Marine Fish
The primary activities that could interact with marine fish species at risk during Project operations are
vessel traffic, the presence of marine structures, process water discharges and seawater intake. These
Project activities can change habitat quality and potentially habitat use by some species.
10.5.4.3
Summary
In summary, commissioning, construction and operation of the Project can have potential effects on
marine and terrestrial species at risk that can be categorized as:
habitat fragmentation; and
direct mortality.
A summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from interactions between the routine
Project activities and species at risk is provided in Table 10.17.
Page 336
SPECIES AT RISK
Table 10.17
Potential Project Interactions with Species at Risk
Habitat Fragmentation/
Direct Mortality

and equipment)
Construction of Pier (placement of offshore structures, driving or drilling/grouting of
piles, placement of decking)
Construction of the Tug Basin (infilling, blasting, dredging, placement of armour
stone).
Concrete Production
vehicle crossings)
Operation
Terminal Operation (i.e., lights, noise)
BOG Handling
Vehicular Traffic
Maintenance/Repairs (tanks, pipeline, road)
Change in Habitat
Quantity
Change in Habitat
Quality

This section provides an analysis of the potential environmental effects caused by key Project activities,
and associated mitigations, by Project phase.
10.5.5.1
Birds
The primary concern during construction is the removal of potential habitat for bird species at risk that
may occur within the Assessment Area. It is possible that Barrows Goldeneye, Harlequin Duck and/or
Ivory Gull could occur within the Assessment Area during winter, even though there are no known
records of these species in the Assessment Area. Marine construction activity is scheduled for one
winter, so there is limited potential for interaction. Noise, vessels and activity during construction may
Page 337
SPECIES AT RISK
deter these species from the Assessment Area and decrease the quality of potential habitat. There is
limited potential habitat for the Piping Plover in the Assessment Area, so interaction with the Project is
unlikely; but if it did occur, there would be a risk of disturbance from construction activity. The
Assessment Area provides no unique habitat for any of these species, so if the area was avoided by
these species due to construction activity, similar habitat is available nearby.
On land, a small amount of potential habitat for Eskimo Curlew, Rusty Blackbird, Short-eared Owl and
Red Crossbill occurs within the Assessment Area. However, none of these species have been recorded
from the area. Project construction will remove some potential marginal habitat for each of these
species, but there is an abundance of similar potential habitats in adjacent areas. If any of these
species do occur within the Assessment Area during construction, the increased human presence and
construction activity will cause a decrease in habitat quality through noise and construction related air
emissions. There is limited potential for direct mortality of bird species at risk, but it is possible. If the
Rusty Blackbird or Red Crossbill were nesting in an area being cleared for construction, eggs may be
lost or young forced to fledge prematurely. Red Crossbill can nest any time of year and the Rusty Black
bird will nest between late May and early July (Avery 1995). There is also limited potential for vehicles
to collide with bird species at risk.
To minimize the risk of mortality to a bird species at risk, a survey of nesting birds will be completed
before any clearing or site preparation begins. If nesting bird species at risk are discovered, operations
in the immediate area of the nest will be suspended until the young have fledged. Mature balsam fir
forest will be retained where possible along the shoreline which may provide potential habitat for Red
Crossbill in the future.
To reduce the risk of collision between construction vehicles and bird species at risk, the Projects
access roads will have reasonable speed limits to minimize potential mortality of bird species at risk
from road kills.
Butterflies
The monarch butterfly would be considered a vagrant to the Assessment Area, so would occur there
rarely, if at all. Its primary food source, the milkweed, does not occur within the Assessment Area.
However, their alternate food sources, the aster and golden rod, do occur. The removal of aster and
goldenrod are not expected to affect the survival of the monarch butterfly, since their occurrence is
unlikely and goldenrod and aster species are available in adjacent areas.
Lichens
Boreal felt lichen is not known to occur within the Assessment Area and only minor amounts of indicator
species were found during baseline surveys. It is not known whether boreal felt lichen ever occurred
within the Assessment Area, but suitable habitat does exist in the Assessment Area. The removal of
suitable habitat will therefore not affect boreal felt lichen.
Marine Mammals
The marine mammal species at risk most likely to occur within the Assessment Area are the fin whale
and harbour porpoise. Blue whales and North Atlantic right whales are rare to Placentia Bay.
Page 338
SPECIES AT RISK
Potential effects to marine mammal species at risk during construction and commissioning of the
Project arise from:
avoidance;
collisions with vessels; and
noise and potentially blasting during construction on land and in water.
mortality of marine mammals. However, since marine construction is scheduled from September 2008
to February 2010, marine mammal species at risk have limited exposure to interaction with the
construction phase of the Project. The fin whale and harbour porpoise are most likely to occur in
Placentia Bay during the summer and early fall, so temporal overlap with Project construction is limited
to one summer. As a precautionary approach, it is assumed that all construction activities will occur
while marine mammal species at risk are present.
Blasting, pile driving, dredging, rock fill placement, vessels and barges are the primary sources of
underwater noise (see Section 10.3). A broadband received sound pressure level of 160 dB re 1 Pa
(rms) or greater is currently the best estimate available to indicate potential concern for disruption of
marine mammals behavioural patterns (NMFS 2003); however, noise levels below 160 dB re 1Pa
have also been known to elicit behavioural disturbances in marine mammals (NRC 2005). It is unlikely
a marine mammal will be subject to a broadband received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 Pa
(rms) or greater during construction of the Grassy Point facility, but mammals very near the source of
some of the construction sound pressure levels may be exposed to 160 dB re 1 Pa (rms) or slightly
higher.
Noise frequencies created during marine construction can potentially overlap in frequency with the
sounds of baleen whales and could reduce the area of audible sound for the whale. Low frequency
noises attenuate rapidly in nearshore regions (Richardson et al. 1995), which will help to reduce any
area within which masking or avoidance may occur. Since little is known about the importance of how a
temporary interruption in sound detection affects mammals (Richardson et al. 1995), it is difficult to
assess the environmental effect. In general, the environmental effect of both natural and anthropogenic
noise is less severe when it is intermittent rather than continuous (NRC 2003). The most likely activity
of marine mammals at the head of Placentia Bay is feeding and some communications may occur
between baleen whales during feeding. Fin whales or harbour porpoise could potentially feed on krill,
capelin or squid within the Assessment Area. If feeding efficiency is diminished as a result of masking,
any effect will be temporary and of limited spatial extent. The Assessment Area is not known to offer
any unique habitat or food supply for marine mammals (see Section 9.7.5)
If bedrock outcrops are encountered during dredging of the tug basin, blasting may be required to attain
a water depth of 7 m within the tug basin. Although underwater blasting will be restricted in duration, the
detonation of explosives may be lethal to marine mammals, cause auditory damage (under certain
conditions) and may induce changes in behaviour (Richardson et al. 1995; Wright and Hopky 1998). In
marine mammals, organs containing gas are most affected by underwater detonation of explosions
(Keevin and Hempen 1997).
The estimate of safe ranges from underwater explosions for marine mammals is dependent on both
size and depth of the animal and type of explosive charge (Richardson et al. 1995). It has been
calculated that slight injuries to lungs and intestines of marine mammals may occur at distances greater
than 500 m under certain blasting conditions (Wright and Hopky 1998). One of the physiological effects
Page 339
SPECIES AT RISK
of in-water blasting on marine mammals is temporary or permanent reductions in hearing sensitivity.

Since marine mammals rely heavily on acoustic cues for communication and navigation, the effects of
acoustic trauma have been well studied.
Marine construction will be ongoing at the same time as blasting, so marine mammals are expected to
avoid the area and are not expected to be near the construction site during blasting. In a study of
marine construction activity in Trinity Bay (Bohggard 1996), humpback whales were less likely to be
resighted near the construction site when dredging was the predominant activity and actually exhibited
movement away from the site. No such changes were observed during blasting in 1992 (Todd et al.
1996) or during vessel activity in 1995 (Bohggard 1996). No observable change in humpback whale
behaviour was noted after exposure to underwater blasting charges of 1,000 to 2,000 kg and peak
source levels of 140 dB re 1 Pa (Todd et al. 1996).
Reactions by individual cetaceans to blasting appear to depend on the type of industrial activity. As a
precaution, the EPP will commit to an extensive marine mammal species at risk observation and survey
program of Assessment Area. The basis of the observation and monitoring program will be to ensure
that no detonation takes place while a marine mammal species at risk is inside the predetermined
danger zone or buffer area.
To mitigate the potential effects of noise on marine mammals species at risk, the EPP will commit to:
use of the lowest weight of explosives necessary to break rock; the decking of charges; and stemming
all blasting holes. The following mitigation strategies will be also be detailed in the EPP:
any blasting required in the marine environment or near the shoreline will comply with DFOs
Guidelines for Use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky 1998);
dedicated marine mammal species at risk surveys will be conducted within a 1000 m
blasting radius;
acoustic harassment devices or a ramp-up of detonation pressures to be used to encourage
marine mammal species at risk to move away from the blasting area;
where feasible, bubble curtains and other acoustic absorbents will be used to contain shock
waves; and
construction vessel and barges will have designated routes to and from construction site.
The reaction of marine mammals species at risk to construction activity will vary by species and even
by individual. Fin and right whales are more likely to tolerate a stationary noise source than one that is
approaching (Watkins 1986). Harbour porpoise are known to avoid vessels and do not boride. If marine
mammal species at risk were to avoid the area, it would be temporary. Construction activity does not
inhibit marine mammal species at risk from returning to an area once the activity ceases (Davis et al.
1987). The Assessment Area offers no unique habitat or feeding areas for marine mammals species at
risk. Similar alternate sites are available in the immediate area, so the normal functioning of any
species of marine mammals species at risk will not be affected in any way that will substantially alter
feeding or behavioral patterns.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of avoidance during construction are the same as those applied to
mitigate the effects of noise.
Collisions of vessels and barges with marine mammals species at risk during Project construction are
not likely, but are possible. The smaller vessels required during construction are more manoeuvrable
than LNG carriers, so if a marine mammal species at risk is in the path of a vessel, every safe effort will
Page 340
SPECIES AT RISK
be made by the vessel operator to avoid collision, if the marine mammal species at risk has not moved
upon approach.
When approached by a vessel, whales usually dive or make changes in swimming speed or direction
(Watkins 1986), but the reaction can be quite variable between species and even within a species.
There are several biotic and abiotic factors that may influence the reaction, such as whether the animal
is feeding and the speed and size of the approaching vessel.
To mitigate against the risk of collisions between vessels and marine mammal species at risk:
all vessels participating in the routine construction activities will be required to maintain
speeds of less than 5 m/s (10 knots); and
operators of vessels will be instructed to reduce speed and alter coarse to avoid collision
with a marine mammal.
Reptiles
Although not common, the leatherback sea turtle has been sighted in Placentia Bay between June and
October (Goff and Lien 1988), but are most common in late summer (TERMPOL Review Committee
1999). The potential interaction between the leatherback sea turtle and construction activities is
therefore limited to one season.
Potential effects to the leatherback sea turtle during construction and commissioning of the Project
arise from:
avoidance;
noise and potentially blasting during construction on land and in water.
Noise from construction activity (e.g., blasting and pile driving) may cause a temporary threshold shift
(TTS) in the leatherback sea turtles hearing if they were to occur nearby during the activity. Sea turtles
are not expected to approach the construction site and are more likely to be deterred from the
surrounding area by general construction activity and noise. There are very few studies on the
sensitivity of sea turtle hearing to construction noise, but temporary hearing loss has been
demonstrated from exposure to airguns at less than 65 m (Moein et al. 1994). The result is possibly a
reduced ability of the sea turtle to detect approaching vessels. Sea turtles are not believed to use
hearing for prey detection or navigation; therefore, masking is unlikely to be an important issue for sea
turtles exposed to pulsed sounds. The potential for TTS is considered unlikely given the low probability
of leatherback sea turtles occurring near the construction site and the duration of marine construction
activity. The probability of physiological effects on sea turtles is further reduced by the likelihood of
avoidance behaviour when underwater noise is encountered (McCauley et al. 2000).
A policy of prohibited disposal of debris at the marine construction site will minimize the chance of
consumption of plastics by sea turtles.
Given the mitigations that will be in place, the risk of collision between a leatherback sea turtle and a
vessel during construction is considered minimal. To mitigate against the risk of collisions:
all vessels participating in construction activities will be required to maintain speeds of less
than 5 m/s (10 knots); and
Page 341
SPECIES AT RISK
operators of vessels will be instructed to reduce speed and alter coarse to avoid collision
with a sea turtle.
Marine Fish
The most likely marine fish species at risk to occur within the Assessment Area is the Atlantic cod.
American eels may also migrate through the area, but the Assessment Area is considered marginal
habitat for the shark and wolffish species at risk.
Occurrences of potential effects on marine fish species at risk during construction and commissioning
of the Project arise from:
increases in total suspended solids;
habitat alteration;
blasting, and
noise during construction in water.
mortality of fish. One effect of increased levels of suspended solids is a reduction in the amount of light
transmitted through the water column. If elevated levels of suspended solids are sustained before or
during a plankton bloom, a decrease in primary productivity may result in the affected area. In turn, the
food supply for young fish and shellfish may be diminished. This may have localized effect on prey
selection in some fish species, including juvenile Atlantic cod.
Eggs and larvae of finfish and shellfish are generally more prone to physical damage from increased
levels of suspended sediment because they are passive drifters and cannot avoid the affected area like
the post-settlement life stages. Suspended sediment levels of 1,000 mg/L have caused mechanical
damage to herring larvae (Boehlert and Yoklavich 1984). Sublethal effects in several fish species have
been reported after several days of exposure to suspended sediment concentrations of approximately
650 mg/L or greater (Appleby and Scarratt 1989).
Observed sediments within the area to be dredged are comprised predominantly of sands and gravels
with limited fine material (i.e., silts and clays). Given this substrate composition, any re-suspended
sediments would be expected to settle through the water column relatively quickly. Hitchcock et al.
(1999) monitored the settlement of sediment from a number of dredging operations. The results
indicated that, in general, the majority of sediments settled within 10 to 15 minutes of release, and
coarse sands (>2 mm) and gravels settled out virtually instantaneously.
The sediments within the Assessment Area are not considered contaminated; therefore, there is little
concern of suspended sediments making contaminants more bioavailable.
Mitigations to reduce the level of suspended sediment during construction include:
use of a closed clamshell bucket to reduce the spill-over of the dredged material from the
bucket;
no side-casting of dredged material from the tug basin, it will be placed on a barge for use
as fill material on land;
use of washed rock for all fill material used in the construction of the tug basin;
use of drill casements to encapsulate drill cuttings during pile installation;
Page 342
SPECIES AT RISK
use of an EPP that will detail procedures to control site run-off, including the use of silt
curtains on land;
minimal movement of barge anchors (only when necessary) to minimize resuspension of
sediments;
use of water for hydrostatic testing that will meet or exceed criteria set out in the Fisheries
Act (Section 36) and the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and
Sewer Regulations, 2003, prior to discharge; and
releasing water used for hydrostatic testing in a controlled discharge.
The localized area of effect from suspended solids, resulting depositional area, and the high potential
for reversibility will limit the magnitude of effects on water quality.
Construction of the tug basin will cause habitat alteration by infilling and dredging. A variety of habitats
will be affected, ranging from nearshore areas of bedrock/boulder substrate with dense algal cover to
sand/gravel substrates with no vegetation from 10 to 20 m deep. To construct the tug basin, an area
will be infilled with boulders and covered with armour stone. This will alter the habitat especially in
areas of sand and gravel substrate. The area to be dredged is not likely to experience a change in
dominant substrate type, but an alteration of depth to achieve the 7 m required for the tug basin. The
total area of marine fish habitat to be lost within the footprint of the tug basin will not all be replaced by
the surface area created by the armour stone, so a marine fish habitat compensation plan will be
developed.
The interaction between habitat alteration and marine fish species at risk is most relevant to cod. Cod
are fished commercially within the Assessment Area as they migrate through the area in June and July
and again in the fall. The effect of the tug basin on adult cod migration will be negligible, since the
gillnet fishery occurs in deeper water offshore from the locations being considered for the basin.
Although no juvenile cod were observed during the 2006 or 2007 marine surveys, the wide range of
habitat within the two areas being considered for the tug basin is likely to provide some suitable habitat
for juvenile cod. Juvenile cod can occur within a variety of habitat types, so it is difficult to determine the
exact type of habitat that juvenile cod would use. However, given the abundance of cunner in the area,
it is more likely that juvenile cod will seek shelter in vegetation or rock crevices upon settlement. During
Project-specific baseline surveys, cunners were congregated near boulders and bedrock outcrops at all
depths, regardless of vegetation. Juvenile cod would be primary prey targets in these areas. Juvenile
cod would be more likely to occur over rocky substrates with dense vegetation or where cunners were
not abundant, such as gravel/cobble substrates or over low relief coralline algae beds (Kamenos et al.
2004). The boulder/armour stone surface area of the tug basin will colonize with a variety of algae
species and function as the original rocky habitats within a few years of construction. The long-term
change in habitat occurs were gravel/cobble and coralline algal substrates are filled in. If the tug basin
is constructed at the southern location, this will amount to the loss of approximately 9,393 m2 of such
habitats or approximately 9,339 m2 at the northern tug basin location.
Noise generated during construction activity (vessels, barges, dredging, blasting and pile driving) may
cause temporary avoidance of the area by marine fish species at risk. The noise from blasting
nearshore is expected to radiate into the marine environment and cause a startle response and
temporary avoidance of the area by some marine fish species at risk. Overpressure in excess of 100
kilopascals (kPa) can result in the mortality or injury of marine fish species at risk, as well as their eggs
and larvae. Marine fish species at risk are susceptible to the effects of underwater blasting. In finfish,
Page 343
SPECIES AT RISK
the swimbladder is the most likely site of damage, but the kidney, liver and spleen may also be
ruptured.
Any blasting that may be required near the shoreline will comply with DFOs Guidelines for Use of
Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky 1998). Underwater blasting guidelines
include:
backfilling a loaded charge hole;
no explosive to be detonated in or near fish habitat that produces, or is likely to produce, an
instantaneous pressure change (i.e., overpressure) greater than kPa (14 psi) in the
swimbladder of a fish; and
no explosive to be detonated that produces, or is likely to produce, a peak particle velocity
greater that 13 mm/s in a spawning bed during the period of egg production.
Use of underwater explosives will occur over 2 to 4 week period, with a blast every couple of days.
Blasting will be governed by a detailed blasting program (as per Wright and Hopkey 1998) and a series
of mitigation measures designed to avoid potential effects. The EPP will commit to use of the lowest
weight of explosives necessary to break rock, to the decking of charges and to stemming all blasting
holes.
Dredging will likely create avoidance by marine fish species at risk, possibly out to several hundred
metres. However, avoidance will be temporary and since dredging will occur at the same time as
blasting, it will likely pre-empt physical damage and mortality of marine fish species at risk as a result of
blasting.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of noise during construction include:
compliance with DFOs Guidelines for Use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters
(Wright and Hopky 1998) for any blasting required near the shoreline;
use of acoustic harassment devices or a ramp-up of detonation pressures to encourage
marine fish species at risk to move away from the blasting area; and
use of bubble curtains and other acoustic absorbents, where feasible to contain shock
waves.
10.5.5.2
Operation
Birds
During Project operations, the primary interaction with bird species at risk arise from increases in
marine vessel traffic, land-based vehicle traffic and general operational activity. The quality of habitat
for birds is diminished by vessel traffic, vehicle traffic and noise from the facility. Operational noise and
activity at the site could also cause avoidance of the Assessment Area by bird species at risk, although
marine bird species at risk can be attracted to lights, especially during periods of drizzle and fog,
potentially resulting in disorientation and collision. However, marine bird species at risk are not known
or expected to occur within the Assessment Area, so the risk of an interaction with lights is very low.
Likewise, since there are no records of any terrestrial bird species at risk within the Assessment Area,
the Assessment Area is considered marginal habitat at present. Considering the availability of adjacent
similar habitat, there is little risk to bird species at risk from operation of the Project.
Page 344
SPECIES AT RISK
All efforts will be taken during operations to minimize disturbance for bird species at risk if they happen
to occur within the Assessment Area. Directional lighting will be used on land and at the terminal,
wherever it is safe to do so.
Butterflies
Monarch butterflies are not known to occur within the Assessment Area and are considered a vagrant
species to the area. The Assessment Area is considered marginal habitat for monarch butterflies and
does not contain milkweed, their primary food source. If the monarch did occur within the Assessment
Area, potential effects from the Project could occur from vehicle traffic mortalities and general Project
activities decreasing habitat quality. The risk of mortalities will be mitigated by vehicle speed restrictions
on site.
Lichens
Boreal felt lichen is not known to occur within the Assessment Area, but some suitable habitat does
exist within the Assessment Area at present. However, most of the balsam fir habitat will be removed
during construction. The only potential interaction with the operation phase of the Project is therefore
preventing the boreal felt lichen from becoming established on any remaining suitable habitat. Air
emissions from vessels and power generation for this Project will contribute little to existing conditions
in the Assessment Area and are not believed to be the factor determining whether boreal felt lichen will
become established.
Marine Mammals
Potential effects on marine mammal species at risk during routine operations of the Project arise from:
avoidance;
noise.
mortality of marine mammals species at risk. The primary source of underwater noise during Project
operations will arise from tugs and LNGCs. Noise and vessel activity may cause avoidance of individual
marine mammal species at risk that may visit the area. However, if particular individuals frequent the
area, they may become habituated to vessels, which will lower the risk of avoidance. Fin whales, for
example, have demonstrated habituation to tour boats after several years of exposure (Watkins 1986).
In general, avoidance of the Assessment Area by marine mammal species at risk is not expected
during the operation phase of the Project. A vessel start-up to full power may illicit a startle response,
causing increased heart rate and breathing or a change in swimming path, but these responses are not
considered biologically critical (Erbe 2000). If the opportunity for feeding is presented to marine
mammal species at risk within the Assessment Area, they may tolerate noise they may otherwise avoid
while feeding (Wartzok et al. 2004) and then move out of the Assessment Area.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of avoidance during operations are:
Page 345
SPECIES AT RISK
A collision between a Project vessel and a marine mammal species at risk is very low within the
Assessment Area since the LNGCs will be under tug escort while in this area. Most severe and lethal
injuries are caused by vessels travelling at speeds greater than 7.2m/s (14 knots) (Laist et al. 2001).
Laist et al. (2001) concluded that serious injuries to whales are likely infrequent when vessel speeds
are less than 7.2 m/s (14 knots), and rare when vessel speeds are less than 5 m/s (10 knots).
Of the 11 species known to have been victims of vessel collision, fin whales are struck the most
frequently; right whales, humpback whales, sperm whales and gray whales are also commonly struck
(Laist et al. 2001). However, when these frequencies are corrected for species population size, the
North Atlantic right whale is struck most frequently per capita followed by the southern right whale
(Vanderlann and Taggart 2007), which is a function of the right whales tendency to linger at the surface
more than other species. Right whales are rare to Placentia Bay and are not expected within the
Assessment Area.
To mitigate against the risk of collisions between vessels and marine mammal species at risk:
As a comparison, source levels emanating from an idling VLCC (propellers not turning) will be
approximately 160 dB re Pa at 1 m and will likely decrease to approximately 120 dB re Pa at 100 m
(Hannay 2006). Whales may be disturbed by continuous noises above a criterion level of 120 dB re 1
Pa (rms), according to current NMFS standards. Based on the literature reviewed in Richardson et al.
(1995), it is apparent that most small and medium-sized toothed whales (e.g., harbour porpoise)
exposed to prolonged or repeated underwater sounds are unlikely to be displaced unless the overall
received level is at least 140 dB re 1 Pa. NMFS policy is under review and currently states that
cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsive sounds exceeding 180 dB re 1 Pa (rms) (NMFS 2000).
Acoustic emissions generated from Project vessels will be at a similar frequency as those used by
baleen whales for communication. Therefore, communication masking (emissions above ambient
levels) may occur throughout the Assessment Area. The biological relevance of these effects are
unknown, but animals would have to be repeatedly disturbed during important behaviour (e.g., nursing,
mating, foraging) or be permanently scared away from critical habitat (Erbe 2003) for them to be
biologically important.
The most likely activity of marine mammal species at risk at the head of Placentia Bay is feeding and
some communications may occur between baleen whales during feeding. Fin whales or harbour
porpoise could potentially feed on krill, capelin or squid within the Assessment Area. If feeding
efficiency is diminished as a result of masking, any effect will be temporary and of limited spatial extent.
The Assessment Area is not known to offer any unique habitat or food supply for marine mammal
species at risk (see Section 9.7.5)
The area of potential physiological damage to marine mammal species at risk is limited due to the
source level emitted within the Assessment Area. Thus, species that show behavioral avoidance,
including most baleen whales, some toothed whales and some pinnipeds, would not likely experience
threshold shifts or other physical effects (LGL 2005).
Richardson et al. (1995) hypothesized that a permanent threshold shift (PTS) of marine mammals
hearing would not likely occur with prolonged exposure to continuous anthropogenic sound of
approximately 200 dB re 1 Pa-m. This level of sound pressure is not expected to be produced while
Page 346
SPECIES AT RISK
the LNGCs are at berth or when transiting to and from the shipping lane, but this level is possible while
a laden LNGC is in transit. Even if a marine mammal species at risk is swimming alongside the vessel,
exposure to vessel noise will be far too short to cause PTS.
An increase in acoustic emissions from the Project is not expected to alter the prey composition or
abundance for marine mammal species at risk.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of noise during operations include:
vessels will be under the navigational control of a licensed marine pilot
Marine mammal species at risk are not expected to interact with the seawater intake or the cooling
water discharge.
Reptiles
Potential effects to the leatherback sea turtle during routine operations of the Project arise from:
avoidance;
noise.
Sea turtles are likely to avoid underwater noise (McCauley et al. 2000), which means they may be
deterred from the Assessment Area by noise from LNGCs and tugs. This is not expected to affect them
biologically as the Assessment Area is not considered a feeding ground for sea turtles, although their
primary prey, the jellyfish, may occur there. Jellyfish are transitory, with distributions changing within
and between years, so there is no more reason to expect jellyfish within the Assessment Area than any
other area of Placentia Bay.
Avoidance in fact may reduce the risk of potential physiological effects of noise exposure. Sea turtles
are not believed to use hearing for prey detection or navigation; therefore, masking is unlikely to be an
important issue for sea turtles exposed to pulsed sounds.
The risk of collision between Project vessels and the leatherback sea turtle is minimal within the
Assessment Area because of the reduced speed of vessels in the area. LNGCs will be under tug escort
while inside the Assessment Area and tug speed during routine operations will be restricted to 5 m/s
(10 knots).
To mitigate against the risk of collisions between vessels and leatherback sea turtles:
Leatherback sea turtles are not expected to interact with the seawater intake or the cooling water
discharge.
Page 347
SPECIES AT RISK
Marine Fish
Potential effects on marine fish species at risk during operation of the Project arise from:
noise from facility, tankers and tugs; and
seawater intake and cooling water discharge (water quality).
Cod is the most likely marine fish species at risk to occur within the Assessment Area. Cod is
considered a moderately sensitive species in terms of hearing (see Section 10.1 for a detailed
discussion). A measurable behavioural response has been determined in the range of 160 to 188 dB re
1 Pa (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994). Large tankers, at full steam, may have a source noise level of
170 dB re 1 Pa at 1 m and average fishing vessel emits noise between 127 and 146 dB at 100 m.
However, LNGCs will be under tug escort within the Assessment Area and the reduced speed will
greatly reduce the noise emitted. The carriers will not emit any propeller noise when they are at berth,
but auxiliary equipment may be in use that could contribute to underwater noise in the range of 20 to 65
dB (Akamatsu et al. 2003). This is not expected to have any effect on marine fish species at risk.
Most available literature indicates that the effects of noise on marine fish species at risk are transitory,
short-lived and if outside a critical period, are expected not to translate into biological or physical
effects. In most cases, it appears that behavioural effects on marine fish species at risk as a result of
noise should result in negligible effects on individuals and populations. The issue of primary concern is
the potential for interactions during particularly sensitive periods, such as spawning. There are no
known spawning areas for marine fish species at risk within the Assessment Area.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of noise during operations are:
Wastewater discharges to the ocean will consist of surface runoff from the site, domestic wastewater,
including treated sewage, and heated cooling water.
The primary concern for water quality is the effect of thermal plume resulting from cooling waste
discharge. The anticipated temperature differential of the influent seawater and the effluent seawater
varies between seasons (-0.5C to 16.5C) based upon the influent temperature of the seawater, but
the affected area is very localized (see Section 10.1). Consequently, it is estimated that the influent
seawater flow requirements will vary from a minimum of 3,359 m3/hour in the winter to a maximum of
7,351 m3/hour in the summer. There is some risk of plankton and ichthyoplankton mortality resulting
from rapid changes in temperature. The pelagic life stages of most species are tolerant and adaptive to
some fluctuation in temperature, given diel migrations between surface waters and depth, so the effect
will be determined by the magnitude of the increase in temperature and duration of exposure. Given the
dynamic nature of the Grassy Point area, any eggs and larvae within the thermal plume will be exposed
to increased temperatures for limited duration.
There are no known spawning grounds for marine fish species at risk within or near the Assessment
Area. The nearest known spawning area for any marine fish species at risk is the cod spawning area
near the mouth of North Harbour (Bolon and Schneider 1999) and, given the counterclock-wise
circulation of Placentia Bay, cod eggs and pelagic larvae may not occur within the Assessment Area.
Screens on the seawater intake pipe will comply with the Freshwater Intake End-of-pipe Fish Screen
Guideline (DFO 1995), or other conditions applied on the Certificate of Approval, to prevent entrainment
Page 348
SPECIES AT RISK
and impingement of fish greater than 25 mm. The intake pipe will be approximately 30 cm from the
seafloor, which will minimize the entrainment of eggs and larvae from the water column.
Regulated discharges from vessels are considered minimal risk for marine fish species at risk, given
their limited occurrence in the area. There is no eelgrass within the Assessment Area, therefore there is
no risk of green crab affecting nursery habitat of juvenile cod.
Mitigations to help reduce the effects of water management during operations include:
Regulations, 2003;
compliance with applicable guidelines of the Freshwater Intake End-of-pipe Fish Screen
Guideline; and
compliance with applicable Regulations of the Canada Shipping Act.
Changes in the quality of habitat for species at risk will occur during Project construction as a result of
increased levels of noise and vessel traffic within the Assessment Area. Construction noise and
activities that decrease the quality of habitat may lead to temporary avoidance by some species at risk.
With appropriate mitigation measures in place, physiological effects of blasting are not expected. The
monitoring program will ensure there are no marine mammal species at risk or sea turtles within 1000
m prior to each blast. There will be some loss of terrestrial habitat during construction that could
support terrestrial species at risk; this habitat, however, is marginal and there are no reported
occurrences of these species in the Assessment Area. The extent of these potential residual
environmental effects on Species at Risk during construction and commissioning is localized, of short
duration and reversible and is therefore not significant (Table 10.18).
During operation of the facility, a potential interaction with Species at Risk will be noise, which presents
the potential for avoidance. The potential for Species at Risk to occur within the Assessment Area is
low, with the exception of Atlantic cod, which will limit potential interactions. The risk of a collision
between Project vessels and sea turtles is minimized by a restriction of vessel speed within the
Assessment Area. Potential effects on Species at Risk are characterized as moderate in magnitude,
local in geographic extent, long term in duration, regular in occurrence and highly reversible. Therefore,
the RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the residual environmental effects during operation are
rated as not significant (Table 10.19).
Page 349
SPECIES AT RISK
Table 10.18
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Species at Risk (Construction and

Commissioning
Tug Basin
Construction
Jetty and Pipe
installation
Vessel Traffic
Leave patches of mature balsam fir along

shoreline and water bodies to retain potential
habitat for Red Crossbill and boreal felt lichen
Guidelines for Use of Explosives in Canadian
Fisheries Waters
Avoid nesting species at risk
Directional or shielded lighting to avoid
attraction of bird species at risk to lights
around infrastructure
Change in Habitat
Quality
Mortality
Maintain reasonable speeds to minimize

potential noise effects and mortality on
Species at Risk
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Closed clamshell dredge

On-land disposal of dredge spoils
Change in Habitat
Quality
Mortality
Waste
Management
Water
Management
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Human
Disturbance
Nesting Disturbance
2/1
2/1
2/3
2/1
2/1
1/1
2/3
2/3
2/3
na
Mammal monitoring prior to blasting
Compliance with EPP

Acoustic harassment devices or a ramp-up of
detonation pressures
Where feasible, bubble curtains and other
acoustic absorbents
Compliance with Freshwater Intake End-ofPipe Fish Screen Guideline
Mammal monitoring prior to blasting
Vessels will be manoeuvring at minimal
speeds approaching and departing the berth,
and
Vessels will be under the navigational control
of a licensed marine pilot
Compliance with the EPP for waste
management
Erosion control and silt curtains to be included
in EPP
All discharges will meet or exceed provincial
and federal guidelines
Avoid nesting species at risk
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of species at risk or habitat limited to the
Assessment Area with no permanent loss or degradation of critical habitat.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of potential habitat for species at risk within the
Assessment Area with no loss of critical habitat.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of habitat critical to the survival of species at risk.
Geographic Extent:
Assessment Area.
Duration:
Ecological/So
cio-economic
Context
Tug Basin
Dredging
Change in Habitat
Quality
Change in Habitat
Quantity
Direct Mortality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Reversibility
Construction and
Installation of
Project
Components
Land-based
Vehicular Traffic
Mitigation
Duration/
Frequency
Site Preparation
(clearing, blasting
grubbing and
grading)
Effect
Geographic
Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude
Evaluation
Criteria
for
Assessing
Residual
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
activity.
stream crossings).
Page 350
SPECIES AT RISK
Table 10.19
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Species at Risk (Operation)
Site Waste
Management
Change in Habitat
Quality
Vehicular Traffic
Change in Habitat
Quality
Direct Mortality
Change in Habitat
Quality
Maintenance/Repairs
Reduce speed to minimize potential

noise impacts on species at risk
Reduced speeds would reduce
potential any mortality
Minimize human presence and
machinery noise during nesting time
if species at risk are nearby
Change in Habitat
Quality
Vessels will be manoeuvring at

minimal speeds approaching and
departing the berth, and
navigational control of a licensed
marine pilot
Erosion control and silt curtains to
be included in EPP
All discharges will meet or exceed
provincial and federal guidelines
EPP
Conditions of permits
Reversibility
Water Management
Change in Habitat
Quality
Mortality
Mitigation
Duration/ Frequency
Marine vessel Traffic
Effect
Geographic Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude

2/1
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
na
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance of species at risk or habitat
limited to the Assessment Area with no permanent loss or
degradation of critical habitat.
2 = Moderate: Permanent alteration of potential habitat for
species at risk within the Assessment Area with no loss of
critical habitat.
3 = High: Permanent alteration of habitat critical to the survival
of species at risk.
Geographic Extent:
2 = Environmental effects extend beyond the Project footprint
but remain with Assessment Area.
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
activity.
stream crossings).
Duration:
Page 351
10.6
The atmospheric environment includes three areas that will be examined: climate, air quality and the
acoustic environment.
Climate is the average and variations in weather over a long period of time. Greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions can affect weather patterns with associated adverse effects on global and local scales. GHG
emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are typically associated with fuel
distribution, processing and combustion. Effects upon the atmospheric environment are typically given
in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq).
Air quality typically refers to the composition of the air with respect to the presence of five common
pollutants: sulphur dioxide (SO2); nitrogen oxides (NOx); carbon monoxide (CO); particulate matter
(PM); and ground-level ozone (O3). Generated, directly or indirectly, as by-products of industrial
activities and the burning of fossil fuels, these emissions have the potential to affect air quality. Effects
upon air quality are conventionally expressed in terms of these contaminants, and changes in their
concentration due to the Project activities.
Many of the activities associated with the Project have the potential to generate noise (e.g., the use of
heavy equipment). For the most part, noise is a nuisance that detracts from the enjoyment of a quiet
atmosphere. In severe cases, noise can cause sleep disturbance, anxiety, and consequent health
effects. It can damage the natural environment by alarming wildlife and affecting habitat. Potential
underwater noise effects on marine mammals are addressed in Section 10.3.
Environmental effects of the Project on the atmospheric environment, resulting from construction,
commissioning and operation are assessed in this section. Effects resulting from decommissioning are
assessed in Section 10.8. Cumulative environmental effects in consideration with other Projects and/or
activities, as well as accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events, are assessed in Chapter 11.
The atmospheric environment is considered a VEC because it is one of the most important components
of the environment, supporting the health and well-being of human as well as other ecosystem
components. In particular, it is included in this assessment because of regulatory interest in human
health and safety. The acoustic environment is included as a VEC due to concern with potential Project
noise emissions and their effect on sensitive receptors.
To assess the effects of the Project on the atmospheric environment in the region, the following
boundaries are identified.
10.6.2.1
The spatial boundary for climate aspects of atmospheric environment is the regional airshed potentially
influenced by Project activities. Climate components assessed include temperature, precipitation, winds
and sea levels.
The spatial boundary for the assessment of air quality is the approximate zone of influence of the
construction and operational activities associated with the proposed LNG facility. The Project site is
Page 352
2

2
3,250 m (including 1,250 m onshore and 2,000 m immediately adjacent to the shoreline) on the
western portion of Grassy Point. Potential air emissions are associated with construction, operation and
decommissioning of the marine terminal, tug basin, LNG storage tanks and supporting infrastructure.
The spatial boundary used for the atmospheric environment assessment will include the airshed and
potentially sensitive receptors (i.e., Arnolds Cove) affected by air emissions resulting from the Project
(Figure 10.8).
The spatial boundary for the assessment of the acoustic environment encompasses the Project site
and the most affected zones. The Assessment Area will include a distance of approximately 2,000 m
from the Project site, where Project-related noise levels are expected to fall to background levels. The
VEC spatial boundaries have also been developed in consideration of potentially sensitive receptors
and surrounding topography, which affects the attenuation of sound.
The temporal boundaries include construction and commissioning activities for all three phases (June
2008 to December 2014) and the subsequent start of operations for Phase 1 in June 2010 for an
estimated 50 years.
10.6.2.2
The administrative boundaries for the assessment of atmospheric environment pertain mainly to
regulatory limits on release of air contaminants of concern. These standards are set by regulatory
authorities to reflect environmental protection objectives, with the intent of being protective of air quality
as well as human and environmental health. The relevant regulatory criteria are described below. The
technical boundaries are limited to some extent by the degree of the detail available in the current
phase of engineering design. Although there are a number of details not yet decided, the nature of the
emissions of the proposed facility are sufficiently well known that conclusions can be made with
confidence based on professional judgment and experience with similar facilities.
Climate
Climate change is a global issue; however, in a national or global context, Project-related emissions of
GHG are very small. The Project is not expected to measurably contribute to climate change and will
therefore not result in significant environmental effects on climate. Therefore, respecting the importance
of climate change as a global issue, the assessment focused on mitigation and adaptive management
strategies aimed at minimizing Project-related GHG. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
has been in the process of executing clean-energy related projects; however, there are no set
regulations pertaining to GHGs provincially or federally. The quantities of GHG emissions resulting from
the Project will be estimated and considered in the federal and global context, consistent with the
guidance provided in CEA Agency (2003).
Page 353
Buildings
Gravel Road
Shipping Lanes
Berth Configuration
Tank Area
Roads
Air Quality Assessment Area
Newfoundland
Transshipment Terminal
Tug Basin
NOTES:
1. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING.
2. @ JACQUES WHITFORD, 2006.
Arnold's Cove
CLIENT:
PROJECT TITLE:
Grassy
Point

DRAWING TITLE:
Air Quality Assessment Area

Figure 10.8
AIR QUALITY
ASSESSMENT AREA
Jacques Whitford
SCALE:
1:55000
DRAWN BY:
0.375
Kilometres
0.75
EDITED BY:
CP
CP
DRAWING No.:
MAP FILE:
Air_Quality.mxd
DATE:
FEB 22, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
Air Quality
Air quality will be assessed in the context of Project-related emissions and ground-level concentrations
for the air contaminants of interest. The Project-related air contaminants of interest include:
particulate matter (PM, total suspended particulate (TSP) and dust);
particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10);
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5);
SO2;
NOx; and
CO.
Ambient air quality in Canada is primarily regulated by provincial governments. The federal government
has set objectives for air quality, which are taken into account by federal agencies in a project review.
These objectives form the basis for the air quality regulations of several provinces, including
Newfoundland and Labrador. The Newfoundland and Labrador regulated limits correspond to the upper
limit of the Maximum Acceptable category for air quality, which are set under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). The air quality guidelines of tolerable, acceptable, and
desirable levels, as defined under CEPA, will be used in the evaluation of significance. The maximum
tolerable level denotes a concentration beyond which appropriate action is required to protect the
health of the general population. The maximum acceptable level is intended to provide protection
against effects on soil, water, vegetation, visibility and human wellbeing. The maximum desirable level
is the long-term goal for air quality. Additional guidelines are under development by the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and, ultimately, this body will develop Canada-wide
Standards that harmonize the regulations in all jurisdictions. The National Ambient Air Quality
Objectives and the Newfoundland Ambient Air Quality Standards for specified contaminants of interest
are presented in Table 10.20 for reference.
Table 10.20
Newfoundland and Labrador Air Quality Regulations (Environment Act) and

Canadian Environmental Protection Act Ambient Air Quality Objectives
Pollutant and
units (alternative
units in brackets)
NO2 (g/m3)
SO2 (g/m3)
TSP (g/m3)
Averaging
Time
Period
1-hour
24-hour
Annual
1-hour
24-hour
Annual
24-hour
Annual
Newfoundland
Ambient Air
Quality Standards
at Reference
Conditions
400
200
100
900
300
60
120
60
(geometric mean)
PM2.5 (g/m3)
24-hour
25
PM10-2.5 (g/m3)
24-hour
50
Canada
Ambient Air Quality Objectives
Canada
Wide Standards
Maximum
Desirable
Maximum
Acceptable
Maximum
Tolerable
60
450
150
30
-
400
200
100
900
300
60
120
1,000
300
800
400
60
70
30
(by 2010, 98th
percentile over 3
consecutive
years)
-
Page 355
Pollutant and units

(alternative units
in brackets)
Averaging
Time
Period
Carbon Monoxide
3
(g/m )
1-hour
8-hour
1
Newfoundland
Ambient Air
Quality Standards
at Reference
Conditions
35,000
15,000
160
Oxidants oz
(g/m3)
8-hour
87
24-hour
Annual
1-hour
24-hour
15
5
Hydrogen sulphide
(g/m3)
Canada
Ambient Air Quality Objectives
Canada
Wide Standards
65
(by 2010,
based on 4th
highest annual
value, averaged
over 3
consecutive years)
-
Maximum
Desirable
Maximum
Acceptable
Maximum
Tolerable
15,000
5,000
100
35,000
15,000
160
20,000
300
30
-
50
30
-
For the purposes of this assessment, the term standards refers to the Newfoundland Ambient Air
Quality Standards as specified under the Newfoundland and Labrador Air Pollution Control Regulations
(Regulation 39/04).
Acoustic Environment
There are no specific provincial regulations pertaining to outdoor noise; however, noise guidelines set
in other provinces have been consulted for guidance. The Nova Scotia Department of the Environment
and Labour (NSEL) Guideline for Environmental Noise Measurement and Assessment sets a daytime
sound pressure level limit of 65 dBA measured as a 1-hour Leq, and a night time noise level of 55 dBA
as a 1-hour Leq (NSEL 1992). The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) Sound Level limits for
Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural) sets a sound level limit of 15 dBA above background for
stationary sources (OMOE 1995).
The Province of Albertas Energy and Utility Board (EUB) has developed a comprehensive regulatory
document called Directive 038: Noise Control. Directive 038 provides noise thresholds that should not
be exceeded by operating oil and gas facilities. Noise thresholds are represented as permissible sound
levels (PSLs), which is measured in dBA Leq and is an average A-weighted sound level over a nighttime
(2200 to 0700 hour) or daytime (0700 to 2200 hour) period. It is the maximum sound level that a facility
must not exceed at the nearest or most affected residence. The PSL is derived from a basic sound
level (BSL) of 35 dBA, in addition to a 5-dB allowance for industrial presence plus adjustments intended
to more accurately reflect specific aspects of the facility and the environment during normal operating
conditions. The PSL is assigned to a residence and is determined for the nearest or most affected
dwelling(s).
The proposed Project site is located in a rural area, which is likely characterized by background noise
produced from natural noise sources. Natural noise sources can occur continuously, temporarily and
seasonally. These sounds can include the sounds from birds, wildlife, insects, wind, and storm events.
Currently, there is little industrial activity or human habitation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
Project; however, there are potentially sensitive residential receptors in the community directly across
Arnolds Cove that will be considered in the assessment. The potential for noise during construction
and operation to cause environmental effects on the acoustic environment are assessed on the basis of
Page 356
expected sound pressure levels, frequency of occurrence, and the duration of the noise-related
activities.
While the general guidance provided in the various policy documents developed by the provincial and
federal governments on GHG emissions is useful, specific guidance is still being developed (CEA
Agency 2003). In the absence of specific regulatory guidance on CO2 emissions or ambient CO2
concentrations, a significant adverse residual environmental effect in terms of Project-related GHG
emissions for this assessment is considered to be a substantial increase to provincial/federal releases
(i.e., >1 percent of total Canadian CO2 emissions) during any specific phase of the Project. This is a
conservatively set threshold as climate change (the environmental effect of concern) is a global
phenomenon to which Newfoundland and Labrador is a small contributor in the national or global
context. This threshold recognizes that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is managing
provincial emissions in the context of national and international objectives.
A significant residual adverse environmental effect with respect to air quality is one that would result in
an exceedance of the regulated limits of the ambient air quality standards under the Newfoundland and
Labrador Air Pollution Control Regulations (Regulation 39/04) and/or the maximum acceptable limits
under the CEPA Ambient Air Quality objectives.
With no provincial noise guidelines in place, the NSEL and EUB noise guidelines are useful screening
tools to determine if further investigation is warranted. They can act as criteria from which predicted
and/or expected noise levels at receptors can be gauged. In addition, an increase of 10 dBA above
existing noise levels is considered significant because it represents a perceived doubling of the noise.
Therefore, a significant residual adverse environmental effect occurs where the Project increases the
noise levels at receptors more than 10 dBA levels prior to Project development. An increase less than
10 dBA above ambient noise level is typically considered not significant.
It is important to consider the possible interactions that could occur throughout each phase of the
Project, and the issues and concerns that are related to them. The primary Project activities that could
potentially interact, directly or indirectly, with atmospheric environment are:
site preparation (i.e., clearing, grubbing and blasting);
construction activities (e.g., equipment emissions);
routine land-based operations of facilities (i.e., noise, and emissions); and
marine operations (i.e., noise and emissions).
The interactions between the Project activities and the climate, air quality, and noise components of the
Atmospheric Environment VEC are summarized in Table 10.21.
Page 357
Table 10.21
Project Interactions with Atmospheric Environment


Construction of Pier (placement of offshore structures, driving or
Construction of the Tug Basin (infilling, blasting, dredging, placement of
armour stone).
Concrete Production
Operation
BOG Handling
Marine Structures
Vehicular Traffic
10.6.4.1
Change
in Climate
Change
in Air
Quality
Change in
Sound
Quality
Air Quality
During construction of the proposed LNG facility, air quality could potentially be affected due to
emissions associated with construction equipment operations (i.e., heavy earth-moving equipment),
vehicle traffic to and from the site, as well as on-site, and from the operation of marine vessels and
tugs/barges used for equipment deliveries.
Emissions of conventional air contaminants and GHG will result from the operation of off-road
construction equipment and a concrete batch plant at the construction site. There also exists the
potential for fugitive emissions of particulate matter (i.e., dust) to result from construction activities,
including clearing, grading and the movement/storage of aggregate or soil. The amount and type of
equipment used during construction will vary depending on the construction activity.
During commissioning, the purging and cool down of the lines, equipment and vessels, there will be
emissions of nitrogen and natural gas to the atmosphere; however, these activities will be short in
duration (an estimated 7 days per tank) and are not expected to be substantial. The use of nitrogen
Page 358
rather than LNG is a valid method to reduce the potential methane emissions from the cool down
process, but LNG will also have to be used.
Emissions of conventional air contaminants and GHG will result from the use of on-road vehicles used
to convey workers and construction equipment/materials to and from construction sites. Marine vessels
delivering personnel, equipment and materials to the site for use in the construction of the proposed
facility will also generate air emissions.
Construction will involve activities such as clearing, blasting and grubbing, grading, paving and erection
of the facility structures, which use equipment that emit sound. Sound emissions generated by
construction activities are usually of relatively short duration and are also localized at the LNG facility
site, although impulse pile driving in dock construction can affect a broader scale as the noises travel
across open water. The typical noise outputs at a distance of 15 m from the construction machinery
commonly used for these activities are listed in Table 10.22. The level of activity on construction sites
will vary with the various phases of construction.
Table 10.22
Typical Construction Equipment Noise

Construction Equipment
Earth-Moving
Loader
Bulldozer
Backhoe
Scraper
Grader
Materials Handling
Crane (mobile)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Vibrator
Stationary
Air Compressor
Generator
Impact Equipment
Jack Hammer
Pile Driver (impact)
Typical Noise Level at 15 m

(dBA)
85
85
80
89
85
83
85
82
76
81
81
88
101
Source: US Department of Transportation 2006.
10.6.4.2
Operation
Air Quality
Air quality may be affected during operation due to emissions of conventional air contaminants and
GHG. It is anticipated that the sources of potential emissions from the operation of the proposed facility
will be:
LNG power generation;
backup diesel generator;
backup diesel-driven fire water pumps;
Page 359
tug boats or other support vessels to LNGCs;

LNGC hotelling emissions (i.e., when the LNG vessel is at dock); and
on-land vehicle traffic.
Since the Project will not result in substantial emissions of other GHG, such as NOx or sulphur
hexafluoride, the environmental effects from these specific gases are not expected to be substantial
and are therefore not considered further in this assessment.
Noise generated during routine operations of the facility will originate primarily from vessels, including
tugs and LNGCs. Routine land-based operations are not expected to be audible outside the Project
footprint.
After identifying the potential interactions, issues, and concerns related to the Project, it is important to
consider and evaluate possible effects and methods of mitigation. The magnitude, geographic extent,
frequency, duration and reversibility of the environmental effect must be considered by Project phase.
10.6.5.1
Air Quality
Fugitive dust emissions from construction activities such as clearing, grubbing, blasting and similar
earth-moving activities are transient in nature and are dependent on many factors, such as the moisture
in the soil, the level of activity at a particular location and meteorological conditions at the time of the
construction activities. Given the soil types at the site and the proposed site activities, these emissions
are expected to be nominal, and are expected to occur intermittently. Traffic on paved and unpaved
roads and construction material handling activities like screening, grinding, and excavating can also
cause dust generation. Any potential for dust generation would likely occur during periods of high winds
or extreme dry periods and, as such, are expected to be of low frequency and short duration.
Particulate matter and air contaminants can also be generated from combustion gases from on-site
vehicles and operation of construction equipment. These emissions will be temporary, localized and
similar to those routinely generated at other large construction sites. It is nevertheless understood that
in the interest of industrial hygiene, and safety of on-site workers, efforts will be made to minimize
fugitive dust emissions. The specific types and frequency of dust control measures will be determined
by site conditions and in response to any specific requests from regulatory officials and/or members of
the public. The following is a discussion of typical dust suppression measures that have been used on
other construction sites and may be appropriate for this Project.
On paved roads, vacuum sweeping or flushing can be conducted periodically. As for unpaved roads,
treatment with a dust suppressant (i.e., water), or sealing the roadway can be effective mitigations.
Other associated transportation emissions can be mitigated by employing measures such as:
speed restrictions on roads;
minimizing the distance between transfer points;
tarping vehicles carrying fines;
Page 360
maintaining the vehicle body in a condition that prevents any leaks of aggregate material;
and
applying dust suppressant as needed to the material in the vehicle.
Another source of potential particulate emissions is material storage piles. In most cases, materials
remain undisturbed in storage; however, some control measures may be required. These measures
can include cleaning the area around the perimeter of the aggregate piles, preventing wind blowing
dust away from deposits of frequently shifted rubble (e.g., through moistening, protective walls, halting
work during unfavourable weather conditions), shielding infrequently accessed dumps from wind
exposure by covering with mats or tarpaulins, greening non-working faces of material piles with
vegetation, and applying dust suppressant as warranted.
During the commissioning of the LNG terminal, purging and cool-down of the LNG tanks, lines,
equipment and vessels, is necessary to remove oxygen and moisture and bring the LNG process
equipment to near normal operating temperature. For this LNG terminal, a combination of liquid
nitrogen and LNG will be used to achieve cool-down in two phases. By conducting cool-down in this
method, purging steps are minimized. Using liquid nitrogen also allows for safe discovery/repair of
leaks and lessens GHG emissions that would be associated with a complete LNG-based cool-down. All
nitrogen used for the cool-down will be vented to the atmosphere. Most, if not all, of the LNG used for
cool-down will also be vented to the atmosphere. Once the re-liquefication trains come online, the
venting of LNG vapour will slow and will completely stop once normal operating parameters are
reached.
The use of construction equipment during construction and commissioning has the potential to result in
increased sound levels at receptors, but the operation of such equipment is expected to be intermittent,
transient, and distributed over a wide area throughout the construction site, rather than concentrated in
one area. The largest expected source of sound emissions during marine construction and
commissioning of the facility is from pile driving during construction of the pier and trestle, which is
expected to be conducted during daylight hours. Blasting will be the loudest land-based activity, but the
noise is not expected to exceed ambient conditions within the Town of Arnolds Cove.
To assess the potential effects of pile driving on sound quality, sound pressure level modelling was
conducted using CadnaA version 3.6.117, a computer program capable of predicting noise levels at
specified receiver positions from a variety of noise sources. The standards given by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 9613 Attenuation of Sound during Propagation
Outdoors (ISO 9613) - were included in the noise prediction model. The influences of meteorology and
terrain and vegetation on sound attenuation in the local study area were considered.
Meteorological factors, such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction influence sound
propagation. The effects of wind on outdoor sound propagation during different weather conditions
could cause large variations in Project-related sound levels measured at a receptor. The ISO 9613
noise model simulates downwind propagation under a mildly developed temperature inversion, both of
which enhances sound propagation and provides a worst case representation of potential effects. For
the noise prediction model, a temperature of 10 C and a relative humidity of 70 percent were assumed.
The temperature was selected based on what is typically recommended as a noise model input. The
relative humidity was assumed to be 70 percent because this condition enhances sound propagation.
Page 361
Factors such as terrain conditions, types of vegetation and ground cover can all affect the absorption
that takes place when sound waves travel over land. The land surrounding the Project site varies in
elevation, affecting attenuation of Project-related noise. Terrain data were used in noise modelling to
accurately depict the local study area.
For the purposes of noise simulation modelling, 12 pieces of heavy construction equipment/vehicles
were selected as operating within the Project site. Actual equipment used on site might differ from
those modelled. Sound levels were predicted in the Town of Arnolds Cove, as it has the closest and
potentially most affected residential receptors. Potential receptors along the coast of the community of
Arnolds Cove were predicted to experience noise levels in the approximate range of 50 to 55 dBA.
Since the construction will be localized and of relatively short duration, and at relatively low levels at the
nearest community, construction noise is not expected to cause adverse environmental effects, and is
not expected to act cumulatively with the construction of other planned developments.
A permanent access road will also be used throughout Project construction and operations. Noise will
be generated from heavy trucks traveling along the permanent access road. Traveling vehicles are best
represented as moving point noise sources. A noise contour map cannot accurately portray noise
attenuation from a moving point source. Noise attenuation from a heavy truck at any given point along
the permanent access road is shown in Figure 10.9. As the surrounding topography changes along the
access road, terrain data were not considered in this analysis and, therefore, noise attenuation may be
greater than shown in Figure 10.9.
Figure 10.9
Noise Attenuation from Heavy Truck Traffic
Predicted noise levels drop to approximately 50 dBA at a distance of approximately 1,000 m from the
moving point source. Multiple vehicles travelling on the permanent access road at one time could cause
increased noise levels in the area surrounding the access road.
Since the construction phase of the Project will be producing the most noise, it is important to consider
the mitigation strategies that would lower the potential of exceeding provincial noise guidelines. These
mitigation measures include (Thalheimer 2000):
schedulling changes: performing work that is less noisy during sensitive time periods (i.e.,
no blasting at night);
Page 362
equipment usage: not only restricting the type and number of equipment used (e.g.,
minimize blasting), but ensure that they are well maintained with proper mufflers, engine
enclosures, intake silencers and power necessary for the job;
stationary construction equipment: place stationary construction equipment as far away as
possible from sensitive receptors and employ acoustical shielding when possible;
path controls: using permanent or semi-permanent noise barriers, curtains, or enclosures to
stifle noise;
monitoring: start a regular monitoring schedule carried out by trained technicians to ensure
noise compliance;
institute a noise complaint process for concerned or disturbed residents; and
traffic management: includes modification of speed limits and limitation of traffic in and
around the site.
10.6.5.2
Operation
Air Quality
The LNG tanks will supply fuel to power the re-liquefaction system power turbines. LNG vaporized
using a firetube water-glycol heater, water-propylene glycol (water-glycol) pumps and an LNG vaporizer
(shell and tube heat exchanger) using the water-glycol as the heat transfer medium. This process
results in emissions as outlined in Table 10.23.
Table 10.23
Estimated Fuel Gas Heater Emissions
PM10
CO
SOx (<0.5% wt. Sulphur in Fuel)
Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC) (methane + non-methane)
NOx
CO2
H2O (Water)
Total Kg/Year @ 100% Firing Rate

17
630
N/A
70
2,241
2,050,385
1,817,542
Natural gas is the only fuel with negligible sulphur, carbon monoxide and particulate matter produced
during combustion. NOx will be controlled to a nominal level through the use of low-NOx burners.
Minor contributions to facility emissions are produced by the diesel fire pump and the emergency diesel
generator which are maintained as backup and emergency units during an accident, malfunction, or
unplanned event such as a power failure or a fire. While these are not expected to operate frequently,
they are tested for operational readiness every month for a short duration (approximately 30 minutes)
and may therefore release combustion gases and particulate matter during testing. The combustion
gases will consist of NOx, CO, CO2, and SO2. The SO2 is produced from the sulphur content of the
diesel fuel used in the backup diesel generator and fire water pumps.
There will be a flare to handle process upsets and emergency conditions. During normal operating
conditions, only the pilot and purge gas will be combusted and exhausted at the flare. The flare height
and heat released when combusting the gases will be sufficient so as to prevent large ground-level
concentrations of exhaust products.
Page 363
It is anticipated that a vessel will arrive every 3 to 3.5 days to handle cargo at the facility initially, and as
many as two per day when fully operational (400 vessels per year). It is assumed that each vessel will
be assisted by two tug boats for an assumed three-hour period to dock at the pier (the time required will
likely be less). Following docking, each vessel will require approximately 12 to 20 hours to offload the
LNG, and then are assumed to be assisted by two tug boats for a three-hour period to leave the facility.
Each LNG vessel is estimated to remain in the Assessment Area for a total of 24 hours. A detailed ship
emissions inventory for the proposed Project is summarized in Table 10.24.
During operation of the facility, on-road vehicle traffic to the facility will result from workers travelling to
and from the facility, and from the delivery of supplies to the facility. This traffic is expected to travel
over the same roadways as previously described for the on-road traffic anticipated during construction
and commissioning activities.
Where on-site vehicular traffic is concerned, mitigative strategies to reduce potential air quality effects
include using fuels with low sulphur content, applying dust suppressants regularly on unpaved
roadways, paving roadways where appropriate and following recommended equipment and vehicle
maintenance schedules. Similarly, where marine traffic and loading/unloading operations are
concerned, following scheduled maintenance is also crucial. In addition, natural gas-fired engines will
be used where possible and ship hotelling emissions will be minimized by reducing the amount of time
ships are idle at the terminal; that is, the high demand to keep ships in transit, rather than at dock, will
serve as incentive to minimize the hotelling periods.
After the construction and commissioning phase of the Project is completed, there will be no emissions
associated with purging and cool-down of the lines, equipment, and vessels. Under normal operating
conditions, venting of LNG vapour will completely stop; therefore, mitigative action is not required.
Regular maintenance is required for vent gas heater and fuel gas heater and a preventative
maintenance program will also be developed. LNG will be used to power the vent gas heating system
and the water-glycol heater system.
As per the latest available NPRI results for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately
0.008 percent, 0.034 percent, 0.65 percent and 0.009 percent of the annual total from all emission
sources for PM10, SO2, NOx and CO respectively, is expected to be contributed by the proposed
Project. Similarly, the annual amounts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions given off by the proposed project
are expected to be of minimal impact to the Provincial total.
Page 364
Table 10.24
Ship Emission Inventory
NOx
Tugboat Assist #1
Tugboat Assist #2
Ship Manoeuvring Propulsion Engine
(Note B)
Ship HotellingAuxiliary Engines
Only
Total
CO
Tugboat Assist #1
Tugboat Assist #2
(Note B)
Ship HotellingAuxiliary Engine Only
Total
SO2
Tugboat Assist #1
Tugboat Assist #2
(Note B)
Total
PM10
Tugboat Assist #1
Tugboat Assist #2
(Note B)
Total
Notes
A.
B.
Power
(kW) Note A
Load
Factor Note A
Emission
Factor
(g/kW hr)
- Note A
Operating
Emission
Rate
(g/hr)
Operating
Emission
Rate
(g/s)
Duty
Cycle
(hrs/yr)
Annual
Emission
(ton/yr)
Annual
Emission
(tonne/yr)
1,532
1,532
0.31
0.31
13.00
13.00
6,173.96
6,173.96
1.71
1.71
2,400
2,400
16.33
16.33
14.82
14.82
940
0.45
17.08
7,224.84
2.01
2,400
19.11
17.34
1,985
0.67
13.90
18,486.31
5.14
8,000
162.98
147.89
214.74
194.87
1,532
1,532
0.31
0.31
2.5
2.5
1,187.30
1,187.30
0.33
0.33
2,400
2,400
3.14
3.14
2.85
2.85
940
0.45
2.2
930.60
0.26
2,400
2.46
2.23
1,985
0.67
1.1
1,462.95
0.41
8,000
12.90
11.70
21.64
19.64
1,532
1,532
0.31
0.31
0.63
0.63
299.20
299.20
0.08
0.08
2,400
2,400
0.79
0.79
0.72
0.72
940
0.45
11.1
4,695.30
1.30
2,400
12.42
11.27
1,985
0.67
6.16
8,192.49
2.28
8,000
72.23
65.54
86.23
78.24
1,532
1,532
0.31
0.31
0.3
0.3
142.48
142.48
0.04
0.04
2,400
2,400
0.38
0.38
0.34
0.34
940
0.45
1.57
664.11
0.18
2,400
1.76
1.59
1,985
0.67
0.75
997.46
0.28
8,000
8.79
7.98
11.30
10.16
All power loads, load factors and emission factors were taken from "Current Methodologies and Best Practices in
Preparing Port Emission Inventories" (ICF Consulting 2006).
Emission factors for NOx, CO, SO2 & PM10 for ship manoeuvring were adjusted for low load, as per "Current
Methodologies and Best Practices in Preparing Port Emission Inventories" (ICF Consulting 2006).
Definitions:
Ship Manoeuvring - The time during which a ship is being assisted to dock by tugboats. The ships speed is greatly
reduced and propulsion engines are still in operation.
Ship Hotelling - The time during which a ship is at dock and only auxiliary engines are in operation.
Assumptions Made:
10% power load during ship manoeuvring.
>1 auxiliary engine per LNG carrier.
400 LNG ships per year.
Auxiliary engine emission factors based on the use of Marine Diesel Oil (MDO).
Propulsion engine emission factors based on the use of Residual Oil (RO).
Page 365
Project operations noise was modelled using CadnaA to assess the potential effects on receptors at
Arnolds Cove. In the absence of detailed equipment sound power level information provided by the
manufacturers, noise impact assessments (NIAs) of similar facilities were consulted to obtain an
accurate representation of noise produced by operations at an LNG terminal. Sound level
measurements recorded at several facilities showed a fairly consistent level of 55 dBA at a distance of
300 m from the Project site (Jacques Whitford 2004). This value was then back-calculated to determine
an overall sound power level that represented operational noise, which was used in modelling.
Predicted noise levels at the Arnolds Cove receptors were in the range of 35 to 40 dBA.
Sound emissions from the marine vessels would mainly be generated by the operation of the vessels
engines. The terminal will be situated approximately 2,200 m to the north of Bordeaux Island Light,
extending into the waters of Come By Chance. The terminal is situated on the opposite side of the
Grassy Point finger land with respect to the Arnolds Cove community. Measurable noise attenuation
will occur because the terminal and potentially sensitive receptors have a separation distance of at
least 2.5 km. It is expected that the increase in ambient sound pressure levels due to sound emissions
from marine vessels using the pier will be less than 3 dBA, and the increase is thus not expected to be
noticeable. Ships at dock are not significant sources of noise other than the hotelling engines, generally
much smaller than the main propulsion systems, and not perceptible beyond a few hundred metres.
Operational noise will occur during unloading of LNG and shipping activities necessary for
transshipment of the product. To reduce noise effects resulting from Project operations, the following
mitigative measures will be implemented:
insulating shielding should be used on the LNG transfer line, if required;
manufacturers noise control treatments, if supplied with equipment, will be used;
containing major noise generating equipment within shelters where practical; and
minimize ship idling time during unloading and loading phases of the operation.
In addition, buildings that house equipment that generate substantial noise will include:
wall sound transmission class (STC) of at least 50 to reduce noise and through increase
insulation to reduce space heating energy use;
minimal amount of windows;
non-operable windows;
appropriate perimeter seals on the exterior doors;
metal insulated exterior doors for higher STC values;
building ventilation such that doors and windows do not need to be open; and
silencing elements on building ventilation equipment.
The magnitude of emissions resulting from the construction and operation of the Project will be a small
fraction of the Provincial total, and the possible effects to ambient air quality resulting from the Project
are not expected to be discernible from current levels in the area. Any short-term, measurable
environmental effects to air quality from dust and noise are likely to be localized to the specific area
Page 366
being worked on during construction activities, and relatively localized to the Grassy Point area during
operation. Modelling has demonstrated that significant effects will not be experienced in Arnolds Cove
(i.e., the closest residential receptors) as a result of Project-induced noise.
The specific types and application of noise control measures will be determined by site activities and in
response to any specific requests from regulatory officials and/or members of the public. A summary of
the effects of the Project on the Atmospheric Environment during construction and proposed mitigations
to reduce effects is provided in Table 10.25
Table 10.25
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Atmospheric Environment

(Construction and Commissioning)
Dust Generation
compliance with EPP

equipment maintenance
development of noise reduction
measures to suit site activities
and regulatory/public requests
limit activity to day where
feasible, especially material
deliveries
equipment maintenance
control vehicle movements
control material handling
development of dust
suppression measures to suit
site activities and
regulatory/public requests
pave areas of high traffic usage
respond to visible incidents
Reversibility
On land Construction
Pile Driving Noise

Equipment Noise
Mitigation
Duration/ Frequency
Construction of Pier
Structures
Effect
Geographic Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude

1/3
1/2
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Within normal variability of baseline conditions.
2 = Moderate: Measureable increase/decrease but within standard objectives.
3 = High: Singly or as a combination contributing to exceedances of standard
objectives.
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Geographic Extent:
within Assessment Area.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
Duration:
human activity.
Page 367
The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that based on a consideration of the magnitude,
frequency, and duration of air emissions and sound emissions associated with the Project, the overall
environmental effects of the Project activities independently or together on the atmospheric
environment are rated as not significant. A summary of the effects of the Project on the atmospheric
environment during operations and proposed mitigations to reduce effects is provided in Table 10.26.
Table 10.26
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix: Atmospheric Environment (Operation)
Implementing noise and

emission controls (i.e., low
NOx burners)
Compliance with municipal,
provincial and federal
guidelines
Reversibility
Ship Emissions
Facility Emissions
Equipment Noise
Mitigation
Duration/ Frequency
Terminal Operation
Effect
Geographic Extent
Project Activity
Magnitude

3/3
KEY
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Within normal variability of baseline conditions.
2 = Moderate: A positive or negative change that may be measureable but is
within the standard objectives.
3 = High: Changes that result in persistent or regular exceedances of
standard objectives, or which contribute to such exceedances.
Geographic Extent:
within Assessment Area.
Duration:
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
human activity.
Page 368
MARINE TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY
10.7
Marine transportation and safety includes the movement of commercial vessels and vessels reporting
to the Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) centres in accordance with the Eastern
Canada Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) Zone Regulations. Eastern Canada VTS Zone receives
information from vessels entering Canadian waters. Placentia Traffic is the local VTS Zone centre,
monitoring information from and for vessels in the waters from Calling-in-Points 1E, 1S or 1W, at the
entrance to the traffic separation scheme (TSS) commencing off Cape St. Marys. It does not include
the movement of all fishing vessels, small craft and pleasure craft, as the VTS Regulations only require
that vessels over 20 m in length report their movements to the traffic centre. Normal traffic into the
Placentia Bay and Approaches includes very large crude carriers (up to 350,000 tonnes deadweight,
although vessels with the capability of 400,000 tonnes have been berthed), smaller coastal tankers,
chemical tankers, general cargo vessels, container ships, ferries, bulk carriers, tugs, tugs with barges
or other towed units, government vessels, fishing vessels, passenger vessels and pleasure craft.
A full discussion of commercial fisheries and potential for conflicts with Project vessels is found in
Section 10.2. This section includes a full suite of mitigation practices which are designed to lessen
potential for resource conflict, but will ultimately improve marine safety as well. While they are not
repeated in this section, it is understood that they are intrinsically linked to this VEC. A description of
the existing marine traffic within Placentia Bay is presented in Section 9.12. Further discussion on
marine safety is included in the assessment of accidental events (Section 11.1) and cumulative effects
(Section 11.4). Effects resulting from decommissioning are assessed in Section 10.8.
Marine transportation and safety is a VEC in consideration of potential effects of Project-related marine
traffic and marine infrastructure on existing patterns of marine transportation and associated
navigational safety concerns. Vessel traffic in Placentia Bay will be increased by Project construction
vessels, as well as those involved during the operational phase (LNGCs, tugs, pilot vessels). Marine
safety and potential conflicts between Project vessels and local fishers was raised as a concern in the
open houses held by the Proponent. It was also identified as a public/regulatory concern in the
Environmental Assessment Track Report (Transport Canada and DFO 2007). By fully assessing
marine transportation and safety in this CSR, the Proponent will be able to demonstrate how concerns
raised by stakeholders and the public can be fully addressed through proper Project planning,
communication and mitigation.
10.7.2.1
The spatial boundary for the assessment of marine safety is the area of Placentia Bay north of the
approach to Long Harbour (Figure 10.10). Specifically, the proposed terminal will be situated
approximately 2,200 m to the northward of Bordeaux Island Light, extending into the waters of the Port
of Come By Chance to the 15-m charted water depth. Transport Canada, Marine Safety has identified
and recommends the use of the TSS and Routing System in the Eastern Channel for the use of marine
traffic entering Placentia Bay.
Page 369

and Storage Terminal
A1
B1
B
Shipping Lanes
0
10
Kilometres
CLIENT:
1:300000
OCT 29, 2007

CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CP
PROJECT TITLE:
Grassy Point (Placentia Bay) Liquefied

Natural Gas Transshipment Terminal
REV. No.
EDITED BY:
CP
DRAWING No.:
N/A
DRAWING TITLE:
Marine Transportation and Safety Assessment Area

Figure 10.10
MAP FILE:
Marine_Transp_Safety.mxd
This system is not included in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) routing documentation.
Vessels destined for berths in Placentia Bay from foreign ports will enter the TSS and proceed to the
Pilot Boarding Station, in the vicinity of Red Island, where the pilot of the St. Johns, Holyrood and
Placentia Bay Pilots will embark all vessels that are required to use the services of a pilot in accordance
with the Pilotage Regulations.
The Compulsory Pilotage Area, as defined in the Pilotage Act and Regulations, is bounded on the
seaward side by a line from St. Croix Point on Merchant Island to the Pilot Boarding Station at 4720N,
5403W to Ragged Point at the south end of Red Island to Eastern Head. This pilotage area and
waterway includes the terminals and facilities in Come By Chance and Placentia Bay, north of this line.
Five anchorages are charted in the waters of the port of Come By Chance.
The waters of the port of Come By Chance are bounded by a line from the south tip of Woody Island to
Long Island Point Light to James Point on Bar Haven Island.
Vessels departing the Grassy Point Terminal will proceed along the routing until the PCC Buoy, where
they will enter the TSS on the western side (outbound) traffic lane and continue to the end of the TSS.
In strong southwest wind conditions, Pilots may elect to disembark at an approximate position 47 o
23.5N; 54o 26 W, some 3.5 miles north of the Pilot Boarding Station.
Construction activities for Phase 1 of marine construction are expected to begin in 2008 and will
continue until commissioning in 2010. The temporal boundaries for the assessment of marine
navigation are developed in consideration of the fact that vessels are present in Placentia Bay on a
year-round basis, and LNGCs will also be making deliveries to, and loading LNG at, the terminal
consistently throughout the year. It is anticipated that a vessel will arrive every 3 to 3.5 days to handle
cargo at the facility in Phase 1 of the Project.
LNG will be transhipped to smaller LNGCs by ship-to-ship transfer for on-carriage to US Atlantic Coast
ports and to ports in the St. Lawrence. Following completion of all phases of terminal construction,
three marine terminals will be in place, with the capability of transhipping LNG between carriers and
from ship to shore. At that point in time, the Project will receive approximately 400 LNGCs per year.
Following the commencement of terminal operations, the facility will be functional 24 hours per day and
seven days per week, year round. Times for vessels on route from the TSS are included in Table 10.27.
Table 10.27
Time on Route from the Common Position in the Traffic Separation Scheme
Distance
Nautical Miles
34.5
Time on
Route (hrs)
2.5
21.3
2.4
1.2270o Grassy Point
4.8
0.7
Berth
1.8
0.6
From Position
o
14278 Cape St.

Marys Light
Pilot Boarding
Station
1.5S Calling-in
Point 9
1.2270o Grassy
Point
To Position
Pilot Boarding Station,
commence escort tug
transit
Escort Tug securing
position
Remarks
Slowing from Sea Speed to Manoeuvring
over the second hour. Embarking pilot.
Allowing a maximum escort speed of 5.1
m/s. Tugs make fast in vicinity of Callingin Point 8.
Escort speed after tugs make fast 4.1
m/s.
Allowing time for vessel to swing off
berth. (not making allowance to make
fast).
Total time on route

6.2
Note:
A Vessels securing to existing terminals in Placentia Bay will commonly use eight lines forward and eight lines aft. The
mooring process will take approximately 1.25 to 1.75 hours. Vessels assumed sea speed is 19.5 knots and Full Speed,
manoeuvring at 14 knots.
Page 371
10.7.2.2
Administrative and Technical Boundaries
Construction of the terminals and cargo handling at the terminals will comply with the requirements of
the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), the Canada Labour Code (Part II) and Regulations, and
the Marine Transportation Security Act and Regulations. Movement of vessels in Canadian waters is
governed by the Regulations made under the CSA and the CSA (2001), the Oceans Act, the Canada
Marine Act and Regulations, the Pilotage Act and Regulations, and the Coasting Trade Act. Routing of
vessels in Canadian waters is monitored by MCTS, assisted by Pilots and permitted by Canada Border
Services Agency (Customs). Movement of the vessels in the local area, priorities for pilotage and
anchorages will be determined with the marine pilots for Placentia Bay and the APA following
consultation with the users. Transport Canada, Canadian Coast Guard and the APA have jurisdiction
over Marine Navigation within Placentia Bay and Approaches. Transport Canada has responsibilities
for the Public Harbour of Come By Chance.
The IMO is the international body that, through its Conventions, produces resolutions that, when ratified
by member States, are the least standards to which the member States must adhere when developing
their regulations. The Safety of Life at Sea Convention is constantly being modified, and the Canadian
regulations are structured accordingly. The CSA (came into force on July 1, 2007) is empowered to
develop regulations and where the conventions of IMO so direct, the regulations meet or exceed the
IMO standards.
Classification societies, (e.g., Lloyds Register, American Bureau of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas)
oversee the construction of vessels and develop standards at least to the standards required by IMO.
International Safety Management (ISM) Code is a mandatory process for overseeing the safety of
operations and environmental protection aboard ships.
Available information on vessel transportation and safety within Placentia Bay is considered sufficient to
conduct the Project assessment.
A significant adverse effect on marine transportation and safety is one that either results in a substantial
increase in economic costs or loss for Project and non-Project related marine transportation, or a
reduction in the level of safety or service currently within Placentia Bay that is unacceptable to the
relevant regulatory authorities.
The primary interactions between the Project and existing marine transportation and safety include
increased potential for interactions with marine vessels and potential navigation hazards.
10.7.4.1
The construction of the marine terminal will result in increased marine traffic to and from the Grassy
Point area. As a result there is potential for interference with other marine traffic in the area. Depending
on the construction process, some of the vessels that could be employed could include:
small cargo vessels or barges;
work barges and floating cranes; and
Page 372
small craft for transportation of workers, supplies and for stand-by safety vessels.
10.7.4.2
Operation
Vessel traffic during operation of the facility will also increase. Operations at the facility will be 24 hours
per day and seven days per week, year round. The number of vessels at the facility will depend on
client demand, capacity of the vessels, and LNG commodity markets. It is anticipated that there will
initially be a vessel handling cargo at the facility every 3 to 3.5 days or 104 per year. Once the full
facility is built (3 jetties and 8 tanks), 400 vessels per year are expected, or more than one per day.
10.7.4.3
Summary
In summary, these phases of the Project can result in effects on marine transportation and safety and
may be categorized as:
interactions with marine vessel traffic; and
navigational hazards.
Potential environmental effects by project activity are summarized in Table 10.28.
Table 10.28
Potential Project Interaction with Marine Transportation and Safety


and equipment)
Marine Construction (infilling, blasting, driving or drilling/grouting of piles, placement of
decking and seawater pipes)
Construction of the Tug Basin (infilling, blasting, dredging, placement of armour stone).
Concrete Production
vehicle crossings)
Operation
BOG Handling
Marine Structures
Vehicular Traffic
Maintenance/Repairs (tanks, pier, road etc.)

Interactions
Navigation
with Marine
Hazards
Vessel Traffic
Page 373

10.7.5.1
Prior to construction, the Proponent will submit an application to the Navigable Waters Protection
(NWP) Branch of Transport Canada, which administers the NWPA. The NWPA approval process will
ensure that construction activities do not represent an unacceptable risk to navigation and may
stipulate temporary lights or other navigation aides to be used during the construction period. NWP will
monitor the construction to ensure that any conditions of approval are met.
Notices will be issued about construction at the LNG Terminal Site and dependant on the construction
operations and the operational manuals, any restrictions that are to be in place when vessels are
approaching or working at the terminal. The Harbour Master, through Placentia Traffic, may require
that vessels passing the site, pass at slow speed, or place any other restriction on the movement of
vessels in the harbour. Any restriction placed on the movement of vessels in the vicinity of the
construction will be promulgated by MCTS in either the Notices to Mariners or Notices to Shipping.
Pilots, having local knowledge of the operations in the Placentia Bay and Approaches, will advise
Masters of all vessels requiring their services of these restrictions.
Tugs, floating cranes, work barges, crew vessels, supply vessels and cargo vessels may be employed
at various stages of the construction phase. All vessels will be subject to the standards and regulations
made under the CSA, Labour Code, and Oceans Act. The movement of the vessels will be subject to
the Practices and Procedures for Public Harbours, made under the Canada Marine Act and
administered by Transport Canada.
Provided the controls and mitigating measures described above are undertaken, Project-related effects
on marine transportation during Project construction are assessed as not significant and considered to
be unlikely.
10.7.5.2
Operation
While the increase in vessel traffic from this Project as a percentage of the total current traffic is
approximately 100 percent, the relative number of ships using Placentia Bay is low compared to other
Canadian ports. Halifax Harbour, reported 1,720 calls in 2006, the port of Sept les, Quebec reported
650 commercial vessels and the port of Vancouver reported 2,610 commercial vessels on average in
the past two years. For further comparison, the Port of Rotterdam (a major international port) reports
31,077 vessel calls in 2006. From these numbers, it is apparent that the traffic destined for Placentia
Bay, when all the terminals are fully operational, is small by comparison. The increase in traffic is not an
operational concern, and the risks associated with the increase are low.
In addition, a number of measures will be implemented, if not already in place in Placentia Bay, to
ensure interactions between the Project and existing marine vessel traffic are mitigated. These are
discussed below and include:
use of support vessels;
TSS and Routing;
compulsory pilotage area;
Protocols for icing on ships;
Page 374
MCTS;
ship clearance protocols;
vessel quality and crew qualifications;
simulation and safety;
arrival and departure criteria;
criteria for cargo handling operations; and
port and terminal operations manuals.
10.7.5.3
Use of Support Vessels
Tugs will escort LNGCs through the Routing and assist in the berthing and sailing at the terminals.
LNGCs berthing at the LNG terminal will require the services of tugs of a specified manoeuvrability,
bollard pull and horsepower. The tugs at present providing the service to the terminals in Come By
Chance may not meet the needs, both in power and numbers, of the Grassy Point Facility. The Project
anticipates the use of dedicated tugs for the escort and manoeuvring of the LNGCs. Restrictions on
vessel movements to the berth and departure from the berth during high winds will be considered, as
LNGCs experience large windage forces, and are therefore subject to making leeway, particularly at
slow speeds. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has committed to undertake simulation studies that will identify
the forces required to overcome the wind and hydrostatic forces which will be experienced in the vicinity
of the terminals by the LNGCs. These simulation studies will also serve to exhibit the safety of the LNG
carriers manoeuvring to and from the berths, with and without tugs.
The number of tugs, and the power and bollard pull required for the tugs, will be determined in part by
the simulation required for the TERMPOL review. The same tugs that are to be used to assist in the
berthing and departure of the vessels will be used during the escorted part of the transit.
Line handling vessels will be required to carry the mooring lines from the ship to the quick release
mooring hooks on the jetty and the mooring dolphins.
10.7.5.4
Traffic Separation Scheme and Routing
In Placentia Bay, concentration and congestion of traffic is mitigated by the TSS and the Routing
through the waters of Placentia Bay. The TSS, with a separation zone between the two lanes, reduces
the likelihood of vessels meeting in an end-on situation.
Berth availability dictates the presence of vessels in the TSS and the Routing. If no berth is available at
the estimated time of arrival at the terminal, vessels will not be permitted to enter the Routing, and no
pilot will be available for the vessel.
The operation of vessels navigating in Canadian waters, including the TSS and the Routing is governed
by the Collision Regulations. The Regulations cover all aspects reducing the likelihood of a close
quarters situation of vessels, and apply to all vessels. Rules within the Regulations relate to the
operations of vessels in the Routing, fishing vessels, large vessels that can only operate within the
channels, and the responsibilities of the navigator in the event of an approach of another vessel so as
to involve the risk of collision. The Regulations require that a lookout is maintained, and that the
navigator is aware of existing conditions and the normal practice of seamen.
Page 375
10.7.5.5
Compulsory pilotage
The Compulsory Pilotage area, as defined in the Pilotage Act and Regulations, is bounded on the
seaward side by a line from St Croix Point on Merchant Island to the Pilot Boarding Station at 47o 20 N
54o 03 W to Ragged Point at the South end of Red Island to Eastern Head. This pilotage areas and
waterway includes the terminals and facilities in Come By Chance and Placentia Bay, north of this line.
Vessels will proceed to the pilot boarding station, in the vicinity of Red Island, where a pilot of the St
Johns, Holyrood and Placentia Bay Pilots will embark each vessel requiring to use the services of a pilot
in accordance with the Pilotage Regulations. The services of a pilot are compulsory for all movement of
all vessels within the area, as identified in the regulations.
The Project will increase the marine traffic by 104 vessels in Phase 1 and, ultimately, to 400 vessels
when fully operational. As each vessel will require at least two pilotage assignments (inwards and
outwards) the assignments will increase, due to this project alone, by up to 800 assignments per year.
The Atlantic Pilotage Authority will review the number of pilots required on an on-going basis, and
increase the complement accordingly.
10.7.5.6
Protocol for Icing on Ships
Vessels operating in cold water areas, where the air temperature is well below 0C, face the probability
of icing when water is taken over the bow in spray or light water. Vessels arriving from the east coast of
the United States should not be heavily affected by icing, but vessels arriving from northern routes and
from the west may experience icing. Ice formed on deck and on the bow will have an effect upon the
displacement, trim, metacentric height and the capability of the usage of the anchors, mooring winches
and equipment. All of these must be considered for safe passage. For safety on passage, the vessels
must be able to let go and retrieve an anchor. Vessels unable to have this minimum capability will be
refused pilotage, and will have to stay clear of the Routing until this capability can be met. If the vessel
can anchor, it may be brought to an anchorage, and there clear the ice to make the mooring systems
fully operable (P. Careen, pers. comm.).
10.7.5.7
MCTS
MCTS will monitor the movement of all vessels in the eastern arm of Placentia Bay and advise all traffic
of the movement of LNG carriers. The increase in volumes of traffic will not measurably increase the
workload for the MCTS operators. However, in adverse weather conditions, the need for additional
vigilance on behalf of the operators will be apparent. As the marine traffic in the Assessment Area
increases, the MCTS operations may be reviewed (V. Hughes, pers. comm.). Any additional legislation,
restriction or requirement that is placed on the movement of LNGCs will be monitored by the operators.
They will issue safety notices in the form of Notices to Shipping as required.
10.7.5.8
Ship Clearance
Border Services (Customs), Immigration, Transport Canada and other agencies will be required to clear
the ships inbound and outbound. It is not anticipated that this will be a measurable increase in the
workload. Every vessel coming into Canadian ports is subject to clearance from these authorities. The
average increase in shipping with the terminals fully operational will be a maximum of 1.1 vessels every
day. The shipping agents, who have a commercial interest in the increased traffic, will provide the
necessary documentation to facilitate the operation. The cargo clearance for LNGCs will be less
onerous than it would be for a general cargo ship, and similar to that of a crude oil tanker delivering to
the port.
Page 376
10.7.5.9
Vessel Quality and Crew Qualifications
LNGCs will be operated by a crew qualified at least to the requirements of the IMO, Standards for
Training and Certification of Watchkeepers. They will have training that is approved by Society of
International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) and the governments of the flag state.
These ships are well-founded and equipped to meet all the latest standards of the classification
societies and independent societies such as SIGTTO. All will be subject to inspections by Transport
Canada, Marine Safety Inspectors through the Port State Control inspections, which may include the
ISM code audits. Foreign-registered vessels may be inspected by classification society surveyors, who
have been delegated the responsibility to carry out the inspections on behalf of the flag state. In
Canadian-registered vessels, a classification society surveyor may have been granted inspection rights
in accordance with Section 317.1 or Section 12(1) of the CSA and the instrument of delegation defining
their responsibilities.
10.7.5.10 Simulation and Safety
The Proponent is presently undertaking a simulation study for design considerations and to satisfy
requirements of the TERMPOL process. This study is being conducted at the Centre for Marine
Simulation, Memorial University and will be completed by November 25, 2007.
Through simulation modelling and studies of the marine aspects of the project, the forces needed to
counteract wind and current will be identified. The Terminal Operator and the Harbour Authority will
identify the size and numbers of tugs necessary for the berthing process. Meteorological criteria for
safe berthing and departure from the berth, utilising tugs, will be identified, and approved through the
TERMPOL Review process and documented in the Terminal Operations Manual. The design criteria
for the Terminal and operational constraints will be developed in accordance with best practices and
industry standards and subject to approval by the Transport Canada (TERMPOL) Review Committee.
The procedures and provisions for the berthing of the vessels at the Marine Terminals will be finalised
after the simulation studies for the berthing of the largest and intermediate design vessels.
10.7.5.11 Arrival and Departure Criteria
Due to the large surface areas of the LNGCs above the water, high winds, particularly on the beam of
the vessel when berthing at, or departing from, the terminal require consideration. It will be necessary
to identify at what wind forces it will be considered imprudent to berth or let go the vessel. This will be
determined, in part, by simulation studies of berthing of LNGCs. The forces required to overcome the
wind forces will be identified in these simulation studies.
10.7.5.12 Criteria for Cargo Handling Operations
The potential exists for the vessel to be in a situation where it will be necessary to stop pumping due to
wind, sea or swell, causing movement of the vessel along the quay or the vertical movement against
the quay (SIGTTO 2000). However, the criteria for stopping pumping and for disconnecting the product
transfer will be identified in the Terminal Operations Manual.
10.7.5.13 Port Information Book and Terminal Operations Manuals
Port Information Book
The Port Information Book from the Harbour Authority will be produced during the construction stages
of the project and approved by the Transport Canada (TERMPOL) Review Committee before a vessel
Page 377
is allowed to berth. It is anticipated that these manuals will be completed and presented to TRC 6
months before any of the Terminals come into operation.
Terminal Operations Manual
The purpose of the Terminal Operations Manual is to provide the necessary information to all whose
employment brings them into contact with the terminal, the LNG Carriers and any operation involving
one or both of them.
In developing the Manual, the Terminal Operator shall include but not be limited by the information
provided in the:
Safety Guide for Terminals carrying Liquefied Gasses in Bulk ( OCIMF);
LNG Arm Protection against Excessive Ship Movement (SIGTTO);
Mooring Equipment Guidelines (OCIMF);
Ship/shore Interface the Communications Necessary for Matching Ship to Berth
(SIGTTO);
Liquefied Gas Handling Principles on Ships and in Terminals (SIGTTO); and
TERMPOL Appendices 1, 3, and 5. The manual shall incorporate best practices of the
industry, and comply with all standards and regulations.
The Terminal Operations Manual will be developed by the Terminal Operator, and presented to the
TRC six months before the commencement of operations at the terminal.
The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that provided the recommended mitigative measures are
implemented, residual environmental effects on marine transportation and safety are non-significant. A
summary of the residual environmental effects during construction and operation and recommended
mitigative action for marine transportation and safety is provided in Table 10.29.
Page 378
Table 10.29
Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Marine Transportation and Safety
Potential
obstruction to
navigation
Use of Pilots within compulsory pilotage area.

Follow existing protocols within Placentia Bay (e.g.,
TSS).
APA review of pilot complement.
Crew of LNGCs qualified to IMO Standards for
Training and Certification of Watchkeepers.
LNGCs meet standards of the classification
societies.
Inspections by Transport Canada, Marine Safety
Inspectors under the Port State Control legislation.
Tugs will be used in the berthing process.
Proponent to undertake TERMPOL process,
including simulation studies, and follow any
recommendations resulting from that process.
NWPA approval process.
Navigation aids as required.
Magnitude:
1 = Low: Temporary disturbance to marine transportation and safety limited to
within the boundaries of the Project property lines.
2 = Moderate: Permanent disturbance to marine transportation and safety
limited to within the boundaries of the Project property lines.
3 = High: Permanent disturbance to marine and transportation safety that
extends beyond the property line of the Project.
Geographic Extent:
2 = Environmental effects extend beyond the Project footprint but remain within
Assessment Area.
Presence of
Marine
Structures
KEY
MCTS Notices to Mariners and Notices to Shipping

All vessels subject to the standards and regulations
under the CSA, Labour Code and Oceans Act.
Movement of vessels subject to the Practices and
Procedures for Public Harbours under the Canada
Marine Act.
NWPA requirements.
Reversibility

Construction of
Increased marine
Marine Based
traffic during
Infrastructure
construction of
marine-based
infrastructure
Potential
navigation hazard
Operation And Maintenance
Project Vessel
Potential
Traffic
interaction with
marine traffic
Mitigation
Duration/ Frequency
Potential
Environmental
Effect
Geographic Extent
Project
Activity
Magnitude

Assessing Residual
2/4
3/3
3/4
Frequency:
1 = Occurs once.
4 = Continuous.
Reversibility:
R = Reversible.
I = Irreversible.
human activity.
2 = Evidence of existing negative environmental effects.
Duration:
Page 379
DECOMMISSIONING AND ABANDONMENT
10.8
The proposed Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal has an anticipated life
expectancy of at least 50 years. Upon completion of its operating life, the facility may be
decommissioned and abandoned. All procedures developed for the decommissioning and
abandonment of the facility shall be in accordance with all legislation and regulations applicable at that
time.
Prior to decommissioning and abandonment, a Decommissioning and Abandonment Plan will be
developed. The plan will focus on protecting public health and safety, improving or eliminating
environmental damage and liabilities, and reclamation of the land for future industrial use.
The following effects assessment is based on the information currently available regarding planned
decommissioning activities (refer to Section 2.5 for further details). It is anticipated that a full
assessment would be conducted in the future prior to decommissioning.
10.8.1 Marine Fish and Fish Habitat
During decommissioning, the jetty structures will be removed from site; however, the tug basin will likely
remain in place after abandonment. The seawater intake will also be removed. Similar to construction,
physical works which occur in the marine environment will create the potential for changes in habitat
quantity, habitat quality, habitat use and by direct mortality. Specifically, changes to fish and fish habitat
can result from:
increases in total suspended solids (water quality);
habitat alteration; and
noise during activities in water.
As opposed to the construction phase, which included construction of the tug basin, decommissioning
activities will be considerably lesser in magnitude and duration, as there will be no requirement for
dredging or blasting at this stage. Removal of the jetty structure could result in a loss of fish habitat, as
the underwater portions of these structures would likely be colonized with invertebrate species
preferring hard substrate (e.g., mussels and anenomes) however, this would represent a small portion
of similar substrate available in the Assessment Area. The Decommissioning and Abandonment Plan
will include mitigation that will prevent any discharges to the marine environment not in compliance with
applicable regulations. It will also detail procedures to control site runoff, including the use of silt
curtains and erosion control measures on land. While increased levels of suspended sediments and
noise can be expected within the Assessment Area during decommissioning, the extent of the decrease
in quality of fish habitat and temporary avoidance by some species would be localized, of short duration
and reversible. The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that based on previously defined
significance criteria (refer to Section 10.1.3), the residual environmental effects resulting from
decommissioning are not significant.
10.8.2 Commercial and Aquaculture Fisheries
There is a potential for decommissioning activities to interact with commercial fisheries through the
presence of Project vessels and Project-related noise during the removal of marine Project
components. As opposed to construction, decommissioning will occur over a shorter time period and
Page 380
would like require fewer Project vessels. Regardless, during decommissioning there will likely be the
need for a safety zone and noise generated by activities could result in fish scaring. During this period,
fishers would need to seek alternate fishing grounds and would have to deviate around the safety zone
in order to reach other fishing areas. Any effects on commercial fisheries during decommissioning will
be temporary, localized and reversible. A commercial fisheries compensation program would be
developed to provide appropriate economic protection and compensation for all fishers who may be
genuinely and legitimately affected by the presence of the Projects decommissioning safety zone.
With appropriate compensation in place and based on the definition of significance provided in Section
10.2.3, the RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the residual environmental effects resulting
from decommissioning on commercial and aquaculture fisheries are predicted to be not significant.
10.8.3 Marine Mammals
During decommissioning, marine mammals may experience changes in habitat quality (e.g., increased
noise), habitat use (e.g., avoidance) or direct mortality through collisions with vessels as a result of
physical works in the marine environment. Noise levels during decommissioning should be reduced in
magnitude and duration as compared to the construction phase as there will be no requirement for
blasting or dredging during this stage. Decommissioning noise and activities that decrease the quality
of habitat may lead to temporary avoidance by some species, although this is expected to be shortterm, localized and reversible. The risk of vessel collisions will be minimized as the vessels will be
travelling at reduced speeds during decommissioning activities. As defined in Section 10.3.3, the RAs,
in consultation with FAs, conclude that the residual environmental effects of decommissioning on
marine mammals are not significant.
10.8.4 Migratory Birds
The effects of decommissioning on marine birds will be similar to that of construction. Both on land and
marine portions of the planned decommissioning will have the potential to interact with migratory birds:
Vessel traffic associated with decommissioning will generate noise and disturbance that
may decrease the habitat quality for marine migratory birds. Some species are known to be
attracted to ships, while some avoid interactions with vessels. Lights on vessels can attract
seabirds such as petrels.
Noise will be generated on land during dismantling activities that would affect habitat quality
through avoidance.
Noise, lights, human presence and land-based vehicle traffic can all interact with terrestrial
birds.
There will be no additional habitat loss during decommissioning and following rehabilitation of the
Grassy Point Area, terrestrial habitat is expected to improve. As well, any Project discharges will be in
compliance with applicable legislation and regulations. As with construction, any migratory bird nests or
colonies found during decommissioning will be buffered during breeding season whenever possible
until young have fledged, and nests will be left intact and undisturbed. The extent of the potential
residual environmental effects on migratory birds during decommissioning is localized, of short
duration, and is reversible. The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the effects are therefore
deemed not significant for migratory birds, based on the definition of significance as found in Section
10.4.3.
Page 381
10.8.5 Species at Risk

For the purposes of this assessment, species at risk include species of birds, butterflies, lichens,
marine mammals, reptiles and marine fish that are protected under federal legislation (SARA) and/or
designated by COSEWIC which may occur in the Grassy Point area (refer to Section 10.5 for a
complete listing of species considered). Changes in the quality of habitat for species at risk will occur
during Project decommissioning as a result of increased levels of noise and vessel traffic within the
Assessment Area. Decommissioning noise and activities that decrease the quality of habitat may lead
to temporary avoidance by some species at risk. There will be no additional loss of terrestrial habitat
during decommissioning, and during post-decommissioning, rehabilitation efforts will improve the
terrestrial habitat. The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the extent of these potential
residual environmental effects on Species at Risk during decommissioning is localized, of short
duration and reversible and is therefore not significant, as defined in Section 10.5.3.
10.8.6 Atmospheric Environment
10.8.6.1
Air Quality
The potential environmental effects to air quality that may occur as part of decommissioning and
abandonment are similar to those that may occur during construction and commissioning. The
magnitude, frequency, and duration of those environmental effects are expected to be of a much
smaller scale, such that applicable air quality standards are unlikely to be exceeded within the
assessment boundaries. The potential exists for environmental effects on air quality from activities
such as purging of the LNG tanks and equipment, operation of heavy construction vehicles, vehicle
traffic to and from the site, and from dust generated from vehicle traffic on site. These activities are
expected to be of limited duration and events of adverse environmental effects on air quality are
expected to be infrequent, if they occur at all.
Mitigation will be applied to minimize these environmental effects such as the application of dust
suppressants during periods of heavy activity and/or dry periods, which will ensure that the contribution
to levels of air contaminants generated remain within the ambient standards. The use of properly
maintained vehicles and equipment will ensure that vehicle emissions do not adversely affect ambient
air quality. Properly decommissioning the LNG facilities and pipeline will involve pumping out LNG from
all tanks and equipment. Nitrogen will be used to purge all of the gases from the lines, equipment, and
vessels.
The limited number of vehicles and equipment used during decommissioning activities is expected to
allow for sufficient dispersion of these emissions to prevent significant effects on local air quality during
most atmospheric conditions. Therefore, the RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the
environmental effects of decommissioning and abandonment on air quality are, in consideration of
planned mitigation, considered not significant as defined in Section 10.6.3.
10.8.6.2
The environmental effects on the acoustic environment from decommissioning and abandonment
activities are expected to be similar to those that may result during construction and commissioning,
although to a much smaller scale. Occasional, periodic, and transient sources of noise such as the
movement of heavy equipment may result in short-term, intermittent occasions of elevated noise in the
Page 382
immediate vicinity of the activity. Noisy activities will be planned during normal working hours (daytime)
where possible. Noise controls will be used for on-site vehicles and equipment where applicable.
Since the decommissioning and maintenance activities will likely be restricted to daylight hours and will
be of relatively short duration, noise due to decommissioning activities is not expected to cause any
substantial environmental effects.
The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that these
environmental effects are expected to be localized, of relatively short duration and frequency and are
not expected to cause significant adverse environmental effects to the acoustic environment as defined
in Section 10.6.3.
10.8.7 Marine Transportation and Safety
Potential effects on marine transportation and safety as a result of Project decommissioning will be
similar to that of construction. There will be some potential for interference with other marine traffic in
the area, including possibly:
small cargo vessels or barges;
work barges and floating cranes; and
small craft for transportation of workers, supplies and for stand-by safety vessels.
As with construction, notices will be issued about decommissioning activities at the site and dependant
on the planned activities, whether the construction safety zone is in effect. The Harbour Master, through
Placentia Traffic, may require that vessels passing the site, pass at slow speed or place any other
restriction on the movement of vessels in the harbour. Any restriction placed on the movement of
vessels in the vicinity of the decommissioning will be promulgated by MCTS in either the Notices to
Mariners or Notices to Shipping. Pilots, having local knowledge of the operations in the Placentia Bay
and Approaches, will advise Masters of all vessels requiring their services of these restrictions. The
movement of the vessels will be subject to the Practices and Procedures for Public Harbours, made
under the Canada Marine Act and administered by Transport Canada. Note that as decommissioning
activities are not planned to occur for several decades, it is possible that the navigational systems in
place in Placentia Bay may change over this time, as may applicable legislation and marine standards.
Mitigation would be adjusted as necessary to comply with accepted practices and legislation at that
time.
Provided the controls and mitigating measures described above are undertaken, the RAs, in
consultation with FAs, conclude that Project-related effects on marine transportation during Project
decommissioning are assessed as not significant.
10.8.8 Follow-Up and Monitoring
It is anticipated that follow-up and monitoring would be required to ensure that any rehabilitation efforts
were progressed as planned and to ensure that all emissions, effluents and debris are appropriately
handled. Specific requirements for follow-up and monitoring would have to be developed in
consultation with regulators at the time of decommissioning to ensure compliance with applicable
legislation and regulations.
Page 383
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS
11.0 OTHER FACTORS

11.1
Environmental Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions
Malfunctions and accidental events associated with the Project have the potential to result in
environmental effects. Potential malfunctions and accidental events have been scoped to include those
events and scenarios that have a reasonable chance of occurring (although may be highly unlikely) and
could lead to adverse environmental effects. They include: failure of sedimentation/erosion control
structures; fires and explosions; marine vessel accidents; hazardous materials spills; and LNG release
at the terminal.
The spatial boundaries for the assessment of accidents and malfunctions are limited to the area of
Placentia Bay north of the approach to Long Harbour (Figure 11.1). The temporal boundary is the life of
the Project, which is approximately 50 years.
The VECs selected for effects assessment through the scoping process described in Chapter 4 are
also considered appropriate and inclusive for the consideration of accidents and malfunctions. The
significance criteria for these VECs are the same as those provided for the assessment of routine
Project activities in Chapter 10.
In general, the Project will be designed, commissioned and operated to reduce the potential for
accidents and malfunctions in order to promote safe and efficient facility operations. Many design
features (including codes and standards) and management plans will be incorporated (see Chapter 2).
While accidents and malfunctions will be uncommon (particularly major accidents resulting in large
scale releases of LNG or other hazardous material, or LNGC accidents), they are possible.
Contingency and emergency response plans are required by the federal and provincial governments
and will be developed to rapidly address and minimize adverse effects in their unlikely event (see
Section 2.6).
Page 384
Goobies
Swift Current
Sunnyside
Come-by-Chance
North Harbour
Arnold's Cove
Southern Harbour
Chance Cove
Is
la
nd
Monkstown
ra
sh
ee
St. Leonards
Me
Long Harbour
Merasheen
PLACENTIA
Red
Island
T:\JOBS\1015846\GIS\MXD\Accidental_Events_topo.mxd
BAY
CLIENT:
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING TITLE:

and StorageTerminal CSR
Accidental Events Assessment Area
Figure 11.1
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
EDITED BY:
1:320000
CP
CP
DRAWING No.:
DATE:
FEB 7, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
N/A
MAP FILE:
Accidental_Events_topo.mxd
07/02/2008
11.1.1 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation

Accidents and malfunctions have the potential to adversely affect a number of VECs in both the
terrestrial and marine environments through changes in habitat quality and quantity, direct mortality and
habitat fragmentation, as well as increased risk to marine transportation. These potential interactions
with the scoped accident and malfunction scenarios are indicated in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1
Potential Interaction of Accidents and Malfunctions with Valued Environmental

Components
11.1.1.1
Marine Transportation
and Safety
Air Quality
Species At Risk
Marine Mammals
Migratory Birds
Failure of Sedimentation/Erosion Control Structures

Fires and Explosions
Marine Vessel Traffic Accidents (not resulting in release of
hazardous materials)
Hazardous Materials Spills
Release of LNG
Commercial and
Aquaculture Fisheries
Accidents and Malfunctions
Marine Fish and Fish

Habitat
Valued Environmental Components
Failure of Sediment/Erosion Control Structures
Erosion and sediment control failure is a potential unplanned event that could occur during construction
of the facility.
Erosion and sediment control failure near the shoreline could affect potential habitat for migratory birds.
Failure of control structures allowing silt laden runoff into the marine environment has the potential to
affect marine fish and fish habitat. The potential effect on the VECs identified is habitat degradation.
Design features and methods will be used to control surface runoff, reduce the potential for erosion and
prevent offsite siltation of any receiving waters. Details will be specified in an EPP for construction and
operation of the Project. Site inspections will be a requirement of the EPP to ensure the ongoing
suitability and good repair of these sediment and erosion control measures (e.g., accumulated
sediment removed at pre-determined levels). In particular, inspections will be undertaken before and
after heavy precipitation events. The site runoff will be directed to a sedimentation pond prior to ocean
discharge and checked for compliance with provincial and/or federal standards prior to being
discharged. Failure of erosion and sediment controls (i.e., breaches) will be identified and rapidly
repaired. Repair materials will be kept on site to ensure immediate response and repair. Maintenance,
inspection and response/repair of erosion and sediment controls will be specified in the EPP.
Damage or failure of erosion and sediment control measures are unlikely to cause a significant effect
on habitats as frequent inspection will ensure the breach is not prolonged. In the event of a damaged or
malfunctioning sediment and erosion control structure, the effects are expected to be localized, of short
duration and reversible. While Schedule 1 species at risk have not been identified in the Assessment
Area, there is some potential for these species to occur in Placentia Bay; but the Project risk to species
Page 386
at risk is very low. The time required for ecological systems to recover would depend on several factors,
including the type of habitat affected and the amount of material that breached the structure. With
implementation of mitigation as described above, significant residual environmental effects due to
failure of sediment and/or erosion control structures on migratory birds, marine fish and fish habitat and
species at risk are not likely.
11.1.1.2
Fires
Forest Fire
Fires and explosions can occur during both the construction and operational phases of the Project.
Fires and explosions have the potential to pose physical hazards to species at risk and their potential
habitat, degrade habitat for migratory birds, degrade air quality and inhibit safe marine transportation
operations within Placentia Bay.
Sources of forest fires can vary between natural causes, such as lightning strikes and ignition from
extreme drought conditions, to anthropogenic causes such as mismanagement of recreational
campfires, careless brush burning, or cigarette disposal. Project activities could also result in incidents
that could have the potential for igniting a forest fire. Examples of potential causes of site-related fire
include: worker carelessness, potential LNG releases, pipeline leaks or ruptures, and other accidents or
incidents involving spills of flammable materials near an ignition source.
The potential effects of a fire on migratory birds and species at risk depend on several factors: (1) if
there are any individuals in the area at the time, (2) whether the individuals are mobile (e.g., young
birds may not be able to leave the area), (3) the intensity and scale of the fire, (4) available fuel
(including spilled LNG), and (5) the weather conditions including wind, temperature, and humidity. Fire
can destroy nesting sites, foraging habitat, prey availability, and cover from predators. As described in
Chapter 9, however, the Grassy Point area represents only limited habitat for species at risk and most
species that may occur there would only be present occasionally or rarely. Much of the existing habitat
for migratory birds will be altered during site clearing and Project construction. In addition, emergency
response plans would be in place, which would include coordination with provincial and municipal firefighting resources to contain any forest fires as rapidly as possible. Therefore, even if some habitat or
individuals were lost as a result of a forest fire, this loss is unlikely to result in significant adverse
environmental effects as defined in Chapter 10 for each of the VECs being considered.
Temporary, local air quality issues would likely result from fire due to the combustion by-products and
particulate matter generated, and regulatory limits may be temporarily exceeded resulting in a
significant effect on the atmospheric environment. The main concern in this instance would be effects
on the nearest human receptors (i.e., inhalation of smoke and high levels of particulate matter). On-site
personnel would have personal protective equipment (PPE) on-site and would be trained in rapid use of
this equipment. Depending on wind conditions, smoke and pollution from a fire could reach Arnolds
Cove and negatively impact residents. Fires resulting in significant effects on air quality (i.e., large scale
or widespread), however, are considered unlikely, and as stated above, response plans would be in
place to bring any fires under control as rapidly as possible. Effects on air quality would be temporary
and reversible (i.e., air quality would return to pre-fire conditions after the fire is extinguished.
Ship Fire
LNG exists as a liquid and on its own will not burn or explode since it contains no oxygen to react with
the fuel. Since LNG cargo tanks contain an oxygen-free environment, a vessels cargo cannot burn
Page 387
unless a release occurs and ignites. Due to the design of LNGCs, in the event of a fire originating from
a cargo tank release, the credible scenario is a single tank fire.
LNGCs are equipped with an extensive array of firefighting equipment, including large, dry chemical
systems and sprinkler systems designed to contain a cargo system fire. In the worst-case scenario,
firefighting efforts would fail and a shipboard fire could burn uncontrolled. The siting study for the
Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal noted that the main facility will be located
outside the most dangerous thermal radiation zone of a burning LNGC (Quest 2007). Emergency
procedures require that when a LNGC is alongside a terminal, it hangs fire wires over the side, fore
and aft, which make it possible for tugs to pull the LNG vessel away from the dock in the case of any
emergency.
As with a forest fire above, the main concern would be impacts on air quality and subsequent impacts
on human health and safety. Unlike a forest fire, a ship fire will be contained and unlikely to impact
surrounding communities. Personnel located on the marine terminal would have quick access to
appropriate PPE and will be trained in its use. Personnel on-board the vessel would also have access
to PPE and fire-fighting equipment as supplied by the Operator of the vessel. While a significant impact
on air quality is predicted for the immediate site, this impact will be temporary and reversible.
A ship fire would also constitute an effect on marine transportation and safety as indicated in Table
11.1. A significant adverse effect on marine transportation and safety is defined in Section 10.7 as one
that either results in a substantial increase in economic costs for non-Project related marine
transportation, or a reduction in the level of safety or service currently within Placentia Bay that is
unacceptable to the relevant regulatory authorities. While a ship fire represents a serious marine safety
incident and will require investigation and follow-up actions, it is unlikely to increase economic costs of
non-Project related transportation (i.e., may only delay vessels in the immediate vicinity for less than a
day) or cause a reduction in the level of safety or service within Placentia Bay. Therefore, a ship fire is
unlikely to significantly affect marine transportation and safety
Terminal
Fire protection for all LNG facilities is included as part of the design and operation which must be in
compliance with the CSA-Z276-07. As stated by the Code, the extent of fire protection will be defined
by an evaluation that determines:
type, quantity, and location of equipment necessary for the detection and control of fires,
leaks and spills of LNG, flammable refrigerants, or flammable gases;
type, quantity, and location of equipment necessary for the detection and control of potential
non-process and electrical fires;
methods necessary for protection of the equipment and structures from the effects of fire
exposure;
fire protection water systems;
fire extinguishing and other fire control equipment;
equipment and processes to be incorporated within the emergency shutdown (ESD) system,
including analysis of subsystems, if any, and the need for depressurizing specific vessels or
equipment during a fire emergency;
type and location of sensors necessary to initiate automatic operation of the ESD system or
its subsystems;
Page 388
availability and duties of individual plant personnel and the availability of external response
personnel during an emergency; and
protective equipment, specific training, and qualification needed by individual plant
personnel as specified by NFPA Standard 600 for their respective emergency duties.
The Code describes a number of specific requirements with regard to ESD systems, fire and leak
control, fire protection water systems, fire extinguishing and other fire control equipment, security and
personnel safety. In addition, there will be documented procedures applying to operation, maintenance
and training, and the Proponent will establish a documented emergency plan (Section 12 of the Code).
Fires will be mitigated by the implementation of a comprehensive health and safety management
system, an EPP and an emergency response plan (see Section 2.6). These plans will be developed
and implemented for construction and operational phases of the Project. They will also include
preventative measures to ensure all precautions are taken to reduce the potential for fires. All
employees will be trained in operational procedures and environmental emergency response
procedures to ensure safe operation of tanker unloading and facility operation. Further, the
environmental training requirements for employees will be described in detail as part of the training
manual for the LNG facility. Each operator of the LNG facility will be thoroughly trained.
While the source of the fire differs, the impact of a terminal fire is similar to the forest fire impacts
described above and a terminal fire could result in a forest fire if not immediately contained. With
implementation of mitigation and management planning described above, significant residual
environmental effects on air quality due to fire are possible, but not likely due to stringent codes of
practice and training requirements for the industry. As well, these significant effects would be temporary
and reversible. Significant impacts to migratory birds and species at risk will not be significant as the
habitat in the terminal area is at most, only used infrequently by species at risk and it will be mostly
cleared, therefore not likely highly to become productive habitat for migratory birds.
11.1.1.3
Marine Vessel Traffic Accidents
Marine vessel traffic accidents can occur during the construction and operational phases of the Project.
For the purposes of this assessment, the focus is on the potential for marine vessel traffic accidents
during the operations phase since it represents the most reasonable worst case scenario in terms of
vessel traffic accidents that could lead to environmental effects.
Vessel traffic accidents with no associated cargo release have the potential to pose safety hazards to
other marine transportation users in Placentia Bay. Hazardous materials spills and LNG releases are
assessed in Sections 11.1.2.4 and 11.1.2.5, respectively.
Marine traffic is subject to accidents and incidents that may be categorized as follows:
collision;
striking, contact with fixed structure (allision);
grounding, contact with the sea bed;
ingress of water, flooding, sinking;
fire, explosion;
machinery or equipment malfunction or failure; and
cargo handling.
Page 389
Throughout the period when LNG has been carried as a cargo, there has never been an accident which
has resulted in a loss of LNG to the atmosphere from a cargo tank. There has also never been a fire
that has been associated with LNG aboard ship. Groundings and touching bottom have not resulted in
cargo releases.
Since there is a small potential for Project-related incidents and accidents to occur, the following
selected incidents have been chosen as those being the most likely, albeit with low probability, to occur.
In reviewing these incidents and accidents, the reasonable worst case possible prospective results
have been identified. Selected incidents and accidents for assessment include:
a collision involving a LNGC and another vessel in the vicinity of the Pilot Boarding Station
in the Traffic Separation Scheme, when vessels are engaged in boarding or disembarking a
pilot;
a grounding of a LNGC in the vicinity of Coombs Rock;
a collision between a LNGC at the terminal and an approaching LNGC;
a collision in the anchorage between a LNGC and another vessel;
a contact (allision) with the jetty at the LNG terminal; and
a grounding of a LNGC between the LNG terminal and Bordeaux Island.
Collision with another Vessel Underway in the Vicinity of the Pilot Boarding Station
In the case of a collision with another vessel underway in the vicinity of the pilot boarding station, all
large vessels in the vicinity would be proceeding at slow speed, either in preparation to embark or
disembark the Pilot. Vessels approaching this area would be aware of the prospect of a close-quarters
situation due to the Collision Regulations.
Scenario 1 considers the following circumstance:
LNGC collides with a crude oil tanker;
crude oil tanker is holed;
prospect of a cargo release event (assessed in Section 11.1.1.4); and
damage to vessels; bow of LNGC, mid-ships section of crude oil tanker.
Both vessels would be proceeding at reduced speed and further reduced on alert before collision. The
probability of occurrence is low. If the unlikely event occurs, the potential for damage is high with a
moderate potential for cargo release from the crude oil tanker.
The following mitigation is applicable:
vessels would be travelling at reduced speed;
AIS and verbal communications would be accessible to both vessels;
MCTS would be monitoring the situation and advising the vessels;
both vessels have double hull construction; and
both vessels would be aware of the added risk of a close-quarters situation and would be
conducting the vessels accordingly pursuant to the Collision Regulations.
Page 390
In the event of a cargo release, the local Response Organization, ECRC, has a depot in Placentia Bay.
Equipment and human resources would be on hand for action at short notice. In this case, fire and
explosion are unlikely.
the crude oil tanker collides with the LNGC.
LNGC is holed. Little prospect of a cargo release event.
damage to mid-ships section of the LNGC.
damage to bow of crude oil tanker.
Both vessels would be proceeding at reduced speed, and further reduced on alert before collision. The
probability of occurrence is low. The potential for vessel damage is high with a low potential for cargo
release. There may be some ingress of water. Fire and/or explosion is unlikely. Applicable mitigation
would be the same as for Scenario 1 above.
The likelihood of the LNGC tank being breached in a collision of this nature is low. In no situation where
a collision involving an LNGC has taken place has a cargo tank been breached. The crude tankers
cargo tanks are all aft of the collision bulkhead, and it would be unlikely for the damage to reach the
collision bulkhead.
In the event of a collision at the pilot boarding station and a product release near Red Island, response
crews should be aware of the resource sensitivities in the area. The area between Red Island and the
eastern shore of Placentia Bay is recognized locally as an area frequented by humpback whales and
harbour seals (Sjare et al 2005). There is a capelin spawning beach on the northern tip of Red Island
(Sjare et. al 2005) and several species of nesting birds on the island (see section 9.7.6).
LNGC Goes Aground at Coombes Rock
In this event, the LNGC would be proceeding at manoeuvring speeds, with engines on immediate
notice to slow further. The vessel would be escorted by tug(s). The most likely cause of this event
would be a steering gear failure or total blackout. Coombes Rock is close to starboard; otherwise the
water adjacent to the routing is deep. The reasonable worst case scenario would be a glancing blow to
the starboard side of the vessel opening more than one compartment.
vessels are all double hulled;
speed would be low;
anchors could be dropped; and
tugs would be available to assist.
The probability of such an occurrence is low. However the damage to the hull could be severe if such
an accident were to occur. Ingress of water is likely. However, loss of cargo is unlikely.
Collision between a LNGC at the Terminal and an Approaching LNGC
The terminal will be occupied at times by two or three LNGCs. A LNGC approaching a berth between
two berthed LNGCs, or berthing alongside another LNGC at the terminal, are the most likely events.
The most likely cause of this event would be lack of directional stability due to wind gust, tug blackout
Page 391
or parting tow line. In all cases, the vessels would be making little headway or sternway. Where wind
gust is the cause, the tugs will be made fast and available to assist the pilot in manoeuvring. Where
there is a fault associated with a tug, the thruster and main engines on the LNGC can be utilized.
LNGC berthing between two LNGCs already alongside the terminal;
potential for contact between the forward section of the berthed LNGC and the stern of the
approaching LNGC, or the stern of the berthed LNGC and the bow of the approaching
carrier, and
hull damage is likely to be above water in the vicinity of the main deck or flare of the bow/
bow plating on both vessels and loss of cargo is unlikely. Ingress of water is also unlikely.
the bridge team will be prepared for unusual events;
tug will be made fast and assisting;
crew will be ready on forecastle and after mooring deck in preparation for securing the
vessel; and
all supplementary manoeuvring machinery and mooring machinery will be in use.
LNG vessel berthing alongside another LNGC at the terminal; and
additionally, the vessel alongside will have fenders rigged to absorb the impact of the vessel
berthing and maintaining the distance between the vessels.
In this situation the contact is likely to be small with minimal damage to the plating on the sides. No
cargo handling would be in progress at this time so there is little chance for a cargo release. Ingress of
water is unlikely.
Applicable mitigation would be the same as for Scenario 1 above.
Collision in the Anchorage between an LNG Carrier and another Vessel
Come By Chance Harbour has four anchorages suitable for LNGCs. All of which have a diameter of at
least one mile. In certain circumstances, more than one vessel may utilize each anchorage. An event is
most likely to occur when a vessel is getting underway in strong winds. All anchorages are in the
Compulsory Pilotage area and, therefore, will have a pilot aboard if getting underway. Only one vessel
will get underway at any given time.
This event is defined by the following circumstances:
contact is likely to be between the bow of the vessel getting underway and the side of the
vessel at anchor;
low impact collision;
ingress of water is likely;
damage to both vessels would be under the waterline;
vessel would be making little headway;
Page 392
vessels are double hulled; unlikely to be loss of cargo; and

fire is unlikely.
vessels in the anchorage will be advised of the forecast for the wind;
the practices of the port will identify when vessels should get underway in the approach of
high winds;
The normal practice of seamen gives the expectation of the Master making the decision to
get underway in good time.
Contact (Allision) with the Jetty at the LNG Terminal
In this event, a LNGC approaching the berth at slow speed experiences a blackout; loss of main
engines or steering; a tug looses power or its tow line parts; and the LNGC loses directional stability.
The reasonable worst case scenario evaluates the allision occurring in the vicinity of the loading
manifold on the terminal.
This event is defined by the following circumstances:
damage to hull of the LNGC;
damage to loading arms and ancillary equipment on the terminal; and
damage to the terminal capping, fenders, or supporting structure.
Loss of product is unlikely as the lines will be voided and filled with inert gas. Damage to the hull of the
LNGC will not affect the integrity of the tanks. Ingress of water is unlikely. The berth at the terminal may
be out of commission for a period of time thereby causing delays to vessels and their handling of cargo.
Grounding of a LNGC between the LNG Terminal and Bordeaux Island
This event is only likely to take place if a vessel is departing from the southernmost terminal and is
defined by the following circumstances:
loss of directional stability, (blackout, loss of main engines or steering or a tug looses power
or its tow line parts), coupled with strong onshore winds. The vessel would be making little
headway;
anchors would be let go;
the result would be a low impact grounding, probably in the forward third of the vessel;
fuel is in double hulled section under the main engines; and
Loss of cargo is unlikely.
Summary of Marine Vessel Traffic Accidents
Table 11.2 provides a summary in relation to the incidents identified above:
Page 393
Table 11.2
Navigation Risk Analysis Summary
Probability
Navigation &
operational
Cargo loss at
dock
Pollution
Potential
Potential Damage
to Marine Habitat
Potential to
escalate to
Uncontrollable
Situation
Collision
Grounding
Coombes Rock
Low
Low
Collision
at
Terminal
Moderate
Low
Low
N/A
Moderate
Moderate,
oil on
shoreline
Moderate.
ECRC
available for
control.
Moderate
Allision
with
Terminal
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
N/A
None
N/A
Unlikely
N/A
Low
None
Low
None
Low
Low/Moderate, in
contact location
None
Low, oil on
shoreline
None
Low/Moderate,
In contact location
Unlikely
No
Unlikely
No
No
Collision at
Anchorage
Grounding near
Terminal
Low
The primary effect associated with an accidental event scenario that does not result in cargo releases,
is a potential disruption to marine transportation by other users. Cargo releases are discussed in
Section 11.1.2.4 and 11.1.2.5 (Hazardous Materials Spills and LNG Release, respectively).
The LNG industry has an excellent safety record to date. Two LNG ship groundings have occurred in
the last 30 years. The El Paso Paul Keyser ran aground off the Straits of Gibraltar, at a speed of 14
knots, when it struck a rock pinnacle. The LNG Taurus grounded outside Tobata Harbour, Japan. Foul
weather prevented the local pilots from boarding the LNG Taurus and the vessel grounded while
manoeuvring (unassisted) to turn and depart the harbour area. In both cases, extensive hull damage
was sustained but the double hull construction common to all LNG ships, prevented a breach of the
cargo tanks. The cargo tanks on the Paul Keyser (membrane type) were deformed, but did not leak
cargo. Therefore, it may be assumed that any grounding that might occur at low manoeuvring speed,
near the Grassy Point LNG terminal, would not be of sufficient force to cause a cargo release. The
possibility of cargo release is extremely remote.
In Canada, all reportable incidents and accidents may be received by Transport Canada, Marine
Safety, MCTS or the Transportation Safety Board (TSB). The reportable incidents are those listed in the
Transportation Safety Board Regulations and the investigation of the incidents or accidents is the
responsibility of the TSB. TSB maintains records or all accidents reported.
Table 11.3 presents a summary of accidents and incidents by number and type that have occurred
during the past 10 years on the eastern side of Placentia Bay and have been derived from the statistics
provided by TSB (including reports in Fortune Bay and in the western side of Placentia Bay). It should
be noted that only 24 incidents involving commercial vessels were recorded in Placentia Bay over the
ten year period.
Page 394
Table 11.3
Marine Accidents and Incidents All Vessels for 10 years in Eastern Placentia Bay
Vessel Category
Fishing vessels- all categories

Yachts and small craft
Freighters, tankers, ferries, tugs, pilot boats, survey etc.
Type of Accident or Incident
Machinery & Equipment
Fire
Taking-on water, swamping, sinking
Contact, striking
Grounding, Contact with bottom
Miscellaneous
Near Collision
Totals
Numbers of Accidents or
Incidents
22
2
24
Accidents
Incidents
4
6
8
3
11
8
4
2
2
38
10
Source: Transportation Safety Board
Vessel traffic accidents will be prevented by using safe transport vessels and competent crews. Strict
criteria will be used in vessel selection to transport LNG to the pier. LNG Tankers are certified by the
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). Dedicated to safe ships and clean seas,
IACS makes a unique contribution to maritime safety and regulation through technical support,
compliance verification and research and development. Crews and operators will be provided a high
standard of training.
Given the present safety record of the LNG industry and stringent controls to be placed on their
navigation, it is reasonable to assume that the potential for LNG vessel accidents in Placentia Bay
would likely be lower than the current low rate of incidents related to commercial vessel traffic in
Placentia Bay. Taking into consideration the safety record of the LNG industry to date and the training
required of vessel operators, coupled with piloted vessels and tug escort within Placentia Bay,
significant residual environmental effects, on marine transportation and safety as a result of a marine
vessel traffic accident with no cargo release, are unlikely. As indicated above, a significant adverse
effect on marine transportation and safety is defined in Section 10.7 as one that either results in a
substantial increase in economic costs for non-Project related marine transportation, or a reduction in
the level of safety or service currently within Placentia Bay that is unacceptable to the relevant
regulatory authorities. While a collision between a Project vessel and non-Project vessel would result in
costs to the owners/operators of both vessels, this is a risk that vessel owners/operators assume
whenever they enter/depart busy ports, and it is usually mitigated by ship insurance. The marine
accident scenarios described above are unlikely to increase economic costs of any marine
transportation not directly involved in the incident (i.e., may only delay vessels in the immediate vicinity
for a short period or cause re-routing) or cause a reduction in the level of safety or service within
Placentia Bay. Additional information regarding the potential for cumulative environmental effects
associated with increased navigation risk from other proposed developments in Placentia Bay is
presented in Section 11.4.
11.1.1.4
Hazardous Materials Spills
Hazardous material spills could occur during all phases of the Project. Hazardous materials that could
be used during various phases of the Project are listed in Chapter 2. During the construction and
commissioning phases, the potential for spills is limited to materials that will be used for the
preparation, fabrication and installation of the site facilities and equipment.
Page 395
The most likely type of Project accident or malfunction resulting in potential environmental interactions
is the spill of relatively small amounts of hazardous materials such as lubricating oils, fuels or other
equipment fluids. Typically these spills can be minimized through proper equipment maintenance and
inspection and proper fuelling procedures. Spills, if they occur, would typically be small, localized and
rapidly cleaned up. A Spill Prevention and Response Plan will be developed and included in the EPP
for Project construction, detailing procedures to prevent spills (e.g., training for equipment maintenance
and inspection) and how to respond to spills (clean-up and disposal). The Plan will also detail
equipment to be kept on site to quickly respond to spills and how to use the equipment.
During the operational phase of the Project, the most serious risk for hazardous materials spills is due
to a marine vessel traffic accident resulting in a release of fuel oil or cargo. As described in Section
11.1.1.2, the accident scenario which is most likely to result in loss of cargo is a collision with another
non-Project vessel underway in the vicinity of the pilot boarding station. In this scenario, there are three
potential sources of pollution to the environment:
The greatest risk to the environment will be from the loss of cargo from the non-Project
related vessel. While increased Project vessel traffic increases the risk of a vessel collision,
the risk of a non-Project vessel spilling its cargo exists even without the addition of the
Project. In general, however, the likelihood of this occurring is low. This is supported by
international statistics on tanker spills. The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation
Ltd (ITOPF) maintains a database of all accidental oil spills from tankers, combined carriers
and barges since 1974. Data from nearly 10,000 incidents (most of which are small spills)
demonstrates a significant decreasing trend in the number of large spills (>700 tonnes)
during the last thirty years. The average number of large spills per year during the 1990s
was less than a third of that witnessed during the 1970s. In the period 2000/2004, almost
99.99998 percent of oil transported arrived at its destination without problem. Most spills
from tankers resulted from routine operations such as loading, discharging and bunkering
which normally occur in ports or at oil terminals. The majority of these operational spills were
small, with some 91 percent involving quantities of less than 7 tonnes. Accidental causes
such as collisions and groundings generally give rise to much larger spills, with at least 84
percent of incidents involving quantities in excess of 700 tonnes being attributed to such
factors (ITOPF 2006).
Given the environmental risk of a large oil spill associated with tanker traffic, an assessment
of the effects of such an accidental event was included in the CEA Act Comprehensive
Study assessment that was conducted and approved for the Newfoundland Transshipment
Terminal Project in 1995 (NTT 1996). Based on statistics available at the time, it was
determined that the likelihood of a large spill as a result of the Project was very low (i.e., one
extremely large spill (greater than 100,000 bbl) every 410 years of operation; one very large
spill (greater than 10,000 bbl) every 150 years of operation; one large spill (greater than
1,000 bbl) every 60 years; one moderate spill (50-999 bbl) every nine years; and one small
spill (1-49 bbl) every year or two. It should be noted that these predictions were based on
international oil transportation statistics and would not be dependent on or altered by the
volume of traffic in Placentia Bay. Given that the number of large spills from tankers
continues to decrease over time, these statistics can still be considered valid and possibly
even overly conservative.
At that time, several accidental release scenarios were also modeled, including a potential
spill at Red Island (i.e., close to the location identified in this assessment as the most likely
scenario for vessel collisions). The spill modeling predicted the probability that oil from a spill
of any size would be contained within a specific area and considered spills during various
times of the year. For the spill at Red Island, there was an 85 percent probability that a spill
Page 396
occurring in most months would be contained within a 5 km radius of the site. During the
summer months, the 85 percent containment contour does extend 20 to 30 km northeast up
the Eastern channel; in all months, however, there is an 85 percent probability that the spill
will be contained within the shipping lane in the Eastern Channel. Based on the modeling
results and subsequent assessment, significant adverse effects as a result of a spill were
predicted only for the commercial fisheries, community life and employment, business and
standard of living VECs. A recent summary of oil spill trajectory modeling studies for
Placentia Bay is presented in Quantitative Assessment of Oil Spill Risk for the South Coast
of Newfoundland and Labrador (RMRI 2007).
There is an unlikely chance that Project-related vessels involved in a collision could release
a quantity of LNG. Such a release is fully assessed in Section 11.1.1.5.
Project-related vessels would also carry diesel fuel or marine fuel oil which could be
released to the environment as a result of several of the marine vessel accident scenarios
discussed. Existing LNGCs are mainly powered by steam turbines and use boil-off gas as
the fuel for the main engines, supplemented by marine fuel oil for the ballast voyage. These
vessels will have a fuel capacity of not more than 5000 tonnes, but are likely only to carry
2000 aboard; this will provide enough for the return voyage plus a 3 to 5 day reserve. The
newer vessels (Q-Flex and Q-Max) are to be powered by low speed diesel engines using
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) as the main fuel. However, they will have the capability of burning
boil-off gas in the Diesel engines. The maximum capacity for these vessels will probably be
about 10,000 tonnes, but in all likelihood will not carry more than 5000 tonnes. The United
States Coast Guard (2005) has published a fact sheet on small diesel fuel spills (500-5000
gallons). It indicates that:
Diesel fuel is a light, refined petroleum product with a relatively narrow boiling range,
meaning that, when spilled on water, most of the oil will evaporate or naturally disperse
within a few days or less. Thus, seldom is there any oil on the surface for responders to
recover.
When spilled on water, diesel oil spreads very quickly to a thin film. Even when the oil is
described as a heavy sheen, it is 0.0004 inches thick and contains about 1,000 gallons
per square nautical mile of continuous coverage.
Diesel has a very low viscosity and is readily dispersed into the water column when
winds reach 5 to 7 knots or sea conditions are 2 to 4 foot.
Diesel oil is much lighter than water (specific gravity is about 0.85, compared to 1.03 for
seawater). It is not possible for this oil to sink and accumulate on the seafloor as pooled
or free oil. However, it is possible for the oil to be physically mixed into the water column
by wave action, forming small droplets that are carried and kept in suspension by the
currents.
Oil dispersed in the water column can adhere to fine-grained suspended sediments,
which then settle out and get deposited on the seafloor. This process is more likely to
occur near river mouths where fine-grained sediment is carried in by rivers. It is less
likely to occur in open marine settings. This process is not likely to result in measurable
sediment contamination for small spills.
Diesel oil is not very sticky or viscous, compared to black oils. When small spills do
strand on the shoreline, the oil tends to penetrate porous sediments quickly, but also to
be washed off quickly by waves and tidal flushing. Thus, shoreline cleanup is usually not
needed.
Diesel oil is readily and completely degraded by naturally occurring microbes, under time
frames of one to two months.
In terms of toxicity to water-column organisms, diesel is considered to be one of the
most acutely toxic oil types. Fish, invertebrates and seaweed that come in direct contact
Page 397
with a diesel spill may be killed. However, small spills in open water are so rapidly
diluted that fish kills have never been reported. Fish kills have been reported for small
spills in confined, shallow water.
Crabs and shellfish can be tainted from small diesel spills in shallow, near shore areas.
These organisms bioaccumulate the oil, but will also depurate the oil, usually over a
period of several weeks after exposure.
Small diesel spills can affect marine birds by direct contact, though the number of birds
affected is usually small because of the short time the oil is on the water surface.
Mortality is caused by ingestion during preening as well as to hypothermia from matted
feathers. Experience with small diesel spills, is that few birds are directly affected.
However, small spills could result in serious impacts to birds under the "wrong"
conditions, such as a grounding right next to a large nesting colony or transport of
sheens into a high bird concentration area.
An accidental spill of hazardous material as described above into the marine environment may affect
the quality of habitat and therefore the use of the affected area. A spill may also cause direct or indirect
mortality of some species, depending on the material spilled, the quantity spilled and affected area.
Effects may range from a temporary decrease in water quality, to a localized fish kill, to oiling of marine
mammals, migratory birds and habitat. Both the type and level of impacts will depend on the many
variables involved in any actual spill event. These include:
The location of the spill the specific location along or within the Bay.
The source of the release whether from a first- or second-leg tanker with differing storage
capacities.
The type of hydrocarbon released whether crude or refined products, and the type of
products. Various refined products would be expected to have different fates than crude oil,
and different crudes might behave differently (different persistence, spread footprint,
condition after weathering).
The quantity released this could range from a few barrels, to the catastrophic spill of the
full contents of a tanker. More than any other single factor, this would determine the extent
of the effects of the spill on the environment.
Weather conditions this includes the local site and bay-wide weather conditions at the time
of release. Higher winds and a rougher sea state might help the hydrocarbon to weather
faster, but might result in farther travel and could hinder containment and clean-up efforts.
The time of year the time of year would affect how and where spilled oil travelled, based
on prevailing winds, tides and currents in the release location and as the hydrocarbon is
transported by the sea.
The fate of the hydrocarbon released which is related to several of the factors discussed
above (type of hydrocarbon, time of year, weather/sea state). This includes how long it
persists on the surface before evaporation and/or weathering, how far it travels, and how it
is aggregated and/or dispersed.
The characteristics of the coastline and other areas affected this includes shoreline type
(e.g., pebbled beaches vs. rocky shorelines), the presence of infrastructure, such as
wharves, slipways and navigational aides.
If shoreline is affected whether or not the spill reaches shore, and the extent of the
shoreline affected. As several studies have described, both the cleanup expenses and the
associated damage (compensation) costs rise sharply if the hydrocarbon reaches the shore
at any point. Canning & Pitt Inc., in a previous economic analysis study of Placentia Bay for
Page 398
the Canadian Centre for Marine Communications (CCMC) note, The cost of removing oil
from shorelines may be 4 to 5, or even 10 to 100 times, higher than recovering or
eliminating it at sea (Etkin 2000; Interagency Coordinating Committee On Oil Pollution
Research 1997). Even the amount of bunker fuel carried by other (non-tanker) shipping is
enough to cause significant damage if released Molloy and White (2003) observe that the
three largest tanker spills (by quantity) of all time the Atlantic Empress off Tobago
(287,000 tonnes), the Castillo De Bellver off South Africa (252,000 tonnes) and the ABT
Summer off Angola (260,000 tonnes) - resulted in very low clean-up and damage costs
since no significant quantities of oil reached coastal areas (Canning & Pitt Inc 2005).
Success of initial mitigative efforts effectiveness, duration and completeness of at-sea or
shoreline clean-up efforts. This includes how quickly the oil can be contained, and the size
of the slick footprint that results, and whether it can be kept from reaching shore.
Marine Birds
Marine birds may be exposed to spilled hydrocarbons by breathing contaminated air, through skin
contact, through eating contaminated prey items (Davis and Bell 1984), or by ingesting contaminants
while preening contaminated plumage (Stout 1993). The potential effects of an accidental release of
hydrocarbons (excluding LNG) on marine birds can include external exposure to oil when birds are
present at the water surface. This may result in a loss of waterproofing, thermoregulatory capability
(resulting in hypothermia) and buoyancy (resulting in drowning) due to the matting of feathers (Wiese
1999; Minerals Management Service (MMS) 2001; Wiese et al. 2001). Oil may also be ingested from
excessive preening/cleaning (of even slightly oiled feathers (Stout 1993), resulting in lethal and
sublethal effects, including starvation due to increased energy needs to compensate for heat loss
(Peakall et al. 1980; 1982; MMS 2001).
There is no direct relationship between the volume of oil spilled and bird mortality, but rather it is the
timing and location of spills that influence mortality rates (Wiese et al. 2001). The effects of an
accidental spill is dependent on the time of year, sea conditions, volume of oil spilled, and type of spill
(i.e., surface/subsurface or deep water/shallow water). Contact between marine birds and spilled
hydrocarbons at the surface would be highly probable, with alcids that spend most of their time in the
water, at the highest risk.
As described in Chapter 9, Placentia Bay is a particularly important area for migratory birds, especially
marine birds. While some birds like gulls and guillemots are fairly sedentary near shore, many of the
marine-associated birds in Placentia Bay are migratory. The Bay usually does not ice over in winter,
allowing year-round foraging for some marine species. The cliffs and trees along the coast provide
high-quality nesting habitat for many species. Areas of Placentia Bay are rich in capelin and plankton,
providing substantial food resources for marine birds. Given the high productivity for marine bird
species in the Bay, there is an increased likelihood that a spill, while unlikely, could result in oiling of a
large number of birds, resulting in significant adverse environmental effects. As described above,
however, the likelihood of a large spill is negligible, and all efforts will be made to contain and clean-up
such a spill should it occur. These measures would be included in the Emergency Response Plan for oil
spills and would include identification of environmentally sensitive areas within the Bay.
Page 399
The Proponent will prepare a spill response plan which specifically addresses concerns related to birds
which will include the following elements:
measures to be taken to contain a spill and clean up an area during any phase of the
project;
a clear accounting of who would be responsible for cleanup and what response and
containment equipment would be available;
measures that would be taken to keep birds away from a spilled substance; and,
measures for keeping birds away from a spill, for dealing with accidents where birds are
oiled and/or sensitive habitats are contaminated and for handling oiled birds.
Marine Mammals
Most marine mammals can withstand some oiling without toxic or hypothermic effects. Whales and
seals use blubber to maintain core body temperature, which is not affected by a covering of oil.
Hypothermia is possible however, if a young seal pup is covered in oil because it takes several months
to build up a blubber layer sufficient to maintain body heat. Oil can also cause irritation of the mammals
eye if it comes in direct contact (Geraci and Smith 1976).
Whales can also ingest oil if they eat oil-contaminated food or if they feed in an area of an oil spill.
Baleen whales are especially vulnerable because they ingest large volumes of water during feeding,
which can coat their baleen and reduce filtering capacity. All mammals can digest and metabolize some
oil, other components may be excreted, but oil is not usually bioaccummulated in mammals. Some oil
can be absorbed, however, and cause toxic effects (LGL Limited 2000). Mammals may also ingest
vaporized hydrocarbons during breathing near the waters surface. Irritation of the respiratory tract can
be expected and continued exposure may cause absorption into the blood stream.
While studies indicate that cetaceans can detect oil spills, they may or may not consistently avoid
contact with most oil types (St. Aubin et al. 1985; Smultea and Wrsig 1995). Some evidence exists
that dolphins attempt to minimize contact with surface oil by decreasing their respiration rate and
increasing dive duration (Smultea and Wrsig 1995). Even if cetaceans actively avoid slicks, continued
exposure through feeding on oiled prey may occur. No long-term effects on cetaceans from external
exposure, ingestion, or bio-accumulation have ever been demonstrated from an oil spill (Thomson et al.
2000).
Cetaceans are highly mobile and carry energy reserves that reflect their seasonal or pulsed feeding
activities. Cetaceans can monitor their environment over a wide range and can adjust their movements.
Short-term exclusion from a particular area due to a spill would likely have no measurable effect on
individuals, stocks or populations, since none of the marine mammal species are restricted by range to
the Assessment Area.
Although unlikely to occur, oil spills may affect water quality, which in turn will affect the health and
survival of plankton, fish eggs, and larvae, juvenile and possibly adult fish in the immediate vicinity of
the spill site. Fish larvae will be affected to different degrees by an accidental spill of hydrocarbons in
the water. The nature and degree of such an interaction depends on the severity, timing and location of
the spill. An oil spill reaching a capelin beach for example, would likely cause mortality of eggs and
larvae deposited on the beach, and possibly among spawning adults.
Page 400
According to a review of exploration drilling effects (Thomson et al. 2000), the sensitivity of fish larvae
to an oil spill varies depending on the type of oil (e.g., crude, light condensate), yolk sac stage, and
feeding conditions. The Argo Merchant spill of 7.7 million gallons of No. 6 fuel in December 1976 on
Nantucket Shoals off Massachusetts affected fish eggs. Some of the eggs collapsed or had malformed
shells, while others had oil spots on the outer membrane. Eggs and larvae exposed to oil generally
exhibit morphological malformations, genetic damage and reduced growth (Thomson et al. 2000).
However, these effects are short lived since these changes are not observed in subsequent years at
the same location (Thomson et al. 2000). No conclusive evidence in the literature exists to suggest that
these oiled sites posed a long-term hazard to fish embryo or larval survival.
The Regional Environmental Emergencies Team (REET) report on the Uniacke G-72 blowout
concluded that there were no observed signs of long-term impacts on renewable resources or the
marine environment around Sable Island from the blowout (Riley 1984). A report on the Exxon Valdez
oil spill effects on Pacific herring in Prince William Sound did observe a collapse in the herring
population three years after the spill. The authors of that study state that the collapse was likely caused
by high population size, disease and suboptimal nutrition, but indirect links to the spill were not ruled
out (Carls et al. 2002). A study on prey sources of juvenile salmon in Prince William Sound concluded
that the Exxon Valdez spill did not reduce the availability of various preys, including zooplankton
(Celewycz and Wertheimer 1996). Effects on plankton and zooplankton are short-lived, because their
life cycles are short and they reproduce frequently. Fish feeding on plankton which have ingested oil
droplets will ingest the oil as well, since plankton cannot metabolize oil.
Exposure to oil could cause direct mortality of fish eggs or larvae and physiological effects on juvenile
or adult stages. Exposure would likely be limited spatially and temporally, however. In the unlikely event
of an oil spill, oil would remain on the sea surface and not likely reach the seafloor. Sublethal
physiological effects leading to reduced breeding success are unlikely to be significant at the population
level. Impacts on juvenile and adult fish exposed to an oil spill can be lethal, as fish gills can be coated
with oil resulting in suffocation. Sublethal and long-term effects can include disruption of physiological
and behavioural mechanisms, reduced tolerance to stress, and incorporation of carcinogens into the
food chain (Thomson et al. 2000). Such effects would be restricted to the vicinity of the accidental
event, in contrast to the dispersed nature of fish populations. Significant impacts on marine fish and fish
habitat as a result of an accidental oil spill are unlikely.
Species at Risk
Persistent oils will likely cause mortality of marine bird species at risk that become oiled; however, bird
species at risk (e.g., Ivory Gull, Barrows Goldeneye and Harlequin Duck) are not likely to occur within
the accidental event Assessment Area.
The effects of an oil spill on marine mammal species at risk would be the same physiologically as for
the non-listed species described above, and are therefore not likely to be significant. Again, the
likelihood of the spill occurring is very low and rapid and effective emergency response procedures
would further reducing any environmental effects.
However, an oil spill can affect leatherback turtles through direct contact with oil. If turtles come in
contact with oil, several effects can result including toxic external contact, toxic ingestion, blockage of
digestive tract or respiratory system, disruption of salt gland function, and asphyxiation. It is unclear if
sea turtles can avoid spilled oil. Accidental spills could also interact with marine turtles to the extent that
their food supply. (e.g., jellyfish) is affected. The Assessment Area is not known to be any more
important for marine turtle feeding than any other adjacent areas.
Page 401
Lutcavage et al. (1995) suggest that sea turtles are vulnerable to oil affects and tar ingestion because
they show no avoidance behaviour when they encounter an oil slick. Turtles indiscriminately eat
anything that registers as being an appropriate size for food, including tar balls. Such was the case with
a juvenile loggerhead stranded in Gran Canaria, Spain, which had an esophageal defect that trapped
tar balls, plastics, and fishing line in its digestive system (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) 2003).
Sea turtles diving behaviour also puts them at risk (NOAA 2003). Adults inhaling large volumes of air
before diving and continually resurface in an oil spill may experience both extended physical exposure
to the oil and prolonged exposure to petroleum vapours. Anecdotal accounts of dead or impaired green
turtles found with tar balls in their mouths were summarized by Witham (1978). Three turtles found
dead after the Ixtoc 1 blowout showed evidence of oil externally and in the mouth, esophagus and small
intestine, although there was no evidence of lesions in the gastrointestinal tract, trachea, or lungs (Hall
et al. 1983). However, chemical analysis of tissue showed a chronic exposure to and selective
accumulation of hydrocarbons. Hall et al. (1983) believed prolonged exposure to oil may have caused
the poor body condition of the animals by disrupting feeding.
Frazier (1980, in NOAA 2003) suggested that olfactory impairment from chemical contamination could
represent a substantial indirect effect in sea turtles, since a keen sense of smell plays an important role
in navigation and orientation. Frazier (1980, in NOAA 2003) noted that masking olfactory cues may not
harm a turtle outright, but impairing its ability to properly orient itself can result in a population effect.
The low density of sea turtles in the Assessment Area makes for a low probability of contact with a spill,
but if it did occur, physiological effects are predicted which may result in mortality. Due to endangered
status of the leatherback turtle, a residual adverse effect on one individual may be considered
significant.
The effects of a spill on marine fish species at risk would be similar to those for non-listed fish species
described above. The most likely marine fish species at risk to occur within the Assessment Area is the
Atlantic cod. A spill would likely cause mortality or deformity of any cod eggs or larval within the
confines of the spill, but the spatial extent of this effect would be limited compared to the spawning area
of the population and therefore would not affect stock or population recruitment. American eels may
also migrate through the area, but would not likely be affected by a spill. Similarly shark and wolffish
species at risk and are not likely to be affected by oil spill given the likelihood of occurrence and habitat
preferences, respectively.
Commercial Fisheries and Aquaculture
Accidental events resulting in oil spills in the marine environment may affect the various components
and the economic status of the commercial fishing industry in several different ways. For commercial
wild fish harvesters, aquaculturalists and fish processors, the effects would relate generally to loss of
access to the resource, tainting, lost harvesting opportunity, increased operating expenses, damage to
gear and equipment, and potential market impacts.
Depending on the level and extent of the shoreline impacted, the greatest effects (on a per-enterprise
basis) may be felt by the aquaculture sector. For a spill that is retained or cleaned up at sea, the
commercial wild fisheries would be more likely to be affected. The processing sector, under any
scenario, would likely be the least affected since much of its raw materials come from waters outside
Placentia Bay.
Page 402
Without actual resource damage, economic impacts might still occur if a spill resulted in a negative
effect on the marketability of fish products or lower prices because of market perception, even without
organic or organoleptic indications of tainting. This factor is particularly difficult to quantify, and might
depend more on media coverage than on hydrocarbon coverage. It would only be possible to quantify
such effects by monitoring the market situation after a spill occurred.
Over the life of the Project, there may be a different mix in the make-up of the commercial fisheries, or
different seasons and conservation measures in place. Now-underutilized species may have new and
lucrative markets. The aquaculture sector may have expanded into many new areas and with many
new species.
Any actual spill event will involve some unique combination of all of these factors and variables. It is
therefore not useful, or possible with any level of confidence, to predict what the actual economic
consequences of such an accident might be. These costs can only be known after the fact, and when
all the claims have been received, and actual economic damage is assessed. The damage costs
(excluding clean-up and remediation costs) could thus range from nothing to a large proportion of the
gross value of the harvesting and aquaculture value in the area affected, whatever it might be in that
future year.
The following sections consider the potential and differential economic impacts on wild fish harvesters,
aquaculture operators and processors in more detail.
A spill might prevent or impede a harvesters ability to access fishing grounds because they would be
temporarily excluded from their fishing areas during the spill event and the spill clean-up process. (This
is apart from any biophysical impacts on the commercial species, as discussed in above). It might also
cause damage to fishing gear (through oiling) or result in a negative effect on the marketability of fish
products (because of market perception). If the spill affected bait harvesting (e.g., herring for the snow
crab fishery), fishers might have to buy bait elsewhere.
For most wild fishing activity, the chief effect that would be expected would result from temporary loss
of access to certain marine areas (closed or off limits zones) because of the presence of spilled oil, or
spill clean-up activities. The effects would be largely dependent on whether the closed area coincided
with active fishing grounds, and whether or not there were alternative harvesting locations available.
For some or all species, there might be adequate alternative grounds available, unless the spill was
very large.
Any closures would likely continue as long as a slick persisted, or while there were measurable
hydrocarbons in the water. The extent of the economic impact would also be affected by the time the
spill occurred within the fishing season, and where the fisher was in terms of harvesting his/her quota
(in quotaed fisheries, such as snow crab). Depending on the duration and persistence of a spill, a
substantial portion of the fishing season might be lost, or only a small part.
Even if the spill did not prevent access to a particular area, there might be an economic effect if the spill
increased sailing time to go around it to reach the main fishing grounds. The same might result from
having to fish on alternative fishing grounds. These activities might result in increased costs and
decreased fishing efficiency, and/or lost opportunity to pursue other fisheries. As discussed in Section
10.2, effects would be more likely to occur, or to be greater in impact, for fixed gear fisheries than for
mobile gear fisheries. Costs related to gear cleaning or replacement might also be incurred, particularly
for fixed gear.
Page 403
Spills affecting inshore or shoreline areas of Placentia Bay, e.g., in the Grassy Point area, might impact
the lobster fishery and the herring fishery for a relatively longer time, until the oil was cleaned up.
Economic effects might also result if market confidence is lost, resulting from a perception in the
marketplace after a spill that fish from the area are now of an inferior quality and lower prices could
result or buyers could be lost, even without actual physical effects. Such perceptions might be hard to
overcome and persist long after the spill. These economic effects are difficult to predict since the actual
(physical) impacts of the spill might have little to do with the perceptions.
The potential economic losses to the commercial wild fisheries as a result of an oil spill, considering the
broad range of scenarios and combination of factors involved could range from no economic impact to
the loss of $2 - $3 million dollars to fishers based in, or landing harvest in SS 30 ports, or $15 - $20
million for all of 3PSc, based on the gross value of the harvest in recent years and assuming the overall
value of the fisheries had not changed substantially by the time a spill occurred. This does not include
costs related to gear and coastal infrastructure. As discussed above, a spill would likely be confined to
the eastern channel and therefore only affect a portion of the fisheries in the Bay. However, a loss of
market confidence due to perceived taint could extend impacts beyond the physical size of the spill.
Aquaculture
Most of the issues and economic effects for wild fisheries would also apply to fish farming. The chief
difference is that, if a spill reached an aquaculture site, there would be no alternative fishing area and
the spill would likely shut down the entire operation. Apart from biological damage to the stock, the
operations gear and equipment would likely be damaged including shore facilities such as docks and
holding facilities.
Market perceptions and buyer impacts might be more significant for an aquaculture operation (or
aquaculture area) than a wild fishery since fish farming operations are associated strongly with a
specific geographical location.
Because the majority of the present-day aquaculture operations are situated in the northern half of the
bay, a spill in this area would be more likely to affect aquaculture activities than a spill towards the
mouth of the bay.
If hydrocarbons from a spill became incorporated into nearshore and inter-tidal sediments, an
aquaculture operation might have to abandon its location and re-establish elsewhere at a substantial
cost (relocation expenses, as well as lost time and opportunity).
As with potential economic losses to the commercial wild fisheries, the impact on aquaculture
operations as a result of an oil spill could range from no economic impact to the loss of more than one
million dollars, based on recent gross value harvests and assuming the overall values have not
changed substantially by the time a spill occurred. Costs of aquaculture gear and equipment in the bay
would be an additional 1 to 2 million, and costs to relocate an aquaculture operation would be in
addition to these costs, if this were necessary. Based on the likely spill scenarios already discussed
above and the location of known aquaculture sites (i.e., most are not located in the eastern channel), it
is unlikely that a spill would physically reach most of the sites in Placentia Bay. Therefore, ultimate
economic losses will most likely be on the lower side of the range provided above.
Fish Processing
Impacts on fish plants (whether processing wild or farmed fish) will likely depend more on the location
of a spill relative to dependent fishing grounds than the spills proximity to the processing facility.
Page 404
Economic impacts are most likely to result from any effect on the supply of raw material (fish) that the
plant processes.
As described in Chapter 9, much of the product for some plants is trucked in for processing and leaves
the same way. Unless a spill prevented access to a fish plant, its location vis--vis the spill might not be
significant. For example, a spill in Placentia Bay might not cause a significant impact for a plant on the
eastern side of the Burin Peninsula if the raw material the plant processes comes from the offshore
waters of 3PS or from 3PN. For example, the Marystown facility has traditionally obtained more than 90
percent of its raw material inputs (primarily flatfish species) from offshore sources beyond Placentia
Bay. Thus, only about 10 percent of its processing value (in a worst case) would be expected to be
affected by a spill within Placentia Bay. Conversely, a spill in the Bay might have economic
consequences for a plant in Cape Breton, or on the Newfoundland west coast, if it depends on fish from
an area affected and cannot establish an alternative supply.
Economic effects in these cases would be direct loss of income from sales and potentially loss of
buyers. There might also be an impact on market confidence in the processors ability to ensure
continuity of supply. Plant workers would likely be laid off in these cases.
Air Quality
Air quality in the immediate vicinity of a spill may be affected temporarily while the slick is on the
surface. Due to its location in the marine environment, this is not expected to result in risks to human
health and all effects will be short-term, localized, reversible and therefore not significant.
Marine transportation could be adversely affected by clean-up activities following a large spill. Vessels
may be required to avoid part of the eastern channel resulting in delays or re-routings which could
result in substantial economic consequences and therefore, a significant effect.
Mitigation/Compensation
An accident resulting in an oil spill causing the economic effects described above (such as those
caused by loss of access, gear damage, stock damage, increased expenses or changes in
marketability or market value) could be considered significant to commercial fisheries and aquaculture
operators. However, the likelihood of a spill having these economic consequences is very low but, if a
large incident did occur, there are several avenues for compensation.
A specific source of compensation (and clean-up costs) for spills of persistent oils (crude oil and heavy
refined products) from tankers are the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. It currently
consists of two chief components, the 1992 Civil Liability Convention, which governs the liability of
shipowners for oil pollution damage, and the 1992 Fund Convention, which supplements the 1992 Civil
Liability Convention. The former sets out the principle of strict liability for shipowners and creates a
system of compulsory liability insurance. The latter Convention establishes a regime for compensating
affected parties when the compensation under the applicable Civil Liability Convention is inadequate.
Liability under the Civil Liability Convention is structured as follows (amounts in 2007 US dollars):
for a ship not exceeding 5,000 units of gross tonnage, US $7 million;
for a ship with a tonnage between 5,000 and 140,000 units of tonnage, US $7 million plus
US$954 for each additional unit of tonnage; and
for a ship of 140,000 units of tonnage or over, US $136 million.
Page 405
Under the 1992 Fund Convention, which provides supplementary payment if the Civil Liability funds are
not adequate, a further US$ 307 million is available.
The funds also have extensive experience in assessing, quantifying and adjudicating such claims,
based on all the various factors and the actual effects.
The basic principles of these programs aim at compensating fisheries participants in a fair and timely
manner for all actual loss with the intention of leaving them in no worse or better position than before
the losses occurred. These principles will be important components of Newfoundland LNG Ltds
response in the event that a spill (or other accidental event) did occur and resulted in economic
consequences for fish harvesters, aquaculture operators or fish processors. This will ensure that any
actual loss to the fisheries industry resulting from any oil spill is fully and adequately addressed. In the
event of a vessel collision between a Project-vessel and a tanker, the companies involved in the tanker
(e.g., vessel owner, Newfoundland Transshipment Limited, etc.) would also play a role in the clean-up
and compensation process as the spilled material would likely be from the non-Project vessel.
The probability of hazardous materials spills is reduced and the effects of any spills are reduced with
the implementation of hazardous materials management processes and procedures. Mitigation to
reduce the likelihood and impact of hazardous spills during construction and operation includes:
the use of personnel trained in spill prevention and response;
on site spill response equipment;
the use of properly maintained and recently inspected equipment; and
development of a Spill Response Plan including participation in regional spill response
organizations.
Furthermore, the Proponent will ensure that contractors and employees are aware that Section 5.1 of
the Migratory Birds Convention Act prohibits persons by law from depositing harmful substances in
waters or areas frequented by migratory birds.
Transport Canada has released a Draft report entitled Environmental Oil Spill Risk Assessment for the
South Coast of Newfoundland (Transport Canada, 2007). The report indicates a very low risk for large
spills of oil from commercial tankers, based on historical information for the area as well as worldwide
incident statistics. The report also looked ahead at proposed new developments in the area and
concluded that the risk for a large oil spill would increase slightly.
LNG carriers will adhere to the Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from ships and for
Dangerous Chemicals under the Canada Shipping Act, specifically the need for a response
organization and an oil prevention plan. As discussed in Section 11.1.2.3, the release of fuel oil as a
result of a marine vessel traffic accident due to Project activities is unlikely due to the stringent
operational procedures required of vessels in the industry and modern carrier design. In the unlikely
event of a collision, ship design minimizes the potential for a fuel oil spill. Further, in the unlikely event
of a spill, the EPP, operations manuals and contingency plans to be developed for the facility will
ensure rapid response and clean-up.
11.1.1.5
LNG Release
A risk assessment of the consequences of a LNG release at Grassy Point was conducted by the worldrenown LNG safety firm, ICF International. The risk assessment has been reviewed and approved by
the NLDEC.
Page 406
The factors affecting risk and safety addressed within the Risk Assessment includes:
likelihood of an event occurring;
behaviour of LNG should a release occur;
the potential zone of influence and severity of hazard;
potential hazards to the public outside the facility;
physical effects on the environment;
ship-to-ship transfer; and
effects on the community and future development.
The Risk Assessment was developed based on the LNG Safety Standard set by CSA Z-276-07
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Production, Storage, and Handling. The Risk Assessment concluded
that the proposed LNG facility at Grassy Point will be designed so that any credible scenarios will not
result in significant risks of injury or damage beyond the Projects property lines, including the berth
area and any controlled adjacent property. Any danger to the surrounding animal population, habitat or
property will be minimal and LNG accidents do not create any long-term environmental issues (ICF
International 2007).
An LNG release could affect migratory birds, marine mammals, fish and fish habitat and species at risk,
if they were present in the vicinity of the transfer area. The released LNG would vaporize rapidly, but
could cause direct mortality to any species in the immediate area of the release. This would be due to
the change in water temperature from contact with the cryogenic LNG before vaporization took place.
An LNG release could also cause a reduction in general habitat quality in the immediate vicinity of the
spill. Once vaporization occurred, there would be no LNG remaining to contaminate habitat. Air quality
could also be affected should a vapour cloud of LNG ignite. A release could result in temporary
exclusion area for commercial fishers and other commercial marine transportation operators.
In the unlikely event of an LNG spill, birds and marine mammals in the immediate vicinity could be
asphyxiated. However, they would likely avoid the area due to the rapid decrease in water temperature.
The most vulnerable species to spills include bird species that spend much of their time sitting on the
water, which are primarily the divers like Murres, Dovekie, Atlantic Puffin, Razorbill, and to a lesser
extent Northern Gannet and cormorants.
LNG is not persistent and is not toxic to aquatic biota. Overall, the persistence of environmental effects
from the spill of LNG into the marine environment would be much less severe than spills of hazardous
material containing oil, fuel, or lubricants and is not predicted to result in environmental or socioeconomic effects of concern.
Accidental LNG releases may result in a cloud of vaporized LNG which can disperse over a large
distance. An un-ignited plume does not pose a hazard. However, if it were to come into contact with an
ignition source, it would burn back to its source resulting in a localized pool fire at the source. Resultant
fires could cause emission of fine particles and unburned natural gas, thereby temporarily degrading air
quality. A local exceedance of air quality standards would result in a significant, though unlikely, effect
on the atmospheric environment. Again, this would be of greatest concern to any humans in the vicinity
of the LNG release. This would likely be limited to terminal or vessel personnel who would have access
to appropriate PPE and would be trained in its use.
Page 407
Releases of LNG will be minimized by the following means, as standard industry practice (see Section
2.6):
intrinsically safe design;
effective emergency planning and preparedness; and
implementation of operational procedures and training.
Safety features are incorporated into every aspect of the design of the proposed facility. The proposed
facility will be designed and equipment selected to meet strict design codes and standards, and a
quality assurance system will be implemented for the Project to ensure the final design meets these
standards. Further, hazard operability analysis of the design will provide an additional level of
assurance that the potential for spills or unintentional releases of LNG are minimized. The Proponent
will adhere to the Environmental Emergency (E2) Regulations pursuant to CEPA.
The Environmental Emergency Regulations under the CEPA apply to any person in Canada who owns,
or has charge, management or control of, a substance listed on Schedule 1 of the regulations that is
present in a quantity equal to or greater than that specified in the Schedule. The regulations identify
the information that must be submitted to EC within 90 days after acquiring a scheduled substance at or
above the specified threshold quantities. An environmental emergency plan will be prepared for all
facilities that store or use any of the scheduled substances at or above the specified threshold
quantities. When preparing an emergency plan, the proponent will consider the following factors:
The properties and characteristics of the substances;
The maximum expected quantity of the substance at the place at any time during the
calendar year;
The commercial, manufacturing, processing or other activity in relation to which the plan is
prepared;
The characteristics of the place where the substance is located and of the surrounding area
that may increase the risk of harm to the environment or of danger to human life or health;
A description of roles and responsibilities of individuals during an environmental emergency.
The Proponent will consult the 2004 Emergency Response Guidebook and the Implementation
Guidelines for Part 8 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 Environmental Emergency
Plans, which provides direction on meeting these requirements. Scenarios incorporated the plan for
LNG will include leaks and fire.
Operational procedures will be prepared to ensure the transport, handling and process systems are
operated within the design parameters and with the highest regard for safety. With the implementation
of mitigation as described above, any release would likely be infrequent, rapidly contained, and any
environmental effects would be reversible. Therefore, significant residual environmental effects due to
an LNG release are unlikely.
11.1.2 Conclusion on Significance of Adverse Environmental Effects after Consideration of Mitigation
LNGCs have an excellent, demonstrated safety record. There has never been an accident which has
resulted in a loss of LNG to atmosphere from a tank. There has never been a fire that has been
associated with LNG aboard ship. Groundings and touching bottom have not resulted in a pollution
event. Accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events, including forest fires, will be mitigated by the
Page 408
implementation of a comprehensive health and safety management system, an environment protection

plan and an emergency response plan. While all of these accidental events are considered unlikely and
will be minimized if they do occur through appropriate mitigation, the RAs, in consultation with FAs,
conclude that significant adverse environmental effects could result from some of the accidental events
assessed in this section, specifically fires and explosions and hazardous materials spills. All predicted
effects are summarized in Table 11.4 by VEC. In all cases where significant adverse effects are
predicted, their likelihood is low and there is a high level of confidence associated with the prediction.
All employees will be trained in operational procedures and environmental emergency response
procedures to ensure safe operation of a LNGC unloading and facility operation. Further, the
environmental training requirements for employees will be described in detail as part of the part of the
training manual for the LNG facility. Each operator of the LNG facility will be thoroughly trained.
LNGC accidents and/or spills will be prevented by using safe, properly maintained vessels and
competent crews. Strict criteria will be used in vetting LNGCs utilizing the marine terminal. LNG carriers
are certified by the Government of the State of registry and by a Classification Society that is a member
of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). Dedicated to safe ships and clean
seas, IACS makes a unique contribution to maritime safety and regulation through compliance
verification and research and development. Crews and operators will be provided a high standard of
training for crew members of LNGCs. Training will contribute greatly to minimizing spills resulting from
human error. The probability of a spill will be further reduced by the introduction of, and adherence to,
marine terminal procedures in accordance with the Terminal Operations Manual to be developed. In
addition, marine operating procedures will be prepared and the workers will be trained to ensure LNG
shipments and transfers are made safely.
Table 11.4
Predicted Significance of Accidents and Malfunctions by VEC
Air Quality
Marine
Transportation
and Safety
Release of LNG
Species at Risk

Accidents
Hazardous Materials
Spills
Migratory Birds
Fires and Explosions
Marine Mammals
Failure of Sedimentation/
Erosion Control
Structures
Commercial and
Aquaculture
Fisheries
Accidents and
Malfunctions
Marine Fish and

Fish Habitat
Significance by VEC
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Probability of
1
Occurrence
Scientific
Uncertainty
KEY
Significance: S= Significant Adverse Effect; N= Non-significant Adverse Effect;
Probability of Occurrence: Based on professional judgement; 1= Low; 2 = Medium; 3 = High; n/a = not applicable (effect is not predicted
to be significant).
Scientific Uncertainty: Based on scientific information and statistical analysis or professional judgement; 1 = Low level of confidence; 2 =
Medium level of confidence; 3 = High level of confidence; n/a = not applicable (effect is not predicted to be significant).
1
Likelihood is defined only for effects that are evaluated as significant (CEA Agency 1994).
n/a = Not Applicable
Page 409
EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT
11.2
The definition of environmental effects under Section 2(1) of the CEA Act includes any change to the
project that may be caused by the environment.
The range of effects on the Project due to the physical environment can range from minor facility
improvement to catastrophic failure. The primary mitigation tool is the use of sound planning. All
engineering design must be done to the National Building Code Standards. These standards document
the proper engineering design for site specific extreme physical environmental conditions and provide
design criteria, which the federal government considers satisfactory to withstand potential physical
environmental conditions. These codes consider physical environmental criteria such as wind, snow,
wave and ice loading and drainage. In addition, the design life is taken into consideration so that
materials are chosen with sufficient durability and corrosion resistance.
The proposed facility consists of two main portions, the marine and onshore portions. The onshore
facility will primarily be affected by the meteorological regime (severe weather such as wind,
precipitation, icing and seismic events). The marine facility will be affected by both the meteorological
and oceanographic regime (waves, currents, visibility, bathymetry and to a lesser extent sea ice). To
mitigate the effects of the physical environment on the Project there must be adequate planning and
design to consider the potential extreme physical environmental conditions.
11.2.1 Environment Conditions Considered
The environmental conditions that could affect the Project are:
air temperature and precipitation;
fog and visibility;
wind and storms;
seismic events and tsunamis;
sea ice and icebergs; and
climate change (changes in storm frequency and intensity and sea level).
11.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
The spatial boundaries for the assessment of the effects of the environment on the Project include the
Grassy Point peninsula and the marine environment from the western shoreline of the Peninsula to the
shipping lane. The temporal boundary includes the construction, and operation phases of the Project.
A significant effect of the environment on the Project would be one that results in:
a substantial delay in construction (e.g., more than one season);
a long-term interruption in service (e.g., transfer of LNG between vessels and tanks)
damage to infrastructure that compromises public safety; or
damage to infrastructure that would not be economically and technically feasible to repair.
Page 410
11.2.4 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigations

As required by the Canadian Building Code and the Canadian Standards Association, all components
of the facility are designed and constructed with consideration of the potential effects of environment on
the Project. Section 2.2.3 lists the applicable design standards. A detailed discussion of the physical
environment within the Grassy Point area is provided in Sections 9.1 and 9.2. In this section, the
potential extreme conditions are presented, along with the mitigations intended to minimize any effect
on the Project.
11.2.4.1
Air Temperature and Precipitation
Air temperature extremes at Grassy Point recorded over a 20 year period, range from -29oC to 29oC.
The mean temperatures range from -5oC in winter to 15oC in summer. The daily maximum air
temperatures range from -1.3C in winter to 19oC in summer and the daily minimum air temperature is
lowest in February at -10oC. In winter (December to March), the daily mean air temperatures range
from -1.9oC to -1.5oC, the daily minimum is -10.1oC and extreme minimum is -29oC.
All materials specified for this Project will be in compliance with applicable building codes for these
temperatures and as such will maintain the integrity and ductility to function as they were designed.
The average annual rainfall at Grassy Point recorded over a 20 year period is between 1100 and 1200
mm with 125 to 176 cm of snowfall. The average monthly rainfall maximums occur in June and October
with lows from December to May and most snowfall in December to March. Mean monthly rainfall
ranges from 83 mm in winter to 116 mm in summer with a mean monthly snowfall in winter ranging
from 23 to 51 cm. Daily rainfall and snowfall can reach an extreme of over 100 mm and 70 cm
respectively and the greatest snow depth on record is 152 cm with all extreme values occurring in
February. The mean monthly snowfall ranges from 23 to 51 cm.
All components of the facility will be designed to support the structural loadings created by extreme
snow and ice events. The runoff from the site and drainage from the secondary impoundments will be
designed in accordance with the National Building Code of Canada to handle extreme precipitation and
sudden snow melt. Construction may be halted during extreme weather events. If extreme weather
conditions in any way compromise a safe operation, accident prevention measures will be taken,
including the temporary suspension of operations, as required.
Saltwater icing is probable from November through April. The freezing of salt spray results when the air
temperature is below -1.8oC, sea temperatures is below 6oC and wind speeds greater than 10 m/s. If
icing were to occur, the facility and all vessels will have equipment and procedures in place to
adequately address the condition. Vessels arriving from the east coast of the United States should not
be heavily affected by icing, but vessels arriving from northern routes and from the west may
experience icing. Ice formed on deck and on the bow will have an effect upon the displacement, trim,
metacentric height and the capability of the usage of the anchors, mooring winches and equipment. All
of these must be considered for passage into the Project area. For safety on passage, the vessels must
be able to let go and retrieve an anchor. Vessels unable to have this minimum capability will be refused
pilotage, and will have to stay clear of the Routing until this capability can be met. If the vessel can
anchor, it may be brought to an anchorage, and there clear the ice to make the mooring systems fully
operable (P. Careen, pers. comm.).
Page 411
11.2.4.2
Fog and Visibility
The head of Placentia Bay is frequently affected by fog thereby reducing visibility most commonly from
April to September. Over a 30 year record, an average annual fog with visibility <1 km is reported on 29
percent of days with a total of 107 mean number of days annually. The peak fog month is July, which
on average reports fog on 18 of the days with a maximum of 25 days. Limited visibility (<0.1 km) occurs
on average 5 percent annually with a total of 19 mean number of days annually. It is most common
from May to August with a mean range of 2 to 5 days a month with up to 16 days in July.
Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) monitors vessel traffic movements and advises
on the weather conditions and other ships moving in the TSS within Placentia Bay and the vessels
themselves are accustomed and equipped to transit in fog. Vessels underway within Placentia Bay will
follow the direction of the MCTS during extreme weather events and reduce speed as appropriate.
However, in adverse weather conditions, the need for additional vigilance on behalf of the operators will
be apparent.
11.2.4.3
Wind and Storms
Winds at Grassy Point are predominantly from the southwest in most months. From a 20 year record,
annually 25 percent of the winds are from the southwest while 12 to 13 percent are from the northeast,
northwest and south. The monthly mean hourly wind speeds range from 5.0 m/s in July to 7.6 m/s in
January. In spring and summer, typical maximum values range from 18.3 to 23.3 m/s while fall and
winter values range from 22.8 to 28.3 m/s. 1.7 percent of winds exceed 15 m/s and only 11
observations (0.006 percent) over 25 m/s were made over the 20 year period. In winter (November to
March), the mean wind speed is 7.1 m/s and the maximum ranges from 23.1 to 28.3 m/s.
The 50 year return period of maximum wave height ranges from about 21 m at the mouth of the Bay,
between 12 m and 18 m in the middle of Bay and down to about 3 m in the Grassy Point area. The 50
year return period of significant wave height using the same criteria ranges from about 12 m at the
mouth of the Bay, between 6 m and 10 m in the Bay and down to about 4 m in the Grassy Point area
(Environment Canada 2008).
The severity and frequency of storms is greatest between November and March, although they may
occur at any time of the year. Winter storms can bring heavy precipitation, hurricane force winds,
reduced visibility, very cold wind chills, storm surges and extreme waves (see Section 9.2.4). Though
fall is typically less stormy, tropical storms spawned near the equator and developed in the Caribbean
may bring windy, wet weather while they pass by the island before dying or redeveloping in the North
Atlantic. Hurricane force winds (> 33 m/s) are rare. 1-in-50 return period is used for handling extreme
precipitation and snow melt in accordance with NBCC.
Wind has the potential to increase structural loads on tanks and buildings, but the design of each
structure will take into account extreme wind conditions as required under building codes and
standards. Extreme wind may also affect the transfer of LNG between carriers and storage tanks. LNG
carriers will not be allowed to dock if wind and sea conditions do not allow a safe LNG transfer. Carriers
will be directed to a nearby anchorage until conditions improve. If weather conditions create an unsafe
environment during a transfer, the transfer will be suspended until conditions improve. Meteorological
criteria for safe berthing and departure from the berth using tugs will be identified and approved through
the TERMPOL Review process. The criteria for stopping pumping and for disconnecting the product
transfer piping will be identified in the Operations Manual of the Terminal.
Page 412
The above water surface areas of the LNG carriers make the vessels susceptible to wind forces at slow
speeds. Manoeuvrability is affected but with the assistance of the tugs, berthing and departure are
carried out with a high degree of safety and are mitigated by the high degree of caution utilised by the
bridge team on approach to and departure from the berth. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has committed to
undertaking simulation studies that will identify the forces required to overcome the wind and
hydrostatic forces which will be experienced in the vicinity of the terminals by the LNGCs. These
simulation studies will also serve to exhibit the safety of manoeuvring, with or without tugs, the LNGCs
to and from the berths. These studies will be conducted at the Centre for Marine Simulation, Memorial
University.
Through simulation modeling of the marine aspects of the Project, the forces needed to counteract wind
and current will be identified and the safety of navigation will be validated. The Terminal Operator and
the Harbour Authority will identify the size and numbers of tugs necessary for the berthing process, the
confirmation of which will be verified by Transport Canada, Marine Safety. Meteorological criteria for
safe berthing and departure from the berth, using tugs, will be identified, and approved through the
TERMPOL Review process. The design criteria for the Terminal and operational constraints will be
reviewed by the (Transport Canada) TERMPOL Review Committee.
The loads and forces exerted on the terminal by a berthing vessel, wind, currents, other meteorological
or hydrodynamic event, seismic events and other external forces, in conjunction with any static forces
applied to the terminal are all taken into account in the design of the marine terminals. Meteorological
events with at least 50 year returns have been utilised in the development of the marine terminals.
The facility is designed to mitigate any effects of a thunder and lightning storm.
11.2.4.4
Seismic Events and Tsunamis
Tsunamis caused by a large seismic events are a very rare event in Newfoundland waters. There is an
absence of any information pertaining to the existence of earthquake-induced surface rupture or active
faulting in Newfoundland. The nearest known seismically active area is the Laurentian Slope seismic
zone located southwest of Newfoundland. The largest recorded seismic event in the Laurentian Slope
seismic zone is the Grand Banks M7.2 earthquake, which occurred on November 18, 1929 at 44.69 N,
56.00 W, which is approximately 380 km from Grassy Point. While the resulting tsunami caused local
sea level rises between 2 and 7 m along the Burin Peninsula, only minor effects were felt at the head of
Placentia Bay. Based on the attenuation relationship (Atkinson and Boore, 1995) used in the 2005
NBCC seismic model, the resulting peak firm ground acceleration (PGA) from this event at Grassy
Point would be 0.04 g, which is significantly less than 2,500 year design PGA of 0.09 g.
The LNG tanks and all related facilities will be designed to the applicable standards for earthquakes in
this area. Specifically, the LNG tanks and their impounding and protection system will be designed in
compliance with the National Building Code of Canada, NBCC (2005), and CSAZ276-07 codes. In
accordance with recent Natural Resources Canada requirements, the Grassy Point facility should also
be designed for seismic events pursuant to the NFPA 59A (United States code, 2006 Edition).
The intent of these design standards is to ensure the integrity of the facilities based on the level of risk
for an earthquake in the area. The level of risk is expressed in terms of a specified return period (e.g., 1
in 500 years, or 500 year return period) earthquake event. Service could be interrupted due to
earthquake damage in an extreme event. An earthquake with a magnitude substantively greater than
the design-base earthquake could result in damage to the facilities that are not technically or
economically feasible to repair. However, design-base earthquake magnitude values are selected
Page 413
based on probability, and it would therefore be very unlikely that the design-base earthquake would be
exceeded during the life of the LNG facility.
Both the CSA and NFPA state that the tank must remain operable during and after the Operating Basis
Earthquake (OBE) and should not suffer loss of containment capability after the Safe Shutdown
Earthquake (SSE). In accordance with the NFPA code, the OBE and SSE events correspond to
probability levels of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years (approximately 1/500 years) and 2 percent in
50 years (approximately 1/2,500 years), respectively.
The potential for soil liquefaction and slope instability of the LNG tank site is evaluated based on the
2,500 year return period firm-soil peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA), corresponding to a value
of 0.09 g, considered to be a relatively low level of seismicity. Based on the distance of the tanks from
the slope and cliff areas and the competent tank (till and bedrock) foundation conditions, there are no
concerns of earthquake-induced slope instability of the tank site under the design PGA of 0.09 g.
11.2.4.5
Iceberg and Sea Ice Impacts
Icebergs originate from glaciers in Greenland and drift with the Labrador Current and typically decay on
the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. No icebergs have been cited within the northern region of Placentia
Bay (north of 74.67 oN) over a 40 year period and are highly unlikely to occur. Sea ice is an unusual
occurrence in Placentia Bay. The maximum percentage of the frequency of presence of sea ice in
Placentia Bay is between 1 and 15 percent, which occurs most often from the middle of February to the
middle of April.
At the head of Placentia Bay, the earliest arrival of landfast ice is March 19th and February 26th for pack
ice. The latest departure of pack ice at the head of the Bay is May 14th while landfast ice rarely occurs
longer than a week. The most severe pack ice events in Placentia Bay occurred in 1961 and 1987. In
1961, the pack ice arrived in March and persisted until May. In 1987, the Bay was filled from the mouth
to the head and the pack contained concentrations of 3/10 to 9/10. These events are considered rare
and may be expected on the order of once every 25 to 30 years.
In the event that sea ice was to reach the terminal site, appropriate actions to ensure safety of
personnel, operations and minimize risk to the environment will be carried out. Navigation is not
curtailed by ice in the Bay.
11.2.4.6
Climate change (changes in storm frequency and intensity and sea level)
Over the next century sea level rise and climate change is expected to result in more extreme weather
events, increasing the frequency and severity of storms and storm surges. Extreme water levels
generally occur as a combination of high water from a spring tide and a storm surge, thus an increase
in the frequency of storms would increase the risk of extreme water levels. Also, an increase in mean
sea level may influence the tidal dynamics by changing its wavelength, and modifying the propagation
and dissipation of tidal energy. Increased water depth affects the generation, propagation and
dissipation of storm surges, and can change the storm climate itself, e.g. storm tracks, intensity and
frequency of occurrence.
Unfortunately many regions have insufficient data for standard extreme analysis which requires long
time series of annual maxima of hourly observations. It is more difficult to assess the effect of climate
on the return period of extremes because a reliable high resolution forcing from global climate model is
required which is not currently available (Bernier et al., 2007).
Page 414
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC Third Assessment Report, 2001) predicts that
global average sea level will increase between 9 and 88 cm by the year 2100 however, there remains
uncertainty in the magnitude of the sea level change. Global sea level is presently increasing at a rate
of about 1 to 2 mm per year (Houghton et al., 2001). As sea level increases storm surges are able to
flood areas never before flooded. Over the next century temperature is predicted to increase by 3 to 4
o
C in Atlantic Canada and overall warming of 0.3 oC has occurred in Atlantic Canada from 1948-2005
(Catto, 2006). Precipitation has also increased in Atlantic Canada since 1948 (Catto, 2006). Since
about 1995 there has been an increase of tropical cyclone activity in theCaribean, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland (Ketch 2005)..
Also, the relationship between storm frequency and intensity and
increases in air temperature or sea surface temperature is not well understood (Catto, 2006).
Bernier and Thompson (2006) developed a model to generate spatial maps of the 40 year return level
of storm surges (an elevation of sea level) in the northwest Atlantic. They found that storm surge
variance was highest during fall and winter and the regions with the highest surge variance and largest
return levels was in the southern Gulf of the St Lawrence and the eastern shores of Newfoundland.
Placentia Bay region had return levels of storm surges of approximately 0.6 to 1 m. Bernier et al.
(2007) conducted a study to generate 40 year return level of extreme sea levels for the northwest
Atlantic associated with specified flooding probabilities under current conditions and projected global
sea level rise scenarios over the next century. They found the return level for Placentia Bay in spring
was approximately 1.5 m.
Professional engineers will design the Project to withstand the effects of the environment on the Project
by applying good engineering practices and the various codes and standards. Scheduling and
completion of a transfer, even after it has been initiated, is very flexible and can be halted at any time if
there is a safety concern.
The mitigative strategies described above, can adequately address potential effects of the environment
on the Project such that there will not be:
a substantial delay in construction (e.g., more than one season);
a long-term interruption in service (e.g., transfer of LNG between vessels and tanks)
damage to infrastructure that compromises public safety; or
damage to infrastructure that would not be economically and technically feasible to repair.
An earthquake with a magnitude substantively greater than the design-base earthquake applied to the
design of the structures could result in a significant effect of the environment on the Project. However,
due to the considerations made when selecting the design-base earthquake, this is considered
extremely unlikely. Design-base earthquake magnitude values are selected based on probability, and it
would therefore be very unlikely that the design-base earthquake would be exceeded during the life of
the LNG facility. Both the CSA and NFPA state that the tank must remain operable during and after the
Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and should not suffer loss of containment capability after the Safe
Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). In accordance with the NFPA code, the OBE and SSE events correspond
to probability levels of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years (approximately 1/500 years) and 2 percent
in 50 years (approximately 1/2,500 years), respectively.
Therefore, the RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that in consideration of the planned mitigation,
all residual effects of the environment on the Project are predicted to be not significant.
Page 415
CAPACITY OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES
11.3
Capacity of Renewable Resources
11.3.1 Background
Section 16 of the CEA Act requires consideration of the capacity of renewable resources that are likely
to be significantly affected by the project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future
within a comprehensive study level of assessment.
Potential adverse effects of the Project on marine fish and fish habitat, commercial fisheries, marine
mammals, migratory birds, species at risk, atmospheric environment, and marine transportation and
safety were identified as VECs and assessed (see Chapter 10).
As determined by the assessment of each VEC, there are no significant effects predicted during routine
construction and operational activities. However, if a fire or explosion or major oil spill were to occur as
a result of a collision between an LNG carrier and a crude tanker, significant effects are predicted for
commercial fisheries and aquaculture, migratory birds, species at risk, and atmospheric environment.
These significant effects are not likely, therefore, the capacity of renewable resources to be significantly
affected is not likely.
11.3.2 Discussion
The significant adverse effect predicted for commercial fisheries (including aquaculture and fish
processing) is related to loss of access to fishing grounds if a spill were to occur, potential for gear
damage and loss of market confidence as a result of real and/or perceived taint issues. The impacts to
marine fish and fish habitat as a result of a spill were predicted to be not significant; therefore, the
biological integrity of the fish resource will not be jeopardized even in the event of a large spill. The
issues of loss of access and real and/or perceived taint are temporary issues that will be resolved over
a period of time. Loss or damage of gear and product can be compensated and within a reasonably
short period of time, gear can be replaced or repaired. Therefore, the RAs, in consultation with FAs,
conclude that the capacity of commercial fisheries as a renewable resource to meet the needs of the
present and of the future is not likely to be significantly affected.
Migratory birds may be significantly impacted by a large spill. Spills will result in habitat degradation and
individual mortality. A significant adverse environmental effect on migratory birds is one that affects the
population of a species of migratory birds or portion thereof in such a way as to cause a decline or
change in abundance or sustainability of the population over one or more generations. In the unlikely
event that a large spill occurs and a large number of birds are oiled, there is potential for a significant
impact as defined above. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any population of marine bird
species likely affected by such a spill would not recover after a period of one or more generations.
Accidental events within the Assessment Area would not likely result in the loss of any significant
breeding colonies, and marine habitat would be returned to its pre-spill condition following a period of
time. Therefore, the RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the capacity of marine birds as a
renewable resource to meet the needs of the present and of the future is not likely to be significantly
affected.
The significant impact predicted for species at risk is specifically in relation to a large oil spill affecting
the leatherback sea turtle. Given their current population status and the potential of a large spill to
cause injury to one or more individuals of these species, this worst case, but unlikely scenario has been
Page 416
CAPACITY OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES
assessed as significant. However, sea turtles are not considered a renewable resource as such, but
Atlantic cod is, and the effects on cod are not likely to be significant from a spill. Therefore, the RAs, in
consultation with FAs, conclude that the capacity of species at risk as a renewable resource to meet the
needs of the present and the future, is considered not likely to be significant.
Significant adverse atmospheric environment effects have been predicted to occur as a result of gas
fire or explosion or a large spill of LNG. The effects in each of these scenarios are predicted to be
significant due to the temporary exceedance of regulatory guidelines and the immediate human health
threat posed by the accident scenarios. In all cases, air quality impacts are temporary and air quality is
expected to return to pre-event conditions very quickly following containment of the fire or clean-up of
the spill. Therefore, The RAs, in consultation with FAs, conclude that the capacity of the atmospheric
environment as a renewable resource to meet the needs of the present and of the future is not likely to
be significantly affected.
Page 417
ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
11.4
Assessment of Cumulative Environmental Effects
11.4.1 Background
Section 16(1)(a) of the CEA Act requires that the factors to be considered in every comprehensive
study include an assessment of the cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the
project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out. Cumulative
effects analysis is based on residual effects that are predicted to remain after implementation of the
mitigation measures (i.e., post-mitigation).
As discussed in the Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (CEA Agency 1999), a key
component of cumulative effects assessment is the determination of the regional context for VECs. The
assessment method for this Project has considered the regional context for each VEC to identify
potential cumulative effects with other projects and activities and in consideration of the regional
distribution of the VEC.
A critical step in any environmental assessment, is determining what other projects or activities have
reached a level of certainty (i.e., will be carried out) such that they are required to be considered by
the CEA Act in a cumulative effects assessment.
It is helpful to consider the clarification provided by the Joint Review Panel for the Express Pipeline
Project in Alberta. Following an analysis of subsection 16(1)(a) of CEA Act, the Joint Review Panel
determined that certain requirements must be met for the Panel to consider cumulative environmental
effects:
there must be a measurable environmental effect of the project being proposed;
environmental effects from the project must be demonstrated to interact cumulatively with
the environmental effects from other projects or activities; and
it must be known that the other projects or activities have been, or will be, carried out and
are not hypothetical (NEB and CEA Agency 1996).
Furthermore, the Joint Review Panel indicated that it is an additional requirement that the cumulative
environmental effect is likely to occur, that is, there must be some probability, rather than a mere
possibility, that the cumulative environmental effect will occur. These criteria were used to guide the
assessment of cumulative environmental effects of this proposed Project.
11.4.2 Methodology
For the purposes of the assessment, it is assumed that the existing status or condition of each VEC
reflects the influence of other past and current projects and activities occurring within or outside of the
Assessment Area. It also assumes (unless there is evidence to the contrary, such as predictable down
or upward trend in a population) that these existing activities will continue to be carried out in the future
and will have similar effects as currently observed. The assessment has therefore integrated the
cumulative effects of these ongoing projects and activities. This section focuses on the effects of other
future projects and activities, as considered and assessed for each VEC. The method used in
assessing cumulative effects for this Project follows current practice and is consistent with the CEA Act
and informed by the assessment framework presented in the Cumulative Effects Assessment
Practitioners Guide (CEA Agency 1999). The CEA Agency suggests that relevant environmental
Page 418
standards, guidelines, and objectives should be helpful in determining significance of cumulative

environmental effects.
A scoping exercise was undertaken to focus the assessment in consideration of potential cumulative
interactions with other projects and activities and resulted in a list of VECs for the cumulative effects
assessment (refer to Section 11.4.3). In general, the VECs were similar to those developed for the
Project assessment and the same significance criteria were used (See Chapter 10).
The spatial boundaries for the assessment of cumulative effects are limited to the area of Placentia Bay
north of the approach to Long Harbour (Figure 11.2). The temporal boundary is for those projects that
have either been registered or are expected to be established within the time frame of this Project.
Decommissioning activities associated with these projects is not considered in the cumulative effects
assessment because the projected life of each project is unknown. The expected Project life of the
Grassy Point LNG terminal is approximately 50 years or more.
In the early stages of the assessment, a cumulative effects scoping exercise was conducted to identify
past, present, or likely (i.e., registered or approved) future projects and activities that could have
residual environmental effects that could overlap and interact with residual Project environmental
effects. The extent that other past and future projects were considered for inclusion in the cumulative
effects assessment was determined in consideration of a number of factors outlined in the guidance
documentation of the CEA Agency (1999).
Past projects or activities potentially affecting VECs have been considered in the description of existing
conditions as applicable for each VEC. An exception applies to existing projects for which important
modifications are planned or ongoing activities that may not have been captured by baseline data sets.
Ongoing activities assessed as part of the cumulative effects assessment include:
shipping activity and
commercial fisheries.
Existing projects include:
Operation of the North Atlantic Oil Refinery. North Atlantics Oil Refinery is located in
Placentia Bay. The facility produces 115,000 barrels per day. The facility transforms sour
crude into refined fuels for world markets. The site houses two marine terminals located in
the vicinity of Long Beach, Come By Chance Harbour. The facility is presently working at
close to maximum capacity with approximately 230 ships per year, six of which are bulk
carriers loading sulphur prills. Currently, the facility has an emission reduction schedule
which will continue to decrease SO2 emissions, with a target of 12 kilotonnes in 2010.
Operation of the Newfoundland Transshipment Facility. Newfoundland Transshipment
Limited, located at Whiffen Head in Placentia Bay, provides a transshipment service for
crude oil produced at the Hibernia and Terra Nova oil fields, offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador. The facility includes a jetty with two loading piers, two tugs, loading/offloading
pipelines and six floating storage tanks, each with a capacity of 500,000 barrels. It has been
in operation since 1998 and activities include: shuttling vessel liftings from offshore
production facilities; deliveries to the terminal; crude storage; and reloading to send tankers
to market. The facility receives approximately 200 vessels per year.
Page 419
Newfoundland
and Labrador
Refinery Project
North Atlantic Refinery
Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal

and Storage Terminal
Long Harbour Commercial

Nickel Processing Plant
Shipping Lanes
0
10
Kilometres
CLIENT:
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING TITLE:

Grassy Point (Placentia Bay) Liquefied
Natural Gas Transshipment Terminal
Cumulative Effects Assessment Area
Figure 11.2
1:300000
DRAWN BY:
EDITED BY:
CP
CP
DRAWING No.:
FEB 7, 2008
CHECKED BY:
REV. No.
N/A
MAP FILE:
Cumulative_Assess_Area.mxd
10/07/2007
Likely future projects and activities included in the cumulative effects assessment were identified based
on discussions with regulators and the knowledge of the study team and include:
Proposed Construction and Operation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery Project.
Newfoundland and Labrador Refining Corporation proposes to construct and operate an oil
refinery at Southern Head, between North Harbour and Come by Chance at the Head of
Placentia Bay. The jetty will be located approximately 4,100 m from the Grassy Point
Project. An initial production capacity of 300,000 barrels per day is proposed with the option
to expand to 600,000 barrels per day. Proposed infrastructure includes process facilities, a
marine terminal, crude and product storage tanks, access road and utilities. Construction is
expected to take approximately three years to complete with production planned to begin in
late 2010 or early 2011. Upon completion of the project, the terminal could receive 400 to
450 ships per year, 50 to 75 of which will be bulk carriers loading cargoes of sulphur prills
and petroleum coke. The environmental assessment for the project has been filed and is
currently under review by federal and provincial governments.
Proposed Construction and Operation of the Long Harbour Nickel Commercial Processing
Plant. Voiseys Bay Nickel Company Limited proposes to construct and operate a
hydrometallurgical processing plant to produce 50,000 tonnes of finished nickel product and
associated copper and cobalt products annually. The proposed site is on the south side of
Long Harbour in Placentia Bay, approximately 45 km from the Grassy Point LNG Project.
The plant will require 65 hectares with a requirement for an additional 85 hectares for
pipelines and residue ponds. Construction activities would include: clearing, grubbing and
rock excavation; construction of offices and laboratories, installation of a 2 km pipeline from
Rattling Brook Big Pond for supply of 600 cubic metres per hour of process water;
construction of a 3.8 km pipeline to Sandy Pond for the disposal of 375,000 tonnes per year
of neutralized slurry residue; and modifications to an existing marine terminal. The terminal
site would receive approximately 30 vessels per year. When commissioned, treated
effluents totalling three million cubic metres per year will be discharged to the marine
environment. An alternate scenario is to construct a nickel-bearing matte plant. The matte
plant would require 65 hectares plus 40 hectares for sub-aerial disposal of gypsum residue;
106,000 tonnes per year of waste gypsum slurry would be transported 2 km southeast by
pipeline to the storage site surrounded by a 4 m containment berm; and 5,900 tonnes per
year of iron/arsenic residue would receive treatment and disposal at an off-site facility.
Construction is expected to commence in 2009 with operations expected to commence in
2012.
Many of the residual effects identified in the VEC-specific environmental effects analysis for the Grassy
Point LNG Project are limited to the construction phase of the Project (i.e., short term) and localized
(i.e., limited to the Grassy Point site) or were considered to be neutral in nature (Refer to Chapter 10).
As a result, many residual effects are small and/or transitory in nature and therefore, will not
measurably overlap with other projects and activities to create cumulative effects. These are not carried
forward in the cumulative effects analysis.
Where a residual environmental effect from the Grassy Point LNG Project was identified and it had the
potential to overlap and interact with the residual environmental effects from the projects identified
above, the VEC was carried forward for the consideration of potential cumulative effects.
Page 421
11.4.3 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation

The likely future projects to be assessed including potential cumulative interactions and relevant VECs
are summarized in Table 11.5. Potential cumulative effects and proposed mitigation are discussed by
VEC in the text that follows.
Table 11.5
Likely Future Projects and Activities with Potential Cumulative Interactions with
the Grassy Point LNG Transshipment Storage Terminal
Project/Activity
Proposed Newfoundland
and Labrador Refinery
Project.
Proposed Long Harbour

Commercial Nickel
Processing Plant
Potential Cumulative Interaction

Project emissions (dust and air contaminants) may combine
with emissions from the construction and operation of the
proposed refinery. Construction and operation of marine
facilities for both projects may interact with fish and fish
habitat, commercial fisheries (exclusion of vessels, effects on
fisheries habitat and fished populations) and species at risk.
Increased vessel traffic increases the potential for cumulative
effects on navigation safety and marine mammals. There is
potential for cumulative effects on migratory birds due to
noise and lights.
Project emissions (dust and air contaminants) may combine
with emissions from the construction and operation of the
Commercial Nickel Processing Plant. Construction and
operation of marine facilities for both projects may interact
with fish and fish habitat, commercial fisheries (exclusion of
vessels, effects on fisheries habitat and fished populations)
and species at risk. Increased vessel traffic increases the
potential for cumulative effects on navigation safety and
marine mammals. There is potential for cumulative effects on
migratory birds due to noise and lights.
VEC Potentially Affected

by Cumulative Effects
Marine Fish
Migratory Birds
Marine Mammals
Species at Risk
Marine Transportation and
Safety
Marine Fish
Migratory Birds
Marine Mammals
Species at Risk
Safety
Note: Past and current projects and activities to be assessed for potential cumulative effects are evaluated through the characterization of
existing baseline conditions for each VEC (Chapter 10), reflecting any overlapping cumulative environmental effects of those past and present
projects.
11.4.3.1
Other projects and activities presently in operation, or planned for future, construction and operation
may result in interactions with air quality and acoustic environment. These other projects and activities,
alone or in combination with the Project, may contribute to cumulative environmental effects in the
Assessment Area.
Air Quality
The ambient air quality in the Grassy Point area reflects the influence of emissions from other past and
current projects and activities occurring within or outside of the cumulative effects Assessment Area.
Other past and current sources of emissions within the Assessment Area include emissions from
hydrocarbon storage and refining, and vessel movements.
During onshore construction, air emissions associated with the Project will be limited mainly to dust and
construction equipment emissions. These emissions may overlap temporally and spatially with similar
emissions from other current or proposed projects. However, the effects of emissions from construction
of the Project (e.g., dust, construction vehicle emissions) are generally localized, short in duration, and
reversible, and are therefore, not expected to cause significant cumulative effects, as it is assumed that
proponents of both the proposed refinery and nickel processing plant developments will also be
required to control construction air emissions. Air emissions during commissioning (i.e., liquid nitrogen
Page 422
and LNG cooling of the tanks) will be of very limited duration and limited potential for temporal overlap
with current or future projects.
There will be no ongoing, substantive, routine air emissions from onshore components during the
operational life of the Project. Therefore, no cumulative effects are anticipated between operation of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery project and the Grassy Point LNG project. Routine atmospheric
emissions with the potential to affect air quality associated with the Project will be restricted to those
associated with shipping activity and power generation. It is not expected that these operational air
emissions will cause significant cumulative effects with other existing and proposed projects (i.e., to
exceed air quality standards on a regional basis.).
Sound emissions tend to be a localized, intermittent, low duration, and low frequency environmental
effect, often associated with impulse sounds that may result from intermittent activities during
construction projects. The long-term, chronic environmental effects on the acoustic environment that
may be associated with the operation of specific facilities or activities tend to be very rare and are
generally addressed by regulatory agencies through regulatory action or implementing mitigation.
Therefore, the potential interactions between the long-term operation of the other projects and activities
in conjunction with the Grassy Point LNG facility are not expected to result in cumulative environmental
effects with respect to sound quality.
Effects of cumulative noise on fish habitat and marine mammals are discussed in the respective VEC
sections below.
11.4.3.2
Marine Fish
The nearshore marine habitat throughout the head of Placentia Bay is very similar, and the proposed
projects, individually and in combination, will alter a very small area of habitat relative to the amount of
similar habitat available in the Assessment Area. Each project has negotiated or will negotiate a fish
habitat compensation agreement pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. Through these
agreements, any HADD will be fully compensated. Therefore, none of the projects will have a residual
environmental effect with respect to productive capacity of fish habitat.
The construction schedules for the Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery project and the Grassy Point
LNG Project will overlap but it is not certain whether the specific activities like pile driving or blasting will
overlap. There may be a cumulative effect of underwater noise during construction since sound is
efficiently transmitted in water. Other effects during construction (i.e., suspension of sediments) may
overlap temporally, but likely not spatially. The localized area of effect from suspended solids, resulting
depositional area and the high potential for reversibility will limit the magnitude of effects on sediment
quality.
Noise from vessels within the shipping lane will become more frequent with the addition of two new
facilities in Come By Chance Harbour. Vessel traffic noise is not anticipated to cause any measurable
effect on fish. In fact, fish and shellfish near the traffic lanes and existing facilities may have become
accustomed or adjusted to noise from frequent vessel activity from existing industrial and commercial
fishing activities. In fact, the terminal structures at the Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal and the
North Atlantic Refinery are preferred lobster fishing grounds. Effects on fish habitat from the two
proposed industrial facilities in Come by Chance Harbour are not expected to have any measurable
cumulative effects in combination with operations of the Grassy Point LNG facility since any loss of fish
habitat will be compensated for as required under the Fisheries Act.
Page 423
Increased marine traffic in Placentia Bay brings with it the risk of an increase in the introduction of
harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens via ballast water and hull fouling. LNGCs arriving at the
Grassy Point terminal to load LNG will arrive in ballast condition. Ballast Water Control and
Management Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act are specific in the requirements for vessels
to exchange or treat ballast water to be discharged into the marine environment. At this time there is no
approved treatment, and consequently, vessels will only be permitted to discharge ballast water in
Placentia Bay if it has been exchanged in accordance with the regulation. The use of approved antifouling paints on the hull of LNGCs will help reduce the risk of invasive species being introduced.
11.4.3.3
Migratory Birds
The primary potential environmental effects of the Project on migratory birds include changes in habitat
quality, changes in habitat quantity, habitat fragmentation and direct mortality. These arise primarily
from the clearing of land for the tanks and associated infrastructure, clearing of the access road route,
routine emissions, increased marine traffic, and the accompanying human and vehicular disturbance.
For the purposes of cumulative effects assessment, migratory birds also includes marine birds.
The land to be cleared and developed for the footprint of the Project includes a total of 35 hectares of
habitat to be removed, primarily from heath, tuckamore, balsam fir forest, and wetland habitats. This
amounts to 24 percent of the land portion of the Assessment Area and all of these habitat types are
available on land adjacent to the Grassy Point peninsula. The effect on migratory birds for this Project
was determined not to be a significant adverse effect for routine activities. Current and planned projects
in the area are also surrounded by potential migratory bird habitat so, given the scale of the disturbance
relative to the habitat available within the Assessment Area, cumulative environmental effects are not
expected.
During Project operations, application of mitigation measures and compliance with the Migratory Bird
Convention Act will minimize disturbance caused by lights and vehicle traffic such that Project-specific
residual effects on migratory birds are predicted to be not significant (see Section 10.4). It is further
assumed that all existing and proposed projects will be required to comply with similar legislation and
mitigative requirements further reducing the opportunity for cumulative effects on migratory bird
species. An assessment of an interaction between migratory birds and accidental events (including
hazardous materials spills) is presented in Section 11.1. Accidental events and malfunctions are, by
definition, not routine events, occur infrequently and are therefore not considered cumulative.
However, other water quality issues, such as contaminated surface water runoff from the Project site, in
combination with that from other projects, have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on water
quality and therefore marine bird habitat. These potential effects can be mitigated through surface
water management and compliance with regulatory requirements on the Project site and at other areas
being developed in the cumulative effects study area. In addition, Ballast Water Control and
Management Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act are specific in the requirements for vessels
to exchange or treat ballast water to be discharged into the marine environment and would apply to
Project related vessels and vessels travelling to other project sites located in the cumulative effects
study area. The cumulative environmental effects of the Project on migratory birds are considered to be
not significant
11.4.3.4
Marine Mammals
The primary concern for the cumulative effects of construction activity on marine mammals is related to
underwater noise. Construction noise (particularly pile driving and blasting) activities between the
Page 424
Project, the Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery Project and the Long Harbour Commercial Nickel
Processing Plant project may overlap. Mammals may have habituated to noise from vessel traffic in the
area, but there has not been noise from marine construction activity in the area in nearly 10 years.
Simultaneous construction activity within Come By Chance Harbour has the potential to increase the
duration and frequency of exposure of mammals to elevated sound pressures. Increased exposure
increases the risk of behavioural and physiological effects. The intermittent or pulsed nature of
construction noise may become more continuous if the construction schedules of the Grassy Point LNG
Project and the Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery Project overlap. The marine construction activity
at the Long Harbour Commercial Nickel Processing Plant is approximately 45 km from Grassy Point
and is limited to infilling and dredging activities around an existing wharf and will not contribute to noise
levels in the Come By Chance area. However, there is a possibility that an individual mammal moving
through Placentia Bay may be exposed to noise from the Long Harbour construction site and
construction sites in Come By Chance Harbour.
Marine mammals are not expected to be subject to a broadband received sound pressure level of 180
dB re 1 Pa (rms) or greater during construction activities. Therefore, there is little risk of temporary
and/or permanent hearing impairment to cetaceans or pinnipeds (Chapter 10). Mammals very near the
loudest construction activities (e.g., pile driving) may be exposed to sound pressure levels of 160 dB re
1 Pa (rms) or slightly higher. A broadband received sound pressure level of 160 dB re 1 Pa (rms) or
greater is currently the best estimate available to indicate potential concern for disruption of marine
mammals behavioural patterns (NMFS 2003); however, noise levels below 160 dB re 1Pa have also
been known to elicit behavioural disturbances in marine mammals (NRC 2005). The cumulative effect
of multiple construction activities within Come By Chance Bight therefore may be increased risk of
avoidance and communications masking.
Potential cumulative effects on marine mammals during Project operation include those related to
underwater noise from vessel operation and vessel strikes. Changes in acoustic and locomotor
behaviour of mammals have been positively correlated with the number of vessels present, their
proximity, speed and direction. Responses typically vary by species, gender and individual (Erbe
2002b, Olesiuk et al. 2002, Bain et al. 2002; Trites et al. 2002), so the effect is difficult to predict.
However, the number of vessel movements associated with the Project will contribute to potential
cumulative effects. The biological relevance of limited masking, habitat avoidance and behavioural
disturbance is unknown (Erbe 2003), but the risk of these effects increases with increased traffic.
According to Erbe (2003), animals will have to be repeatedly disturbed during nursing, mating or
foraging or be permanently scared away from critical habitat for effects to be considered biologically
significant.
The head of Placentia Bay is not considered unique habitat for any marine mammal and the amount of
nursing, mating or foraging in the area is limited. Mammals likely forage in the area but the occurrence
of baleen whales primary food source, capelin, has been scarce at the head of Placentia Bay in the
past 30 years (E. Johnson, pers. comm.). Baleen whales are more likely to feed on capelin in other
parts of Placentia Bay where they are more abundant. Dolphins, porpoises and seals may also feed in
the area but its opportunistic feeding that occurs all over the bay. The head of Placentia Bay offers no
unique feeding areas for any mammal species. The harbour seal is the only species potentially mating
or nursing in the area, and the closest known location is near Merasheen Island which will not be
affected by routine operations.
Page 425
The head of Placentia Bay is currently subject to vessel traffic so marine mammals in the area may be
habituated to vessel-based acoustics and reactions to vessels may therefore be reduced. The
proportion of any mammal population at the head of Placentia Bay at any time is nominal.
Vessel and tug operational guidelines for Project vessels may also include acoustic emission reduction
measures such as reducing engine output where possible, reducing vessel speed where practical, and
regular maintenance of escort tug propellers to avoid asymmetrical deficiencies that may lead to
increased acoustic emissions. It is anticipated that vessel and tug operational guidelines which could
include speed restrictions, will be developed in greater detail through the TERMPOL process.
Serious injuries to whales as a result of whale-vessel strikes are infrequent when vessels travel at less
than 14 knots and rare when vessels travel at 10 knots or less (Laist et al. 2001). Vessels transiting the
head of Placentia Bay for all current and proposed projects are traveling at manoeuvring speeds
concurrent with the effective speeds of tug escorts therefore, mitigating the risk of increased whalevessel collisions. The reduced speeds will also reduce vessel noise emissions.
In summary, impulsive underwater noise during Project construction may overlap with other proposed
marine construction projects with some cumulative effects on marine mammals. These effects will
however, be temporary and under key thresholds for significance for mammal species. Cumulative
effects related to increased vessel traffic (noise and potential for vessel strikes) during Project operation
are likely to occur but are also not expected to exceed thresholds for significance (i.e., will not cause a
decline in abundance or a change in distribution of a population(s) over one or more generations).
Project mitigation measures for marine mammals (see Chapter 10) will ensure that the Project
contribution to cumulative effects is small and overall cumulative effects are not significant during
construction and operation. It is assumed that other proposed projects and activities will also be
required to comply with regulatory requirements, mitigative measures and best practices to further
reduce the potential for significant cumulative effects on marine mammals.
11.4.3.5
Species at Risk
The potential environmental effects of the Project on species at risk include changes in habitat quality,
changes in habitat quantity, habitat fragmentation and direct mortality. These arise primarily from the
construction of marine infrastructure, clearing of land for the tanks and associated infrastructure,
increased marine traffic, and the accompanying human and vehicular disturbance.
Birds
The area of land within the footprint of the Project totals 35 hectares, consisting primarily of heath,
tuckamore, balsam fir forest, and wetland habitats. This amounts to 24 percent of the land portion of the
Assessment Area and all of these habitat types are available on land adjacent to the Grassy Point
peninsula. However, the loss of habitat from this and other potential future projects is eliminating
potential habitat for some species at risk or for the future colonization by species at risk.
There are no historical records or sightings during baseline surveys of any bird species at risk in the
Grassy Point area and the potential for an occurrence is relatively low. For instance, Barrows
Goldeneye has not been confirmed as nesting anywhere in eastern Canada outside Quebec, and it
uses cavities for nesting. There are no areas of suitable habitat for Barrows Goldeneye within the
Assessment Area. The only possibility of Barrows Goldeneye in the area would be in winter but there
are no records from Placentia Bay. Eskimo Curlew is not confirmed to be in existence but it was known
to breed in the Arctic so there is no possibility that the species breeds within the Assessment Area and
very limited possibility of it occurring in the area. Likewise, the Piping Plover will not likely be affected
Page 426
by cumulative effects of these projects since the closest known beaches that support Piping Plover are
found in Fortune Bay, outside of the Assessment Area. Therefore, cumulative effects on Piping Plover
are not considered likely.
Red Crossbill is not known from the Assessment Area but, since it is nomadic, it may use the fir forest
habitat sometime during the year. Project clearing activities will contribute to fragmentation of the
terrestrial habitat, as will clearing for construction of the future Nickel Processing Facility and
Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery, as well as other past and ongoing foresting activities. Given the
small amount of potential Red Crossbill habitat to be removed, relative to the area of undisturbed
habitat within the Assessment Area, and that there are no records from the area, significant cumulative
environmental effects on Red Crossbill are not predicted.
No Rusty Blackbirds were observed during surveys of the wetlands on the Grassy Point peninsula.
Wetland habitat removal for this Project does contribute to localized wetland habitat fragmentation as
would the proposed Nickel Processing Facility and Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery and other
activities that disturb wetlands. However, due to the relative amount of potential habitat to be removed
and the availability of similar habitat within the Assessment Area, significant cumulative environmental
effects on Rusty Blackbird are not predicted. The same is true for the removal of potential Short-eared
Owl habitat. This and other proposed projects contribute to habitat fragmentation on a local scale, but
due to availability of similar habitats within the Cumulative Effects Assessment Area and the lack of
recorded observations during baseline surveys and considering there are no records from the area,
significant cumulative environmental effects on Short-eared Owl are not predicted.
Butterflies
The cumulative environmental effects of the Project are expected to cause no loss of Monarch Butterfly
habitat. This species is an accidental visitor to insular Newfoundland (Joe Brazil, pers. comm. 2007);
and since there is no milkweed known in the Assessment Area, visitation is unlikely to occur. Due to the
lack of habitat and infrequent occurrence in Newfoundland, significant cumulative environmental effects
on Monarch Butterfly are not predicted.
Lichens
Boreal Felt Lichen was not observed during baseline vegetation surveys. However, potential habitat in
the form of Balsam fir forest was present on the Grassy Point peninsula and some of this habitat will be
removed during construction. It is also assumed that some Balsam fir forest will be removed as a result
of the Nickel Processing Facility and Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery. Given the small amount of
potential Boreal Felt Lichen habitat to be removed, and that the fact there are no records of Boreal Felt
Lichen in the Assessment Area, cumulative environmental effects on Boreal Felt Lichen are therefore
considered to be not significant.
Marine Fish
The most likely marine fish species at risk to occur within the Assessment Area is the Atlantic cod.
American eels may also migrate through the area, but the Assessment Area is considered marginal
habitat for the shark and wolffish species at risk. Section 32 of SARA prohibits killing, capturing and
destruction of critical habitat for those species listed on Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered and
threatened. Atlantic cod is not listed on Schedule 1 of SARA, therefore Section 32 prohibitions do not
apply to disturbance of cod habitat. The only marine fish species at risk for which Section 32
prohibitions would apply are for the northern and spotted wolffish, both deep water species.
Page 427
There may be a cumulative effect of underwater noise during construction if areas of increased sound
pressure overlap spatially or temporally. Noise generated during construction activity (vessels, barges,
dredging, blasting and pile driving) may cause temporary avoidance of the area by marine fish species
at risk. The noise from blasting nearshore is expected to radiate into the marine environment and cause
a startle response and temporary avoidance of the immediate area by some marine fish species at risk,
if present in the area. Overpressure in excess of 100 kilopascals (kPa) can result in the mortality or
injury of marine fish species at risk, as well as their eggs and larvae. The area of overpressure at this
level will not overlap between the Projects but, the blasting may affect the same population or stock of
cod if eggs or larvae move between two project areas. The probability is low, however, given the
synchrony of the events necessary for the cumulative effect. Other effects during construction (i.e.,
suspension of sediments) may overlap temporally but, likely not spatially. Due to the federal policy of no
net loss in productive capacity of fish habitat, neither of the proposed projects will have a residual effect
on fish habitat and therefore cumulative effects are not expected.
During operation of the Project, potential cumulative effects on marine fish species at risk arise from
noise and discharges from vessels. Underwater noise during operations will extend over a longer
duration that during construction.
Most available literature indicates that the effects of noise on marine fish species at risk are transitory,
short-lived and if outside a critical period, are expected not to translate into biological or physical
effects. In most cases, it appears that behavioural effects on marine fish species at risk as a result of
noise should result in negligible effects on individuals and populations. The issue of primary concern is
the potential for interactions during particularly sensitive periods such as spawning. The nearest known
spawning area for any marine fish species at risk is the cod spawning area near the mouth of North
Harbour (Bolon and Schneider 1999) and, given the counterclock-wise circulation of Placentia Bay, cod
eggs and pelagic larvae may not occur within the Assessment Area.
An increase in the numbers of vessels visiting this and other proposed future projects does increase the
risk of the introduction of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens. Strict application of the regulations
will help to mitigate the risk to marine fish species at risk thereby reducing the likelihood of a significant
cumulative effect.
Marine Mammals
The primary concern for the cumulative effects of construction activity on marine mammal species at
risk is related to underwater noise. Construction noise (particularly pile driving and blasting) activities
between the Project, the Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery Project and the Long Harbour
Commercial Nickel Processing Plant Project may overlap. It is uncertain whether particular activities
like pile driving will be simultaneous but, if so, the area of increased sound pressure broadens and
becomes more intense thereby increasing the risk of avoidance and communications masking.
The marine mammal species at risk most likely to occur within the Cumulative Effects Assessment Area
is the fin whale and the harbour porpoise, but blue whales are rare to Placentia Bay and the North
Atlantic right whale is not likely to occur in the area. As with non-threatened species, any species of
marine mammal within the Area are likely feeding or looking for prey. Deterrence of mammals by
construction noise reduces their potential feeding areas and potentially masks communications during
feeding. The preferred food of fin whale, blue whale and harbour porpoise is capelin, but since capelin
have not been abundant at the head of Placentia Bay for 30 years (E. Johnson, pers. comm.), the area
is not likely prime feeding ground for marine mammal species at risk. Baleen whales are more likely to
feed on capelin in other parts of Placentia Bay where they are more abundant. The head of Placentia
Page 428
Bay is not considered prime feeding ground for capelin, krill or squid so, if construction noise deterred
one or more individuals from the area for a portion of one season, and equal or better feeding
opportunities were available adjacent to the affected area, no measurable biological effect is expected.
The Assessment Area is not considered critical habitat for either of the marine mammal species at risk
that may occur within the area. However, marine mammal species at risk do occur in the area during
the summer, so precautionary measures will be in place as required under SARA to protect these
species during all Project phases.
Potential physiological effects of increased sound pressure are not expected to be cumulative given the
low probability of the same individual being repeatedly in close proximity to intense sound pressure,
given the intermittent nature of blasting and pile driving. General construction noise will likely deter
marine mammal species at risk from the area within which physiological effects of increased sound
pressures are more likely.
During Project operation, potential cumulative effects on marine mammal species at risk include those
related to underwater noise from vessel operation and vessel strikes. Changes in acoustic and
locomotor behaviour of mammals have been positively correlated with the number of vessels present,
their proximity, speed and direction. Responses typically vary by species, gender and individual (Erbe
2002b, Olesiuk et al. 2002, Bain et al. 2002; Trites et al. 2002), so the effect is difficult to predict.
However, the number of vessel movements associated with this Project and potential future Projects
will contribute to potential cumulative effects caused by underwater noise. Episodes of increased
underwater noise from shipping will be more frequent during operations than during construction. The
biological relevance of resulting limited masking, habitat avoidance and behavioural disturbance is
unknown (Erbe 2003) but the risk of these effects increases with increased traffic. According to Erbe
(2003), animals will have to be repeatedly disturbed during nursing, mating or foraging or be
permanently scared away from critical habitat for effects to be considered biologically significant.
Considering the head of Placentia Bay is not a prime feeding area or core habitat for either of the
marine mammal species at risk that may occur there, the cumulative effects of shipping will not be
biologically significant. If marine mammal species at risk were to avoid the area, it would be temporary.
Construction activity does not inhibit marine mammal species at risk from returning to an area once the
activity ceases (Davis et al. 1987). Any avoidance due to operation of Projects may also be short-lived
if the same individuals visit the area each year and become habituated to the vessels. Fin whales, for
example, have demonstrated habituation to tour boats after several years of exposure (Watkins 1986).
The risk of collision between a marine mammal species at risk and a vessel will increase with an
increase in vessel traffic. Fin and right whales are more likely to tolerate a stationary noise source than
one that is approaching (Watkins 1986), which suggest they may move from the path of a vessel.
However the fin and right whales are two of the most commonly struck species (Laist et al. 2001).
Harbour porpoise are known to avoid vessels and do not bowride.
Serious injuries to whales are infrequent when vessel speeds are less than 14 knots and rare when
vessel speeds are less than 10 knots (Laist et al. 2001). Since all commercial vessels require pilots
north of Red Island, Placentia Bay, vessel speed will be less than 14 knots and the risk of a collision
therefore reduced. Pilots working this route are likely to know when marine mammals are present in the
area, thereby reducing further reducing the risk.
In summary, impulsive underwater noise during Project construction may overlap with other proposed
marine construction projects with some cumulative effects on marine mammals. These effects will
however, be temporary and under key thresholds for significance for mammal species. Cumulative
effects related to increased vessel traffic (noise and potential for vessel strikes) during Project operation
Page 429
are likely to occur, but are also not expected to exceed thresholds for significance (i.e., will not cause a
decline in abundance or a change in distribution of a population(s) over one or more generations).
Project mitigation measures for marine mammals (see Chapter 10) will ensure that the Project
contribution to cumulative effects is small and overall cumulative effects are not significant during
construction and operation. It is assumed that other proposed projects and activities will also be
required to comply with regulatory requirements, mitigative measures and best practices to further
reduce the potential for significant cumulative effects on marine mammals.
Reptiles
Noise created by simultaneous construction activities within the cumulative effects Assessment Area
may deter the leatherback sea turtles from approaching, if they were present nearby. If sea turtles were
not deterred and approached a construction site, blasting has the potential to injure or kill sea turtles.
However, the pre-blast monitoring for mammals and turtles will further reduce the risk to leatherbacks
being injured by a blast. If the construction noise does deter sea turtles from Come by Chance Harbour,
for example, it is not considered a significant effect since the area does not offer unique or frequently
used habitat to the leatherback. The probability of physiological effects on sea turtles is further reduced
by the likelihood of avoidance behaviour when underwater noise is encountered (McCauley et al.
2000).
Similarly during operations of this and future projects, the leatherback may be deterred from the area by
noise but, it is not considered a significant cumulative effect due to scarcity of leatherbacks to the area
and the fact that the area does not offer unique or frequently used habitat.
The risk of a collision between a leatherback turtle and a vessel is increased with an increase in the
number of vessels transiting Placentia Bay. Leatherback turtles are not common to the area, which
makes a collision unlikely, but the risk will be reduced as all vessels will be transiting within the
Assessment Area at reduced speed and the pilots will likely know if sea turtles are present along their
route.
Species at Risk Summary
In summary, the Cumulative Effects Assessment Area does not provide unique or frequently occupied
habitat for species at risk. While there will be cumulative loss of terrestrial habitat that may occasionally
be used by some terrestrial bird species at risk, as well as some cumulative disturbance of some
marine species, no effects are predicted to exceed thresholds for significance (i.e., they are predicted to
be not significant). In general, Project environmental management planning and mitigation for non-listed
species will also reduce the potential for adverse effects on species at risk. It is assumed that other
proposed projects and activities will also be required to comply with regulatory requirements, mitigative
measures and best practices to further reduce the potential for significant cumulative effects on species
at risk.
11.4.3.6
As discussed above (Section 11.4.3.2, Marine Fish), each of the proposed projects (e.g. the LNG
Project) is expected to negotiate a fish habitat compensation agreement pursuant to the Fisheries Act.
This will mitigate the potential for residual environmental effects related to the productivity of fishing
grounds and the status of commercial stocks in the area. Fishing grounds lost to the construction and
presence of permanent marine facilities would be included in separate commercial fisheries
compensation agreements.
Page 430
While construction of the Newfoundland and Labrador Refinings jetty will overlap temporally with LNG
Project construction, it will be over 4 km away, and potential interference resulting from either or both
operations are not expected to overlap.
Appropriate financial compensation for displacement during construction of both projects is likely, which
will further eliminate the potential for adverse socio-economic effects.
Management of vessel traffic (in consultation with the fishing industry components) will be established
for both projects during the construction and operations phases, which will also reduce project-project
interactions and mitigate potential cumulative effects on fishing and on gear loss or damage.
As noted in the Project effects assessment section of this report, consultations with Transport Canada
and the Canadian Coast Guard indicate that the existing TSS has sufficient capacity to accommodate
anticipated Project-related traffic levels. This capacity includes an allowance for all known proposed
project traffic levels.
Consequently, cumulative effects on commercial fisheries (wild, aquaculture and processing) from the
existing two facilities and the two proposed industrial facilities in Come by Chance Harbour are not
expected to have any measurable economic consequences in combination with operations of the
Grassy Point LNG facility. Given the excess capacity in the traffic lanes beyond the Grassy Point and
Come by Chance area, there will also be no adverse socio-economic cumulative effects resulting from
other existing or proposed industrial activities elsewhere in the bay.
11.4.3.7
The total number of ships presently calling in Placentia Bay at major industrial facilities and the
expected numbers of ships per year for the proposed Projects are presented in Table 11.6. The number
of ships calling in Placentia Bay on a yearly basis could triple as the proposed development projects,
including Grassy Point LNG Project are commissioned. In addition, there are approximately 600 fishing
vessels known to operate in Placentia Bay. The primary risk associated with an increase to shipping
numbers is the increased (cumulative) potential for marine accidents and incidents. It is understood
from public consultation that this is an important issue for the commercial fishing community and other
vessel operators in the Bay.
Table 11.6
Summary of Vessel Calls to Major Industrial Facilities in Placentia Bay
Facility
Existing Facilities:
Newfoundland Transshipment Limited
North Atlantic Refining Limited
Total Current Vessels at Major Facilities
Proposed Facilities
Newfoundland LNG Limited
Newfoundland & Labrador Refining Corporation
Voiseys Bay Nickel / Inco
Total Proposed Vessels at Major Facilities
Grand Total Vessels, All Facilities Operational
Number of Ships Per Year

200
230
430
400
450
30
880
1310
In order to compare the risks associated with the increase in marine traffic, traffic in the ports of Halifax
(Table 11.7), Sept-les (Table 11.8), and Vancouver (Table 11.9), is summarized below. A further
comparison with the major international Port of Rotterdam is also presented (Table 11.10). The
comparison is made to illustrate the number of vessels capable of transiting waters that are smaller and
more restrictive than Placentia Bay.
Page 431
Table 11.7
Table 11.8
Vessel Traffic in Port of Halifax (January to December 2006)

Vessel Type
Barge
Bulk Carrier
Cable Layer
Container/RoRo
Container
Cruise
Dry Cargo
Fishing
Ferry
General Cargo
Heavy Lift
Off-shore
Refrigerated Cargo
RoRo
Research
Tug
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Number of Calls
5
143
3
173
514
90
69
110
6
13
4
142
4
62
5
67
233
77
Total Number of Calls
1720
Vessel Traffic in the Port of Sept- les

Type of vessel
Bulk Carriers
General Cargo
Tankers
Totals
Table 11.9
Average number of vessels 12 months.

440
160
50
650
Vessel Traffic in the Port of Vancouver
Type of Vessel
Bulk Carrier
Combination
Container
Miscellaneous
Offshore
Passenger
Reefer
Ro-Ro
Tanker
Totals
Numbers of vessels
2006
1,362
5
709
66
1
254
2
34
248
2,681
Numbers of vessels
January through August
2007
858
1
434
22
2
219
Average numbers of
vessels for 12 months
30
183
1,749
1,322
4
686
53
2
284
1
38
258
2,610
Note: Excludes Canadian flagged vessels such as Navy, Coastguard, Barges etc.
Page 432
Table 11.10
Vessel Traffic in the Port of Rotterdam (January to December 2006)
Type of Vessel
Passenger ships
Bulk Carriers
Of which :
Bulk Carriers
Ore Carriers
Ore/Oil Carriers
Ore-bulk-oil (OBO) Carriers
Tankers
General Cargo
Of which:
Container-Bulk Carriers
General Cargo Ships
Ro-ro Passenger Ships
Full Container Ships
Other Vessels
Of which:
Dredgers
Off-shore ships
Research
Tugs
Fishing Vessels
Non Classed Vessels
Total Number of Calls
Number of Calls
18
8,806
1034
59
1
23
7689
21,168
11
9835
4864
6458
1,085
148
26
10
511
7
383
31,077
From the port data provided above, it is apparent that the traffic destined for Placentia Bay when all
proposed projects are fully operational is less than two existing Canadian ports and much smaller than
the international example. The increase in marine traffic is therefore not considered to pose a
significant effect on operational or navigational safety.
The proposed levels of shipping, while high by current local standards, occur routinely and safely in
many harbours in Canada and abroad (refer to Section 10.7). The cumulative risk for incidents is
expected to increase due to increased shipping activity in Placentia Bay; however, given the present
safety record for the LNG industry, it is reasonable to assume the potential for LNG vessel related
incidents would be lower than average for all vessels in Placentia Bay.
The risks associated with the increase in traffic will be mitigated by the following:
Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) and the Routing through the waters of Placentia Bay. The
TSS, with a separation zone between the two lanes, reduces the likelihood of vessels
meeting in an end-on situation.
Berth availability dictates the presence of vessels in the TSS and the Routing. If no berth is
available at the time of arrival at the terminal, vessels will not be permitted to enter the
Routing, and no pilot will be available for the vessel.
Anchorages AA, BB and CC will only be used by an LNG carrier in an emergency
situation.
Pilotage is compulsory from a position off Red Island, and vessels bound for Come By
Chance will not proceed beyond this limit without a pilot aboard. The local knowledge
brought to the Bridge Team by the presence of the pilot is a valuable asset in terms of
mitigation.
Tugs will escort LNG Carriers through the Routing and assist in the berthing and sailing at
the terminals.
Page 433
MCTS will monitor the movement of all vessels in the eastern arm of Placentia Bay and
advise all traffic of this.
All the project vessels will be certified by the Government of the country of registration and a
Classification Society. They will meet the appropriate standards of the industry, such as
those imposed by SIGTTO. The vessels will be crewed by qualified individuals and the
navigational and manoeuvring equipment will be of approved calibre. With the carriage of
electronic aids and the capability of monitoring the position of vessels in the MCTS centres,
the safety of navigation is increased. Electronic Aids to Navigation exist as follows and
receivers aboard enable the navigators to accurately identify the geographical position of the
ships:
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS);

Loran C;
Radar and Racon Beacons;
Radio Direction Finders; and
Automated Identification Systems (AIS) (All vessels engaged in this Project are required
to have AIS fitted by 1 July 2008, at the latest.)
The navigation of vessels operating in Canadian waters, including the TSS and the Routing is governed
by the Collision Regulations. The regulations cover all aspects reducing the likelihood of a close
quarters situation of vessels, and apply to all vessels. Rules within the regulations relate to the
operations of vessels in the routing, fishing vessels, large vessels which can only operate within the
channels, and the responsibilities of the navigator in the event of an approach of another vessel so as
to involve the risk of collision. The regulations require that a lookout is maintained, and that the
navigator is aware of existing conditions and the normal practice of seamen.
It is important to note that Transport Canada, the government authority with regulatory responsibility for
navigation safety, will determine acceptable levels of cumulative risk to shipping as new facilities are
commissioned and traffic increases. If necessary, Transport Canada, in consultation with local
authorities and operators will impose additional safety procedures and requirements to ensure
acceptable levels of navigation safety in Placentia Bay. Specific recommendations for appropriate
mitigation procedures will also arise from the TERMPOL process associated with Grassy Point LNG
Project and the NLRC proposal to ensure cumulative risk due to increased shipping in Placentia Bay is
minimized and maintained at acceptable levels.
Cumulative environmental effects of the Grassy Point LNG Project on navigation safety in combination
with likely proposed projects and associated shipping in the Cumulative Effects Assessment Area will
be elevated compared with current levels. However, given existing navigation controls and procedures
and the requirement for regulatory authorities to introduce any necessary additional controls to ensure
acceptable levels of navigation safety, significant cumulative effects on marine transportation and
safety are considered not likely.
Page 434
11.4.4 Conclusion on Significance of Adverse Environmental Effects after Consideration of Mitigation

The RAs, in consultations with FAs, conclude that implementation of the mitigation measures
contained in this report and adherence to applicable legislation and guidelines for the Grassy Point
LNG Project and other proposed projects and activities will ensure that cumulative environmental
effects on the Atmospheric Environment, Marine Fish and Fish Habitat, Migratory Birds, Marine
Mammals, Species at Risk, Commercial Fisheries and Marine Transportation and Safety VECs are not
significant.
Page 435
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
12.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES

Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has committed to constructing and operating a facility in which all aspects
comply with relevant legislation, license conditions and accepted good practice. Newfoundland LNG
Ltd. will be proactive in implementing procedures to prevent pollution and to continually improve
environmental performance and, along with its contractors, will manage environmental issues as a
priority. Through this environmental assessment, various measures have been identified that will
ensure that the potential environmental effects of this Project are reduced to an acceptable level.
Some of these measures are inherent in the Project design and represent standard practices for LNG
facilities. While these measures may not be specifically related to a particular VEC, they are
nonetheless important in demonstrating the limited nature of the potential Project effects on the
environment. These environmental design features are described in detail in Chapter 2 of this CSR and
summarized in Table 12.1. Through the development of the EPP, many of these generalized
commitments will be developed into site-specific instructions to contractors and employees. Others will
simply be incorporated into the final Project design. Mitigation measures required for decommissioning
would be incorporated into a Decommissioning and Abandonment Plan and would be reviewed at the
time of decommissioning to ensure compliance with any applicable regulatory requirements and
industry standards and best practices.
In addition to the environmental design features, assessment of the identified VECs has demonstrated
the need for further VEC-specific mitigation to ensure that the potential environmental effects of the
Project are reduced to the extent possible. These are summarized in Table 12.2 by VEC. These
mitigations will also become a part of the EPPs for construction and operation. These mitigations are
also considered appropriate for the minimization of potential cumulative effects. Table 12.3 provides a
summary of mitigation measures/environmental design features specifically associated with accidental
events and effects of the environment on the Project. These mitigation measures/environmental
features will either be incorporated into the EPP or ERP or will be included in the final Project design.
Table 12.1
Project
Component
General Design
Features
Safety and
Accident
Prevention
Summary of Project Environmental Design Features

Environmental Design Feature
All design standards and codes applicable to this LNG facility will be followed.
A HAZOP will be performed during the pre-FEED stage of the Project design.
All required permits from regulatory agencies will be obtained prior to the start of any construction.
Emergency response to oil or chemical spill procedures and clean up will be in accordance with
Emergency Response Plan (ERP) portion of the EPP and approved by the Newfoundland and
Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation (NLDEC).
An ERP will be developed to meet the requirements of Canadian Standards Association CSAZ276-07 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) - Production, Storage and Handling, and will be consistent
with the Environmental Emergency Regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Safety and operability of the transfer arm connection process and pier facilities will be enhanced by
quick connect/disconnect couplers, powered emergency release couplings (PERCs), hazard
detection instruments, emergency and automatic shutdown systems, remote monitoring devices,
increased personnel attendance during LNG transfers and fire extinguishing equipment.
A containment area consisting of concrete berms and a sump will be constructed around the
transfer arms to contain any spilled LNG. A sump pump will pump the LNG ashore in the event of a
spill.
LNG storage tanks will be designed, constructed and tested per CSA Z276 and API 620.
Fire/leak detection and fire extinguishing equipment will be sited throughout the tank area to detect
and mitigate potential leaks and fires.
Secondary containment for each LNG storage tank will be provided by an independent bund wall
Page 436

Project
Component
Noise Mitigation
Hazardous
Materials
Waste
Management
Effluents

impoundment system designed as per CSA Z276-07. The impoundments will be designed to hold
the full contents of each LNG tank plus a 10 percent allowance for precipitation accumulation.
The cold box on each re-liquefaction train will have containment underneath and any LNG spill
would be contained.
An extensive range of spill, leak and fire detection systems will be installed at the terminal and
berth. In addition to the automatic alarms raised by the detection systems, pre-engineered
automatic shutdowns are also included in the design to mitigate releases of any flammable
products. Automatic fire protection and containment systems will also be constructed. To allow for
the unlikely event of a relief valve fire, an automatic fire suppression system will be installed.
All equipment will be fitted with standard and well-maintained noise suppression devices. To
mitigate potential effects to local residents, noise-generating construction activity will be carried out
during daylight hours to minimize disturbances and local municipal construction by-laws will be
followed.
During operation, process equipment (i.e., compressors) will be enclosed in buildings that will be
constructed to minimize noise transmission. Isolated pieces of equipment not housed in buildings
will be covered with enclosures to reduce noise levels. Vehicles operating on the site will be
equipped with mufflers or other noise suppression equipment.
Efforts will be made to coordinate blasting schedules with the proposed Newfoundland and
Labrador Refinery to ensure marine blasting is not simultaneous.
All fuel storage facilities will be registered with the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of
Government Services in accordance with the Storage and Handling of Gasoline and Associated
Products Regulations under the Environment Act.
The location of hazardous materials storage will be identified on a construction drawing to provide
current information to workers present at the site.
Bulk storage of hazardous materials that will be used in large volumes will be in above- ground,
self-dyked storage tanks. Materials requiring less substantial volumes will be stored in drums with
secondary containment as required specifically for the product. Only those persons trained in safe
materials handling practices will handle hazardous materials. All product storage tanks and drum
areas will be clearly marked as to content and will be located with markers to prevent accidental
vehicular damage, especially where weather conditions can impede visibility. Appropriate
firefighting equipment shall be present at materials storage facilities.
All hazardous materials will be inventoried and monitored, and the inventory will be updated as the
Project progresses, to add or remove materials as required. Workers will be advised of the
hazardous materials that will be used or be present during construction in accordance with the
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) Regulations under the
Newfoundland and Labrador Workplace Health and Safety Act.
All transportation and handling of hazardous materials will be accordance with the requirements of
the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (TDG Act). All commercial vehicles will be inspected
and evaluated to ensure compliance with the placard standards in the Act and Regulations.
Appropriate documentation must be in place with commercial transporters in accordance with the
materials being transported and the required transportation procedures. Drivers of commercial
vehicles will be required to show certification of training in the transportation of dangerous goods,
as required under the TDG Act. Site personnel responsible for security, those responsible for
subsequent handling of hazardous materials and site construction supervisors will be trained in the
provisions and requirements of the TDG Act. Materials deliveries that do not conform to the TDG
requirements may be refused.
Wastes generated during construction will be handled, stored, transported and disposed of in
accordance with all applicable acts, regulations and guidelines. During operation, solid wastes will
be sorted at the facility and material not deemed acceptable for re-use or recycling will be disposed
of in an acceptable manner at an approved landfill site. Certified contractors will be retained for the
safe transportation of solid waste to the approved facility.
All hazardous waste generated on-site during construction and operations will be disposed off-site
in accordance with regulatory requirements.
To insure compliance with Section 36 of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits the deposit of a
deleterious substance in water frequented by fish, the hydrostatic test effluent will be tested prior to
discharge and treated, if necessary.
Portable toilet facilities will be installed in accordance with the stipulations of Occupational Health
and Safety Regulations of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. No discharge of septic waste
will be permitted on site or in any unauthorized facility.
A monitoring system will be implemented to ensure that all stormwater discharge from the
stormwater retention pond meets Provincial wastewater discharge standards.
Page 437

Project
Component
Site Preparation

The discharge of process cooling water will be limited to a maximum temperature of 32C, in
accordance with the stipulations of Schedule A of the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental
Control Water and Sewage Regulations, 2003. To provide for adequate mixing and rapid
dissipation of the additional thermal energy, a diffused outfall will be used to discharge the
seawater into the marine water column in a minimum depth of 15 m below LNT.
During operation, grey water from domestic use of staff with l be directed into a primary settling
chamber or septic tank for removal of solids and the effluent will be discharged through the
seawater outfall back to the marine environment. Concentrations of the effluent will be in
accordance with Schedule A of the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and
Sewage Regulations 2003.
Ballast water will only be discharged from vessels that are arriving at Grassy Point to receive
transshipped LNG. All vessels carrying water ballast must comply with Canadians regulations.
Failure to comply will disallow the pumping of the ballast. A record of the ballast management
procedures undertaken is required to be maintained aboard all vessels. A requirement is in place
for vessels to carry and implement a Ballast Water Management Plan. The plan must include the
logging of the events of taking on ballast, exchanging ballast and pumping ballast. These events
are required to be reported to the Minister of Transport on an approved form. The Terminal will
audit the ballast management system and program, and satisfy itself that the ballast to be
discharged meets the standards of the regulations. No ballast will be discharged until this has
been determined.
Vessels are subject to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulatory framework for
pollution controls covered under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, or the MARPOL 73/78 convention, relating to oil, packaged goods, sewage, garbage and air
emissions. Domestic pollution regulations are found in Part XV of the CSA Pollution Prevention
and Response. IMO regulations prohibit vessels from discharging sewage within 7.4 km of the
nearest land, unless they have an approved treatment plant in operation. Discharge within 7.4 km
to 22.2 km must be broken down, diluted and disinfected prior to discharge.
All garbage from all Project vessels will be disposed of at a landfill site which will be arranged
through the ships agent, who will also arrange for any required approvals. International Garbage
is waste foodstuffs that need to be handled by an approved landfill site. The approval is given by
both the municipality and the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Health.
Sludge from fuel tanks, lubricating oil tanks, oily water separator, engine room and pump room
bilges, is retained in an onboard tank and discharged onshore into trucks for disposal at an
approved facility. Black water (sewage) is retained in an onboard tank and discharged onshore into
trucks for disposal at an approved facility.
During site clearing, a 15 m buffer will be maintained around water bodies not within the Project
footprint. Trees will be maintained along the shoreline where ever possible.
To minimize slumping of excavated surfaces during construction, adequate slopes will be used
based upon the recommendation of soil specialists. Slopes will be routinely inspected for erosion.
Any slopes subject to erosion will be modified to prevent soils and other excavated material from
being carried into surrounding water bodies. Slopes for permanent finished-grade surfaces will be
in accordance with the recommendations of geotechnical specialists and will be surface-finished
accordingly to provide long-term stability.
Dewatering will be undertaken with the objective of preventing drainage-related issues in the area
surrounding the site. Protective measures such as installation of sediment controls will be used to
prevent sediment-laden runoff from precipitation into the surrounding area. Velocity controls, such
as check dams, will be used to assist in the removal of sediment that may be entrained in runoff.
Pumps may be used to assist with dewatering and will be used in such a manner so as to prevent
the passage of sediment-laden water into the surrounding area. Where pumps are used, backup
capacity will be available in the event of a failure to provide secure control of the water flow.
Surface water will be inhibited from entering the work site by using perimeter ditching to redirect
the flow into one or more settling ponds, which will be constructed to remove suspended sediment
prior to discharge back into the surrounding environment. The water will be monitored for
compliance with the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and Sewage
Regulations prior to discharge.
Dust generated during construction will be controlled using one or more conventional measures as
applicable to the particular Project component. These include water spraying, wind breaks, sprayon adhesives and vegetative coverings. Chemical-based solutions will not be used or applied near
water bodies.
Page 438

Project
Component
Blasting
Concrete Works
Table 12.2
VEC
Marine Fish and
Fish Habitat

Watercourse crossing will be constructed in accordance with permit and authorization

requirements. Fish-bearing streams will be crossed in accordance with DFO guidelines and
standards.
All drill cuttings generated from marine construction will be returned to the drilling barge and
discharged onshore in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Construction vessel traffic will be managed through normal port procedures and will include Notice
to Mariners.
During dredging for the tug basin, to minimize turbidity, the dredge bucket will be an enclosed
clamshell type, which has the tops covered with a steel plate to minimize overflow of the dredged
material. The bucket is also equipped with rubber vents to allow water to escape during descent
(buckets are open during descent) and during the closing action of the bucket. Best practices will
be employed to minimize turbidity. Most of the turbidity occurs when the bucket hits the bottom so
ideally, only a single bite will occur on every cycle.
To minimize Project-related traffic on the TCH and access roads, wherever possible the delivery of
materials and equipment coming overland will be distributed over the course of the construction
phase of the Project.
Explosives and auxiliary materials will be stored by each contractor as stipulated in relevant
legislation and in compliance with their operations permit and the EPP. Licensed blasters under
direct supervision of a professional engineer will undertake blasting. The following measures will
be implemented to minimize the impact of the use of explosives and blasting:
explosives will be used in a manner that will minimize damage or defacement of landscape
features, trees and other surrounding objects by controlling through the best methods possible
(including time-delay blast cycles) the scatter of blasted material beyond the limits of activity;
blasting patterns and procedures, which minimize shock or instantaneous peak noise levels, will be
used;
blasting will not occur in the vicinity of fuel storage facilities; and
blasting in or near a water body will be undertaken following existing guidelines and only after
appropriate regulatory approval has been obtained.
The handling and production of concrete will be performed in a specific manner to reduce the
effect on the environment. The following site procedures will be implemented:
concrete additives will be stored in approved containers;
settling basins will be provided to control run off from aggregate stockpiles;
wash down water will be contained in settling ponds prior to disposal;
no concrete wash water will be allowed to enter any body of water;
regular inspections of equipment will be performed; and
formwork and concrete placement procedures will be implemented to prevent the spillage of
concrete in to any body of water.
Summary of Mitigation by VEC

Mitigative Measure
no side-cast of the dredged material for tug basin construction, (i.e., material will be placed on a
barge for use as fill material on land)
the use of washed rock for all fill material used in the construction of the tug basin
the use of drill casements to encapsulate drill cuttings during pile installation
development of an EPP that will detail procedures to control site runoff, including the use of silt
curtains and erosion control measures on land
using minimal movement of barge anchors (only when necessary) to reduce resuspension of
sediments
releasing water for hydrostatic testing only when it meets or exceeds criteria set out in the the
Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and Sewer Regulations, 2003, prior to
discharge
releasing water used in hydrostatic testing in a controlled discharge
restricting seabed disturbance to the area required for the tug basin and pipeline footprints
mitigating net habitat lost and the resulting decrease in productive capacity with a Fish Habitat
Compensation Plan
Page 439

VEC
Commercial
Fisheries
Marine Mammals
Migratory Birds
Mitigative Measure
blasting that may be required near the shoreline in compliance with DFOs Guidelines for Use of
Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky 1998). An EPP will commit to use of
the lowest weight of explosives necessary to break rock, to the decking of charges and to
stemming all blasting holes
use of acoustic harassment devices or a ramp-up of detonation pressures to encourage fish to
move away from the blasting area
use of bubble curtains and other acoustic absorbents, where feasible; to contain shock waves from
blasting
notification of area residents and fishers prior to blasting operations
identifying designated routes to and from construction site for construction vessel and barges
use of shielded, directional lighting to illuminate only the immediate working area below the lamp,
minimizing diffusion of light laterally and above the lamp
use of screens on the seawater intake pipe to comply with the Freshwater Intake End-of-pipe Fish
Screen Guideline (DFO 1995), or other conditions applied on the Certificate of Approval to prevent
entrainment and impingement of fish greater than 25 mm
placement of the intake pipe approximately 30 cm from the seafloor, which will minimize the
entrainment of eggs and larvae from the water column
supporting the pipe on concrete footings, spaced 180 cm apart so as to not impede lobster or
flounder from moving underneath the pipe
speed limit from traffic lane to berth
compliance with applicable guidelines of the CSA with respect to vessel discharges
establishment of a Fisheries Liaison Committee (FLC) to facilitate and formalize its ongoing
fisheries-industry consultation process during construction and operation
employment of a dedicated Fisheries Liaison Manager (FLM) to work with Newfoundland LNG Ltd.,
its sub-contractors and affected fishers. During operation, FLM will help minimize interference with
fisheries activities in the general vicinity of, and approaches to, the Marine Terminal area
establishment of a CSZ will be established in consultation with the FLC
CSZ perimeter will be clearly marked with buoys and fishers will be made aware of the boundaries
in consultation with the FLC, establishment of a fisheries loss of access compensation program to
compensate fishers for economic loss due to the CSZ
up-to-date communication with fishers on Project activities and Project vessel operators, facilitated
through the FLC and the FLM
appropriate precautions during construction to prevent the escape of debris from onshore and
marine sites
establishment of a Fishing Gear and Vessel Damage Compensation program to cover any damage
to fishing gear, equipment or vessel resulting from an incident involving contact with any Project
vessel or debris (including aquaculture equipment and infrastructure).
all Project-related marine traffic (greater than 20 m) to follow Placentia Bay VTS guidelines.
Participation to be mandatory for all LNGCs arriving at or departing from the Marine Terminal
when in areas serviced by the VTS, all Project vessels to remain within designated lanes to
minimize the areas of potential interference, unless an emergency situation requires them to do
otherwise
establishment of a Fish Habitat Compensation program in consultation with DFO and the
Community Liaison Committee to ensure that there will be no net loss of fish habitat because of
the Project
any blasting required in the marine environment or near the shoreline to comply with DFOs
Guidelines for Use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters; EPP to commit to the use of the
lowest weight of explosives necessary to break rock, the decking of charges and stemming all
blasting holes
dedicated marine mammal surveys to be conducted within a 1000 m radius of blasting; no
detonation will occur while a marine mammal is inside a 1000 m radius of the blast
marine mammals to move away from the blasting area
where feasible, bubble curtains and other acoustic absorbents to be used to contain shock waves
all vessels participating in construction activities to maintain speeds of less than 10 knots
construction vessel and barges to follow designated routes to and from the construction site
within the EPP, operators of vessels to be instructed to reduce speed and alter coarse to avoid
collision with a marine mammal
the vegetation along the shorelines of waterbodies and the coast will be maintained where possible
any raptor nests that are found during the construction phase will be addressed in consultation with
Environment Canada
Page 440

VEC
Species at Risk
Atmospheric
Environment
Mitigative Measure
any migratory bird nests or colonies found in the Assessment Area will be buffered during
breeding season whenever possible until young have fledged, and nests will be left intact and
undisturbed
boat activity and human presence will be restricted near colony-nesting birds within the
Assessment Area (if any colonies establish in the future) where possible
blasting activities will be coordinated and scheduled to minimize the number of blasts required. In
order to minimize the seismic effect, blasting patterns and procedures will be used to reduce the
shock wave and noise
the sedimentation pond will be tested regularly to ensure compliance with provincial regulations
prior to discharge to minimize potential impacts on waterfowl
directional lighting, motion-detected lighting, or shielding or filtering upward radiation could mitigate
the effects of light attraction and reduce bird strikes and mortality
industrial site speed limits will help minimize bird-vehicle collisions on the access roads
Bird Species:
survey of nesting birds to be completed before any clearing or site preparation begins. If nesting
bird species at risk are discovered, operations in the immediate area of the nest to be suspended
until the young have fledged
mature balsam fir forest to be retained where possible along the shoreline which may provide
potential habitat for Red Crossbill in the future
Projects access roads to have reasonable speed limits to minimize potential mortality of bird
species at risk from road kills
Marine Mammals/Sea Turtles:
EPP to commit to use of the lowest weight of explosives necessary to break rock, decking of
charges and stemming all blasting holes
any blasting required in the marine environment or near the shoreline to comply with DFOs
Guidelines for Use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky 1998)
dedicated marine mammal species at risk surveys to be conducted within a 1000 m blasting radius
marine mammal species at risk to move away from the blasting area
where feasible, bubble curtains and other acoustic absorbents to be used to contain shock waves
construction vessel and barges to have designated routes to and from construction site
all vessels participating in the routine construction activities to maintain speeds of less than 5 m/s
(10 knots)
construction vessel and barges to have designated routes to and from the construction site
operators of vessels to be instructed to reduce speed and alter coarse to avoid collision with a
marine mammal
Marine Fish:
use of a closed clamshell bucket to reduce the spill-over of the dredged material from the bucket
no side-casting of dredged material from the tug basin, it will be placed on a barge for use as fill
material on land
use of washed rock for all fill material used in the construction of the tug basin
use of drill casements to encapsulate drill cuttings during pile installation
use of an EPP to control site run-off, including the use of silt curtains on land
use of water for hydrostatic testing that will meet or exceed criteria set out in the Fisheries Act
(Section 36) and the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Control Water and Sewer
Regulations, 2003, prior to discharge
releasing water used in hydrostatic testing in a controlled discharge
compliance with DFOs Guidelines for Use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and
Hopky 1998) for any blasting required near the shoreline
use of acoustic harassment devices or a ramp-up of detonation pressures to encourage marine
fish species at risk to move away from the blasting area
use of bubble curtains and other acoustic absorbents, where feasible to contain shock waves
Regulations, 2003;
compliance with applicable guidelines of the Freshwater Intake End-of-pipe Fish Screen Guideline
compliance with applicable guidelines of the Canada Shipping Act
efforts to be made to minimize fugitive dust emissions; specific types and frequency of dust control
measures to be determined by site conditions and specific requests from regulatory officials and/or
members of the public
noise control measures to be determined by site activities and specific requests from regulatory
officials and/or members of the public
Page 441

VEC
Marine
Transportation and
Safety
Table 12.3
Mitigative Measure
regular vessel and on-land equipment maintenance during construction and operation
control of vehicle movements and material handling
pave areas of high traffic usage
respond to visible incidents
limit activity to day where feasible, especially material deliveries
use of vehicle fuels with low sulphur content
use of natural gas-fired engines where possible
regular and preventative maintenance for vent gas heater and fuel gas heater
use of insulating shielding on the LNG transfer line, if required
use of manufacturers noise control treatments, if supplied with equipment
containing major noise generating equipment within shelters where practical
buildings that house equipment that generate substantial noise to include: wall sound transmission
class (STC) of at least 50 to reduce noise; minimal amount of windows; non-operable windows;
appropriate perimeter seals on the exterior doors; metal insulated exterior doors for higher STC
values; building ventilation such that doors and windows do not need to be open; and silencing
elements on building ventilation equipment
MCTS Notices to Mariners and Notices to Shipping to be issued
all vessels to be subject to the standards and regulations under the CSA, Labour Code and
Oceans Act
movement of vessels to be subject to the Practices and Procedures for Public Harbours under the
Canada Marine Act.
NWPA requirements ensure that construction activities do not represent an unacceptable risk to
navigation and may stipulate approval conditions, such as lighting which will be monitored by NWP
vessels to use Pilots within compulsory pilotage area
vessels to follow existing protocols within Placentia Bay (e.g., TSS)
APA to review pilot complement.
crew of LNGCs to be qualified to IMO Standards for Training and Certification of Watchkeepers.
LNGCs to meet standards of the classification societies.
inspections to occur by Transport Canada, Marine Safety Inspectors under the Port State Control
legislation
tugs to be used in the berthing process
Proponent to undertake TERMPOL process, including simulation studies, and follow any
recommendations resulting from that process.
navigation aids to be used as required and conform to the Private Aids to Navigation Regulations
under Transport Canada.
Measure Associated with Accidental Events and/or Effects of the Environment on

the Project
Events
Accidental Events
Erosion and
sediment control
failure
Fires
Mitigation or Design Features

Site inspections will ensure ongoing suitability and good repair of sediment and erosion control
measures these (e.g., accumulated sediment removed at pre-determined levels). Inspections will
be undertaken before and after heavy precipitation events.
Failure of erosion and sediment controls (i.e., breaches) will be identified and rapidly repaired.
Repair materials will be kept on site to ensure immediate response and repair.
LNGCs are fully equipped with firefighting equipment, including large, dry chemical systems and
sprinkler systems designed to contain a cargo system fire.
Main terminal facility has been sited outside the most dangerous thermal radiation zone of a
burning LNGC.
Emergency procedures require that when a LNGC is alongside a terminal, it hangs fire wires over
the side, fore and aft, which make it possible for tugs to pull the LNG vessel away from the dock in
the case of any emergency which, by being alongside, may affect the terminal or the LNGC.
Fire protection for all LNG facilities is included as part of the design and operation which must be in
compliance with the CSA-Z276-07.
Fires will be mitigated by the implementation of a comprehensive health and safety management
system, an EPP and an emergency response plan (see Section 2).
Page 442
Events

All employees will be trained in operational procedures and environmental emergency response
procedures to ensure safe operation of tanker unloading and facility operation. Further, the
environmental training requirements for employees will be described in detail as part of the training
manual for the LNG facility.
Vessels will be travelling at reduced speed while in the Assessment Area.
Accidents
LNGCs have double hull construction, reducing the risk for loss of cargo as a result of a collision.
AIS and verbal communications are accessible to vessels.
Vessel movements are monitored by MCTS.
Vessels in close-quarters would be aware of the added risk and would be conducting the vessels
accordingly pursuant to the Collision Regulations.
The bridge team will be prepared for unusual events.
Vessels in the anchorage will be advised of the forecast for the wind.
When at anchor, the practices of the port will identify when vessels should get underway in the
approach of high winds.
The normal practice of seamen gives the expectation of the Master making the decision to get
underway in good time.
Hazardous Materials
A Spill Prevention and Response Plan will be developed and included in the EPP for Project
Spills
construction and operation, detailing procedures to prevent spills (e.g., training for equipment
maintenance and inspection) and how to respond to spills (clean-up and disposal), as well as
participation in regional spill response organizations. The Plan will also detail equipment to be kept
on site to quickly respond to spills and how to use the equipment.
Any actual loss to the fisheries industry resulting from any oil spill will be fully and adequately
addressed by the Proponent.
LNG carriers will adhere to the Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from ships and for
Dangerous Chemicals under the Canada Shipping Act, specifically the need for a response
organization and an oil prevention plan.
LNG Release
Use of intrinsically safe design.
Effective emergency planning and preparedness.
Implementation of operational procedures and training.
Extreme
All materials specified for the Project will be in compliance with applicable building codes for
anticipated temperatures and as such will maintain the integrity and ductility to function as they
Temperatures
were designed.
Extreme
All components of the facility will be designed to support the structural loadings created by extreme
snow and ice events. The runoff from the site and drainage from the secondary impoundments will
Precipitation
be designed to handle extreme participation and sudden snow melt. Construction may be halted
during extreme weather events. If extreme weather conditions in any way compromise a safe
operation, accident prevention measures will be taken, including the temporary suspension of
operations, as required.
Structural Icing
If icing were to occur, the facility and all vessels will have equipment and procedures in place to
adequately address the condition.
Fog and Visibility
Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) monitor vessel traffic within Placentia Bay,
advising each of the movement of traffic in the vicinity. The vessels are equipped with radar, VHF
radios, AIS, and navigational equipment to enable them to navigate in reduced visibility, at
appropriate speeds as identified in the Collision Regulations
Wind and Storms
The design of each structure will take into account extreme wind conditions as required under
building codes and standards. LNG carriers will not be allowed to dock if wind and sea conditions
do not allow a safe LNG transfer. If weather conditions create an unsafe environment during a
transfer, the transfer will be suspended. Meteorological criteria for safe berthing and departure
from the berth using tugs will be identified and approved through the TERMPOL Review process.
The criteria for stopping pumping and for disconnecting the product transfer piping will be identified
in the Operations Manual of the Terminal.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has committed to undertaking simulation studies that will identify the
forces required to overcome wind and current and validate the safety of navigation. The Terminal
Operator and the Harbour Authority will identify the size and numbers of tugs necessary for the
berthing process, the confirmation of which will be verified by Transport Canada, Marine Safety.
Meteorological criteria for safe berthing and departure from the berth, using tugs, will be identified,
and approved through the TERMPOL Review process. The design criteria for the Terminal and
Page 443

Events
Seismic Events and
Tsunamis
Iceberg and Sea Ice

Impacts

operational constraints will be reviewed by the (Transport Canada) TERMPOL Review Committee.
The LNG tanks and all related facilities will be designed to the applicable standards for
earthquakes in this area. Specifically, the LNG tanks and their impounding and protection system
will be designed in compliance with the National Building Code of Canada, NBCC (2005), and
CSAZ276-07 codes. In accordance with recent Natural Resources Canada requirements, the
Grassy Point facility should also be designed for seismic events pursuant to the NFPA 59A
(United States code, 2006 Edition).
In the event that sea ice was to reach the terminal site, appropriate actions to ensure safety of
personnel, operations and minimize risk to the environment will be carried out. Navigation is not
curtailed by ice in the Bay.
Page 444
FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM
13.0 FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM

13.1
General
Pursuant to Section 16(2) of CEAA, the need for, and requirements of, a follow-up program must be
considered during the comprehensive study process. The follow-up program should be designed to: 1)
verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment for the project; 2) determine the effectiveness of
the measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the project; and 3) support and
verify predictions made concerning the likelihood of no significant adverse environmental effects.
The follow-up program can also ensure that unanticipated environmental effects or effects caused by
any unforeseen accidents and/or malfunctions are addressed in a timely manner and do not result in
environmental degradation. Where federal regulatory processes exist for specific development
activities, the mitigation measures and follow-up requirements will be specific as terms and conditions
by the federal regulatory instruments (e.g., Fisheries Act or NWPA authorizations).
13.2
Navigable Waters Protection Act Conditions of Approval
Transport Canadas Navigable Waters Protection Program is required to issue an authorization for the
construction and operation of the marine terminal pursuant to Section 5(1) of the NWPA. The
Proponent will complete all the requirements for the Section 5(1) authorization, including a 31-day
public notification period. The drawings will be displayed at the Towns of Arnold's Cove, Placentia,
Southern Harbour, and Come by Chance and at the Placentia West Development Association during
March 2008. 20th. Notice of the NWP Application will be advertised in The Packet, The Telegram and
the Canada Gazette. The Section 5(1) Authorization will be issued once the environment assessment is
completed pursuant to the CEAA. A set of Conditions of Approval that the Proponent will be responsible
for adhering to will be attached to the NWPA authorization.
The Navigable Waters Protection Program will conduct follow-up site visits to ensure that the Proponent
is in compliance with these Conditions of Approval. Failure to comply with the Conditions of Approval
could result in legal action.
13.3
Fisheries Act
Monitoring will be required as per the conditions of the Section 35(2) Fisheries Act Authorization that
may be issued after completion of the environmental assessment: provided that after taking into
account the implementation of any mitigation measures, the Project is not likely to cause significant
adverse environmental effects.
Page 445
FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM
13.4
Follow-Up Program
A follow-up program will be developed to ensure that Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has implemented all
mitigation measures and that these mitigation measures are working to protect the identified VECs from
significant adverse environmental effects. Key aspects of the follow-up program will include:
monitoring to ensure the NWPA Conditions of Approval are adhered to;
monitoring to ensure conditions of the Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting
Fish Habitat are implemented and to verify their effectiveness, including the Fish Habitat
Compensation Agreement;
monitoring to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations of the Canada Shipping
and relevant International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions including
International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, International Convention for
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the International Convention
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers;
Act
the
the
on
monitoring to ensure that the sedimentation control devices are installed properly and
minimize sedimentation during the construction phase of the Project;
monitoring of marine water quality, including sedimentation rates and temperature to protect
fish and fish habitat.
It is anticipated that follow-up and monitoring would also be required during the decommissioning
phase to ensure that any rehabilitation efforts were progressing as planned and to ensure that all
emissions, effluents and debris are appropriately handled. Specific requirements for follow-up and
monitoring would have to be developed in consultation with regulators at the time of decommissioning
to ensure compliance with applicable legislation and regulations.
13.5
Proponents Commitments and Obligations
Once designed, the Proponent is responsible for implementing the follow-up program, reporting the
results to the RAs, and ensuring action is taken to mitigate for any unforeseen environmental effects.
In addition to the follow-up requirements pursuant to CEAA, the Proponent has also developed a Risk
Assessment and an EPP to satisfy the requirements of the NLEPA. The Risk Assessment (ICF
International 2007) has been reviewed and approved by the NLDEC.
The factors affecting risk and safety addressed within the Risk Assessment includes:
likelihood of an event occurring;
behaviour of LNG should a release occur;
the potential zone of influence and severity of hazard;
potential hazards to the public outside the facility;
physical effects on the environment;
ship-to-ship transfer; and
effects on the community and future development.
The Risk Assessment was developed based on the LNG Safety Standard set by CSA Z-276-07
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Production, Storage, and Handling. The Risk Assessment concluded
Page 446
FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM
that the proposed LNG facility at Grassy Point will be designed so that any credible scenarios will not
result in significant risks of injury or damage beyond the Projects property lines, including the berth
area and any controlled adjacent property. Any danger to the surrounding animal population, habitat or
property will be minimal and LNG accidents do not create any long-term environmental issues (ICF
International 2007).
The EPP is currently being drafted and will be a field-ready document describing applicable
environmental protection measures associated with construction and operation activities of the Project.
The EPP provides a practical way in which the Proponent can demonstrate an understanding of
environmental regulations, practices, and procedures required to reduce or eliminate the potential
environmental effects associated with the Project. The EPP will set out the procedures, responsibilities
and control actions to be implemented by the Proponent in achieving the safe and environmentallysound construction and operation of the Project. The EPP is considered a living document and, as
work proceeds, the EPP will be revised and updated.
As the Proponent conducts periodic audits to verify compliance with existing regulations and the followup program, the EPP will be revised, as required, and forwarded to all those involved in the work scope
of the document, management personnel, and provincial and federal regulators.
Page 447
CONCLUSIONS
14.0 CONCLUSIONS
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. is proposing to construct and operate a LNG Transshipment and Storage
Terminal at Grassy Point, Placentia Bay. The Grassy Point site is located on the island of
Newfoundland at the head of Placentia Bay, within Come By Chance Harbour, approximately 1.5 km
west of the town of Arnolds Cove. The facility will consist of the following components:
a marine terminal comprised of three jetties with berthing capability for LNG tankers up to
265,000 m3;
a tug basin;
The facility will be designed to provide facilities for LNG cargo transfer, LNG storage and a lay-up site
for transiting LNG carriers. The terminal will provide storage and offloading for larger LNG vessels for
transfer to smaller LNG carriers for distribution to Eastern Seaboard LNG import terminals.
The main facility processes will include:
LNG transfer systems to and from LNGCs and LNG storage tanks;
LNG storage;
BOG re-liquefaction systems;
ship-to-ship transfer of LNG; and
power generation.
All aspects of the design, construction and operation of the LNG facility will be highly regulated and will
meet all applicable design standards and codes. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has committed to
constructing and operating a facility in which all aspects comply with relevant legislation, license
conditions and accepted good practice. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. will be proactive in implementing
procedures to prevent pollution and to continually improve environmental performance, and along with
its contractors will manage environmental issues as a priority. Safety features will also be incorporated
into every aspect of the facility design, and a quality assurance system will be implemented for the
Project to ensure the final design meets these standards.
Due to the nature of the proposed Project, it is subject to a comprehensive study level of assessment
pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Both Transport Canada and Fisheries and
Oceans Canada have been identified as Responsible Authorities for this Project, due to their
requirement to issue a permit, license, or other approval in relation to this Project that is included in the
Law List Regulations made pursuant to the CEA Act. Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada
and Health Canada have been identified as Federal Authorities with applicable specialist or expert
information and departmental knowledge in support of the environmental assessment process.
Preparation of the CSR (this report) was delegated by the RAs to the Proponent, as allowed under the
Act.
Page 448
CONCLUSIONS
As required for a comprehensive study, there have been numerous opportunities for regulatory,
stakeholder and public consultation. Consultations and public review periods have been conducted by
both the RAs and the Proponent. Any comments/concerns raised have been documented and used in
determining the scope of this assessment. Based on this input, as well as the Environmental
Assessment Track Report and professional opinion of the study team, the environmental assessment
has focused on the following VECs:
marine fish and fish habitat;
commercial fisheries (including aquaculture and fish processing);
marine mammals;
migratory birds;
species at risk;
atmospheric environment; and
marine transportation and safety.
The EA methods and approach used to prepare this CSR were developed to satisfy the factors to be
considered in accordance with sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the CEA Act and the specific requirements
for comprehensive studies under section 21 of the Act. The EA methods included an evaluation of the
potential environmental effects that may arise from each Project phase (construction, commissioning
and operation) as well as malfunctions and accidents, with regards to each of the identified VECs.
Note that Project decommissioning was discussed and assessed only in general terms as any
decommissioning activities would be subject to assessment and regulatory requirements at that time.
Project-related effects were assessed within the context of temporal and spatial boundaries established
for each VEC. The evaluation of potential cumulative effects with regard to other projects and activities
included existing, approved and proposed activities that will interact temporally or spatially with the
Project.
The CSR also considers technically and economically feasible alternatives to the LNG Project as well
as alternatives for several Project elements, as required under Section 16(20) of the CEA Act.
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. considered alternative Project sites, LNG transfer methods, storage tank
types, and re-liquefaction methods.
As required by the CEA Act, the CSR also considers the effects of the environment on the Project, i.e.,
the environmental hazards that may affect the Project and their predicted effects, including natural
hazards such as extreme weather events, seismic activities, extreme tidal conditions, fog events, and
climate change.
Table 14.1 provides a summary of the predicted environmental effects for each VEC for each Project
phase. As shown in this Table, the only predicted significant impacts associated with the Project would
be as a result of an accidental event. As discussed in Section 11.1, the likelihood of such an effect
occurring is low and the confidence associated with these predictions is high. As well, the VECs for
which significant adverse effects were predicted were further considered as required by the CEA Act to
determine the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project
to meet the needs of the present and those of the future. In all cases, significant impacts were
temporary and reversible.
Page 449
CONCLUSIONS
Table 14.1
Summary of Predicted Environmental Effects by VEC
VEC
Marine Fish And Fish
Habitat
(Including Aquaculture And
Fish Processing)
Marine Mammals
Migratory Birds
Species at Risk
Air Quality
Safety
Construction
and
Commissioning
Operation
Decommissioning
Accidental
Events
Cumulative
Effects
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N- not significant ; S- significant
A full summary of all environmental design features and mitigation measures proposed in association
with all Project phases has been provided in Chapter 12. In addition, a full discussion of required followup programs is provided in Chapter 13. Through the development and implementation of an
environmental protection plan, an emergency response plan, and a quality assurance program, each of
these design features and mitigations will be implemented as indicated thus reducing the environmental
footprint of the Project to the extent feasible. Based on these commitments by the Proponent and the
assessment of effects as included in this CSR, it is concluded that this Project could proceed without
resulting in any likely, significant adverse effects on the receiving environment.
Page 450
REFERENCES
15.0 REFERENCES
15.1
Personal Communication
ACCDC
(Atlantic Canadian Conservation Data Centre). Data request provided by email.

2006.
Barney, W.
Management and Planning Coordinator, Wildlife Ecosystem Management and

Planning, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and
Conservation. Corner Brook, NL. Email Correspondence.
Beach, J.
Loss Control Technician/Firefighter, North Atlantic Refinery. Come By Chance,

NL. Telephone Conversation.
Beresford, G.
Business Manager,
Conversation
Bowering, P.
Canadian Coast Guard, Aids to Navigation. Telephone Conversation
Brazil. J.
Chief, Endangered Species and

Communication. August 21, 2007.
Brett, I.
Long-term resident of Arnolds Cove, NL.
Budgell, T.
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Grand

Falls, NL. April 2007.
Eddy, M.
Fisheries Officer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Arnolds Cove. April

2007.
Fenske, J.
Biologist, Wildlife Ecosystem Monitoring, NLDEC. Telephone Correspondence,

June 5, 2007.
Gates, P.
Atlantic Pilotage Authority. Telephone Conversation
Goebel, M.
Water Resources Management Branch. NLDEC. Email Correspondence. July 18,

2007.
Gregory, C.
Eastern Canada Response Telephone Conversation
Guy, F.
Long-term resident of Arnolds Cove, NL.
Guy, R.
Former resident of Arnolds Cove, NL.
Halse, N.
Director of Communications Cook Aquaculture, April 2007.
Hannay, D.
Vice-President, Jasco Research Limited, Sidney, BC. February 21, 2006.
Laing, C.
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Grand

Falls, NL. April 2007.
Lambert, D.
DFO Fisheries Officer, Arnolds Cove, NL. Telephone conversation March 2007.
Lawson, J.
Research Scientist, Marine Mammals Section, DFO, St. Johns, NL.
McDonald, C.
Transport Canada Ports and Harbours. Telephone conversation
McGrath, M.
Senior Biologist (Furbearer - Small Game), Wildlife and Natural Heritage

Research, NLDEC. Email Correspondence, June 14, 2007.
Morrissey, J.
Engineer, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Transportation and Works.

St. Johns, NL. Email Correspondence.
Newfoundland
Transshipment
Biodiversity
Limited.
Section
Telephone
NLDEC,
Email
Page 451
REFERENCES
Osbourne, C.
Harbour Master, Come By Chance. Telephone conversation
Peach, M.
Trapper. Arnolds Cove, NL. Conversation. June 2006.
Pitcher, M.
Animal Curator, Salmonier Nature Park.

September 20, 2006, May 18, 2007.
Rose, G.
Canadian Coast Guard, Environmental Response. Telephone conversation
Shelton, P.
Research Scientist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Aquatic Resources Division,

St. Johns, NL.
Sjare, B.
Marine Mammal Scientist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St. Johns, NL.
Telephone conversation, January 27, 2006; email correspondence, February 2,
2006.
Slade, W.
Town Clerk, Town of Arnolds Cove. Arnolds Cove, NL. Email Correspondence.
Smith, R.
Chief Resource Officer, Acting. Department of Fisheries and Oceans .May 2007.
Stacey, J.
Supervisor, North Atlantic Refining Limited. Telephone conversation.
Tucker, B.
Conservation Officer III, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Natural

Resources, Forestry - Regional Ecosystem Management, Avalon District,
Paddys Pond Office. St. Johns, NL. Telephone Conversation.
Wheeler, J.
Research and Assessment Biologist, DFO, St. Johns, NL.
15.2
NLDEC.
Email Correspondence,
Literature Cited
Adkisson, C.S. 1996. Red Crossbill. In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 256.
American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.
AES40, 1999. Meteorological Service of Canada (formerly Atmospheric Environment Service (AES))
40-year (1958-1997) wind and wave hindcast of the North Atlantic. In: V.R. Swail, V.J. Cardone
and A.T. Cox. A Long Term North Atlantic Wave Hindcast.
Aiken, D.E. and S.L. Waddy. 1986. Environmental influence on recruitment of American lobster
(Homerus americanus): a perspective. Can. J. Fish. Aqua. Sci .43:2258-2270.
Akamatsu, T., A. Nanami, and H.Y. Yan. 2003. Spotlined sardine Sardinops melanostictus listens to 1kHz sound by using its gas bladder. Fisheries Science, 69(2): 348-354.
AMEC. 2007. Physical Environment Description for the Grassy Point LNG Terminal. A report for
Jacques Whitford Limited by AMEC Earth and Environmental. 42 pp + app.
Amirault, D. L. 2006. Recovery strategy for Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus melodus) in Canada.
[Proposed.] in Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Amos, B., D. Bloch, G. Desportes, T.M.O. Majerus, D.R. Bancroft, J.A. Barrett and G.A. Dover. 1993. A
review of molecular evidence relating to social organization and breeding system in the longfinned pilot whale. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue, 14: 209-217.
Appleby, J.P. and D.J. Scarratt. 1989. Physical effects of suspended solids on marine and estuarine fish
and shellfish with special reference to ocean dumping: A literature review. Canadian Technical
Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 168: v +33p.
Atkinson, G.M. 2003, Seismic Hazard Analysis in Canada: An Overview, Geohazards 2003,
Edmonton, Alberta, p. 1-12.
Page 452
REFERENCES
Atkinson, G.M. and D.M. Boore. 1995. New ground motion relations for eastern North America. Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am. v. 85. P. 17-30.
Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team. 2006. Recovery Strategy for Leatherback Turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada [Proposed]. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy
Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vi + 45 pp.
Au W.W.L. 1980. Echolocation signals of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in open
waters. Pp. 251-282. In: R.G. Busnel and J.F. Fish (eds.). Animal Sonar Systems. Plenum Press,
New York.
Au, D. and W. Perryman. 1982. Movement and speed of dolphin schools responding to an approaching
ship. Fisheries Bulletin, 80: 371-379.
Au, W.W.L. 1993. The Sonar of Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Au, W.W.L. and K. Banks. 1998. The acoustics of snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in
Kaneohe Bay. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103: 41-47.
Au, W.W.L., P.E. Nachtigall and J.L. Pawloski. 1999. Temporary threshold shift in hearing induced by an
octave band of continuous noise in the bottlenose dolphin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 84: 2,273-2,275.
Auster, P.J. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and
invertebrates (North Atlantic and mid-Atlantic) - tautog and cunner. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report, 82(11.105). US Army Corp of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 13 pp.
Avery, M. L. 1995. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of
North America, No. 200, The Academy of Natural Sciences, PA, and The American Ornithologists
Union, Washington, DC.
B. Wrsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA.
Baird, R.W. 2003. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Humpback Whale
Megaptera novaeangliae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Ottawa, ON. 25 pp.
Baird, R.W. and P.J. Stacey. 1991b. Status of the northern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis, in
Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist, 105: 243-250.
Baird, R.W. and P.J. Stacey. 1991a. Status of Rissos dolphin, Grampus griseus, in Canada. Canadian
Field Naturalist, 105: 233-242.
Banfield, A.W.F. 1987. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON.
Banner, A., and M. Hyatt. 1973. Effects of noise on eggs and larvae of two estuarine fishes. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc., 1: 134-136.
Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Revised Edition. Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, PA.
Benkman, C.W. 1989. On the evolution and ecology of island populations of crossbills. Evolution 43:
1324-1330.
Benkman, C.W. 1990. Intake rates and the timing of crossbill reproduction. Auk, 17: 376-386.
Benkman, C.W. 1992. A crossbill's twist of fate. Natural History, 101: 38-42.
Page 453
REFERENCES
Benkman, C.W. 1993a. Logging, conifers, and the conservation of crossbills. Conservation Biology, 7:
473-479.
Benkman, C.W. 1993b. The evolution, ecology, and decline of the Red Crossbill of Newfoundland.
American Birds, 47: 225-229.
Bernier N.B., and Thompson, K.R. 2006. Predicting the frequency of storm surges and
extreme
sea levels in the northwest Atlantic.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, C10009,
doi:10.1029/2005JC003168.
Bernier, N., K. R. Thompson, J. Ou and Ritchie, H., 2006. Mapping the Return Periods of Extreme Sea
Levels: Allowing for Short Sea Level Records, Seasonality, and Climate Change. Global and
Planetary Change, 57, 139-150.
Bider, J.R. 1974. Snowshoe hare in the north woods. Nature Canada, 3:21-24.
BIO (Bedford Institute of Oceanography). 2006. Remote Sensing of Ocean Color, Temperature, and
Primary Productivity (Semi-monthly Composite Images). Available online at: http://www.mar.dfompo.gc.ca/science/ocean/ias/seawifs/seawifs_3.html
BIO (Bedford Institute of Oceanography). 2007. Hydrographic Database and Ocean Data Inventory
Database.
Available
online
at:
http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/ocean/database/
data_query_f.html
Birds of North America Online. 2006. Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/
Bjrge, A. and K.A. Tolley. 2002. Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Pp. 549-551. In: W.F. Perrin,
Blackwell, S.B., J.W. Lawson and M.T. Williams. 2004. Tolerance in ringed seals (Phoca hispida) to
impact pipe-driving and construction sounds at an oil production island. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 115(5, Pt. 1): 2346-2357.
Blackwell, S.B., J.W. Lawson, M.T. Williams and C.R. Greene, Jr. 2003. Tolerance of ringed seals
(Phoca hispida) to sounds from impact pile driving at an oil production island. Abstract in ECOUD
Symposium. 12-16 May 2003, San Antonio, TX.
Blaxter, J.H.S., J.A.B. Gray and E.J. Denton. 1981. Sound and startle responses in herring shoals.
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 61:851-869.
Bloch, D. and L. Lastein. 1993. Morphometric segregation of ling-finned pilot whales in eastern and
western North Atlantic. Ophelia, 38(1):55-68.
Boehlert, G., and M. Yoklavich. 1984. Carbon assimilation as function of ingestion rate in larval Pacific
herring, Clupea harengus pallasi Valenciennes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology, 79(3): 251-262.
Bohggaard, Diane L. 1996. Assessing the effects of industrial activity on cetaceans in Trinity Bay,
Newfoundland. M.Sc. Thesis, Biopsychology Programme, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
147 p.
Bolon, A.D. and D.C. Schneider. 1999. Temperal trends in condition, gonado somatic index and
maturity stages of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from northern Placentia Bay (Subdivision 3Ps),
Newfoundland, during 1998. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 99/45.
Bonner, W. N.. 1982. Seals and Man: A Study of Interactions. University of Washington Sea Grant
Publication, Seattle, Washington.
Bourne, W.R.P. 1979. Birds and gas flares. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 10:124-125.
Page 454
REFERENCES
Boutin, S., C.J. Krebs, R. Boonstra, M.R.T. Dale, S.J. Hannon, K. Martin, A.R.E. Sinclair, J.N.M Smith,
R. Turkington, M. Blower, A. Byrom, F.I. Doyle, C. Doyle, D. Hik, L. Hofer, A. Hubbs, T. Karels, D.L.
Murray, V. Nams, M. ODonoghue, C. Rohner and S. Schweiger. 1995. Population changes of the
vertebrate community during a snowshoe hare cycle in Canadas boreal forest. Oikos, 74:69-80.
Bowen, W.D., S.L. Elis, S.J. Iverson and D.J. Boness. 2001. Maternal effects on offspring growth rate
and weaning mass in harbour seals. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79: 1,088-1,101
Bowyer, P.J. 1995. Where the Wind Blows, A Guide to Marine Weather in Atlantic Canada. Published in
cooperation with Environment Canada, Breakwater Books Ltd., St Johns, NL.
Bowyer, P.J. and MacAfee, A.W., 2005. The Theory of Trapped-Fetch Waves with Tropical Cyclones an Operational Perspective, Weather and Forecasting, 20, pp. 229-244.
Bradbury, I.R., G.L. Lawson, D. Robichaud, G.A. Rose and P.V.R. Snelgrove. 2000. Success and failure
of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua): a case study from coastal Newfoundland. Canadian Science
Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2000/022.
Bradbury, I.R., P.V.R. Snelgrove and P. Pepin. 2003. Passive and active behaviour contributions to
patchiness and spatial pattern during the early life history of marine fishes. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 257: 233-245.
Bradbury, I.R., P.V.R. Snelgrove and S. Fraser. 1999. Transport and development of cod eggs and
larvae in Placentia Bay (3Ps) Newfoundland, 1997-1998. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Research Document, 99/71.
Bradford, D.F., S.E. Franson, A.C. Neale, D.T. Heggem, G.R. Miller and G.E. Canterbury. 1998. Bird
species assemblages as indicators of biological integrity in Great Basin rangeland. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 49:1-22.
Brattey, J., D.R. Porter and C.W. George. 2002. Exploitation rates and movements of Atlantic cod
(Gadus morhua) in NAFO Subdiv. 3Ps based on tagging experiments conducted during 19972001. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2002/003.
Brown, R.G.B., D.N. Nettleship, P. Germain, C.E. Tull and T. Davis. 1975. Atlas of Eastern Canadian
Seabirds. Canadian Wildlife Service. Maracle Press Ltd., Ottawa, ON. 220 pp.
Brumm, H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. Journal of
Animal Ecology, 73 (3): 434-440.
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of
North America, No. 506. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Bulleri F. and L. Benedetti-Cecchi. 2006. Mechanisms of recovery and resilience of different
components of mosaics of habitats on shallow rocky reefs. Oecologia 149: 482-492.
Bulleri, F., I. Bertocci and F. Micheli. 2002. Interplay of encrusting coralline algae and sea urchins in
maintaining alternative habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 243: 101109.
Burke Consulting. 2000. Strategic Plan: Newfoundland and Labrador Aquaculture.
collaboration with Resource Development Associates.
Prepared in
Burns, J.J. 2002. Harbour seal and spotted seal Phoca vitulina and P. largha. Pp: 552-560. In: W.F.
Perrin, B. Wursig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.
Page 455
REFERENCES
Campana, S.E., W. Joyce, L. Marks, L.I. Natanson, C.F. Kohler, J.J. Jensen, H.H. Mello, W. Pratt, Jr.
and S. Myklevoll. 2002. Population dynamics of the porbeagle shark in the in the Northwest
Atlantic. , North American Journal of Fish Management, 22; 106-121.
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador 2005. A Strategy for the Recovery and Management of Cod
Stocks in Newfoundland and Labrador. A Report by the Action Team for Cod Recovery. 77p.
Canadian Environment Assessment Agency. 2003. Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in
Environmental Assessment: General Guidance for Practitioners, prepared by the FederalProvincial-Territorial Committee on Climate change and Environmental Assessment, Catalogue
No. En106-50/2003, ISBN 0-662-67812-5. Available online at: www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca.
Canadian Environment Assessment Agency. CEAR reference number 07-01-28936. Available online at:
http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/010/screeningsactive_e.cfm?yyyy=2007&m=5
Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Agency.
1999.
Cumulative Effects Assessment
Practitioners Guide. Prepared by Canadian Environmental Assessment Working Group and
AXYS Environmental Consulting.
Canadian Environmental Assessment
acee.gc.ca/index_e.htm.
Agency.
2006.
Available
online
at:
http://www.ceaa-
Canadian Field-Naturalist. 105(2): p. 198-205.

Canadian Hurricane Centre. 2008. Online at: http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/storm06.html.
Canadian
Hydrographic
Services.
2007.
2007
Tide
http://www.waterlevels.gc.ca/english/DataAvailable.shtml
Tables.
Available
online
at:
Canadian Ice Service. 2007. Available online at: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm.

Canning and Pitt Associates. 2005. Placentia Bay Project Benefits Study: Marine Institute Canadian
Centre for Marine Communications.
Canning and Pitt Associates. 2007. Risk Assessment of Oil Spills on the South Coast of Newfoundland
and Labrador: Commercial Fisheries and Tourism (Phases 1 and 2), Final Report, March 2007.
Prepared for RMRI (Canada) Inc. Note: The RMRI study undertake for TC is titled Quantitative
Assessment of Oil Spill Risk for the South Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and is expected
to be released in early fall 2007.
Canterbury, G.E., T.E. Martin, D.R Petit, L.J Petit and D.F Bradford. 2000. Bird communities and habitat
as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conservation Biology, 14: 544558.
Carls M.G., Marty G.D. and J.E. Hose. 2002. Synthesis of the toxilogical impacts of the Exxon Valdex oil
spill on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) in Prince Willima Sound Alaska, U.S.A. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 59: 153-172.
Carlson, J.K., T.A. Randall and M.E. Mroczka. 1997. Feeding habits of Winter flounder (Pleuronectes
americanus) in a habitat exposed to anthropogenic disturbance. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol. 21:
6573.
Catto, N.R., 2006. Impacts of Climate Change and Variation on the Natural Areas of Newfoundland and
Labrador. NL Ministry of Environment and Conservation, St. John's NL, 160 pp.
Catto, N.R., R.G. Hooper, M.R. Anderson, D.A. Scruton, J.D. Meade, L.M.N. Ollerhead and U.P.
Williams 1999. Biological and geomorphological classification of Placentia Bay: A preliminary
assessment. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2289: 35 pp.
Page 456
REFERENCES
Centre for Research in Labrador Memorial University of Newfoundland. 1977. A limited study on the
effects of the thermal effluent from the Holyrood generating station on the plant and animal
benthos of Conception Bay. Investigated by A. Whittick and R.G. Hooper.
Chippett, J.D. 2003. Update COSEWIC status report on the banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous,
Newfoundland Population in Canada. In: COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the
Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanous in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 21 pp.
Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thompson, D. White, R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effect of Seismic Energy
on Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio), LGL Ltd. and Oceans Ltd. St. Johns, ESRF report for
National Energy Board.
CMHC (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation). 2006. Custom Table.
Coastal Resource Inventory. 2007. http://geoportal.gc.ca/index_en.html accessed June 2007.
Colbourne, E., B. deYoung, S. Narayanan and J. Helbig, 1997. Comparison of hydrography and
circulation on the Newfoundland Shelf during 19901993 with the long-term mean. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54(Suppl. 1): 6880.
Colbourne, E.B. and D.W. Kulka. 2004. A preliminary investigation of the effects of
ocean climate
variations on the spring distribution of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) in NAFO Divisions 3LNO
and Subdivision 3Ps. NAFO Science Council Research Document, 04/29.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2001. COSEWIC Assessment
and Update Status Report on the Leatherback Sea Turtle Demochelys coriacea. Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 25 pp.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2003a. Canadian Species at
Risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 43 pp.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2003b. COSEWIC
Assessment and Status Report on the Sei Whale Balaeonoptera borealis in Canada. Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 27 pp.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2003c. COSEWIC
Assessment and Update Status Report on the North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis in
Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 28 pp.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2004a. COSEWIC
Assessment and Status Report on the Porbeagle Shark Lamna nasus in Canada. Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. viii + 43 pp.
Assessment and Update Status Report on the Beluga Whale Delphinapterus leucas in Canada.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 70 pp.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2005. COSEWIC Assessment
and Update Status Report on the Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus in Canada. Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 37 pp.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2006a. Blue Shark Status
Report. Available online at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr%5Fblue%
5Fshark%5Fe%2Epdf.
Page 457
REFERENCES

assessment on the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (Northwest Atlantic population) in
Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Available online at:
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2007. Red Knot. Available
online at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/.
Cummings, W.C. and P.O. Thompson. 1971. Underwater sounds from blue whale, Balaenoptera
musculus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 50: 1,193-1,198.
Curran, M.C. 1992. The Behavioral Physiology of Labroid Fishes. Ph.D dissertation.. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Woods Hole, MA. 124 pp.
CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service). 2004. Environmental Assessment Best Practice Guide for Wildlife at
Risk in Canada. Environment Canada. Gatineau, QC. 63 pp.
Darveau, M., P. Beauchesne, L. Belanger, J. Hoot and P. Larve. 1995. Riparian forest strips as habitat
for breeding birds in boreal forest. Journal of Wildlife Management, 59:67-78.
Daury, R.W. and M.C. Bateman. 1996. The Barrows Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) in the Atlantic
Provinces and Maine. Regional Rep., Canadian Wildl. Serv., Atlantic Region.
Davidson, L.W, 1985. The Ice climatology of Newfoundland Bays. Prepared for Newfoundland and
Labrador Department of Development and Tourism, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, by
Seaconsult Limited, St. Johns, NL.
Davidson, L.W., S.L. Hodgins, and C.T. Niwinski 1984. The Physical Environment of Placentia Bay,
Newfoundland. Prepared for Mobile Oil Canadian Ltd., by Seaconsult Limited, St. Johns, NL.
Davis, D.M. and J.S. Bell. 1984. A comparison of the levels of hepatic and hydrocarbon hydroxylase in fish
caught close to and distant from North Sea oil fields. Marine Environmental Research 14:23-45.
Davis, R.A., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.R. Evans, S.R. Johnson and W.R. Koski. 1987. Responses of
Bowhead Whales to an Offshore Drilling Operation in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, Autumn 1986.
LGL Limited, King City, ON and Greenbridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA. Report 15,
November 1987, for Shell Western E&P Inc., Anchorage, AK.
Day, R. 1993. Ramea Islands Additions to the flora, fish, and insect fauna. Newfoundland Natural
History Quarterly: The Osprey. 24(3): 168. Published by the Natural History Society of
Newfoundland and Labrador Inc. St. Johns, NL.
Dempsey, J.B., K.A. Thompson and J.B. Pinhorn. 1989. Placentia Bay Circulation Study, Phase 2, Final
Report. Prepared for Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Development and Tourism, and for
the Canadian Coast Guard, by Seaconsult Limited, St. Johns, NL. 18 pp.
Desrochers, A. and S.J. Hannon. 1997. Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the postfledging period. Conservation Biology, 11: 1204-1210.
DFA 2007. Seafood Industry 2006 Year in Review.
DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 1995. Freshwater Intake End-to Pipe Fish Screen
Guideline. Communications Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Available online at:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/infocentre/guidelines-conseils/factsheetsfeuillets/nfld/fact21_e.asp.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) 1986-2006. Newfoundland and Labrador Region and Maritimes
Region Catch and Effort Database (digital version). Georeferenced harvest data, to 2006.
Page 458
REFERENCES
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) 2005a. Stock assessment on Subdivision 3Ps cod. DFO
Canadian Scientific Advisory Section Habitat Status Report, Rep., 2005/047.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2004a. Allowable harm assessment for spotted and northern
wolffish. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Stock Status Report, 2004/031.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1984. Underwater World Factsheet- Atlantic Herring. UW/16.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1997. Atlantic salmon: Newfoundland and Labrador, Salmon
Fishing Areas 1 - 14B. DFO Science Stock Status Report, D2-01. 6 pp.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2003. Thorny skate in Divisions 3L, 3N, 3O, and Subdivision
3Ps. DFO Stock Status Report, 2003/023. 7 pp.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2004b. Allowable harm assessment for leatherback turtle in
Atlantic Canadian waters. DFO Science Stock Status Report, 2004/035.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2005b. West coast of Newfoundland Atlantic herring (Division
4R) in 2004. DFO Canadian Scientific Advisory Section Habitat Status Report, 2005/016.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2006a. Assessment of Newfoundland East and South Coast
Herring Stocks to 2006. . DFO Canadian Scientific Advisory Section Habitat Status Report, Rep.
2006/042.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2006b. Assessment of American Lobster in Newfoundland. DFO
Canadian Scientific Advisory Section Habitat Status Report, Rep., 2006/009.
DFO
2006c. Newfoundland and Labrador Region Landed Quantities and

http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapports/Land_All_2006.htm
Values.
See
Dolbeer, R.A. and W.R. Clark. 1975. Population ecology of the snowshoe hare in the central Rocky
Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management, 39:535-549.
Douglas J.S., P. Simmons and B. deYoung. 2000. Analysis of the Mean Circulation in Placentia Bay:
Spring and Summer 1999. Physics and Physical Oceanography Data Report 2000-1, Department
of Physics and Physical Oceanography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, NL. 62
pp.
Dufour, P. 1980. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, DC. 95 pp.
Dupond F., C.G. Hannah, D.A. Greenberg, J.Y. Cherniawsky, and C.E. Naimie. 2002. Modelling System for
Tides for the Northwest Atlantic Coastal Ocean. Canadian Technical Report of Hydrograph and
Ocean Sciences, 221: 70 pp.
Dutton, P.H., B.W. Bowen, D.W. Owens, A. Barragan and S.K. Davis. 1999. Global phylogeography of
the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Journal of Zoology (London) 248: 397-409.
Eadie, J.M., J.P.L. Savard, and M.L. Mallory. 2000. Barrows Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica). In: A.
Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 548, The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA.
ECE Map Database. 2007.
Ellison, W.G. 1990. The Status and Habitat of the Rusty Blackbird in Caledonia and Essex Counties.
Vermont Fish Wildlife Department, Woodstock, VT.
Ennis, P.E. 1995. Larval and postlarval Ecology. In: J.R. Factor (ed.). Biology of the Lobster Homarus
americanus. Academic Press Inc.
Page 459
REFERENCES
Environment Canada, 2008. MSC50 Wind and Wave Climatology Extremal Analysis online at:
http://www.oceanweather.net/MSC50WaveAtlas/Extremes/index.htm
Environment Canada. 2004. Banasch, U. and G. Holroyd (editors). The 1995 Peregrine Falcon survey
in Canada. Occasional Paper Number 110. Canadian Wildlife Service.
Environment Canada. 2006. Recovery Strategy for Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus melodus) in
Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa, ON. 40 pp.
Environment Canada. 2007. Canadian Climate Normals; Arnolds Cove and Come By Chance,
Newfoundland. Available online at: http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/
stnselect_e.html.
Erbe, C. 2000. Detection of whale calls in noise: Performance comparison between a beluga whale,
human listeners and a neural network. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 108, 297-303.
Erbe, C. 2002. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales
(Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science. 18(2): 394-418.
Erbe, C. 2003. Assessment of bioacoustic impact of ships on humpback whales in Glacier Bay, Alaska.
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Gustavus, Alaska.
Fahay, M.P. 1983. Guide to the early stages of marine fishes occurring in the western North Atlantic
Ocean, Cape Hatteras to the southern Scotian Shelf. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Sciences, 4: 1-423.
Fay, R.R. 1988. Hearing in Vertebrates: Psychophysics Databook. Hill-Fay Associates, Winnetka, IL.
Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in masked
hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic
watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111: 2,929-2 940.
Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Foss, M. 2003. LNG Safety and Security. Centre for Energy Economics Research. Bureau of Economic
Geology, University of Texas at Austin. Texas, USA.
Fritz, E.S. and E.T. Garside. 1974. Salinity preferences of Fundulus heteroclitus and F. diaphanous
(Pisces: Cyprinodontidae): Their role in geographic distribution. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 52:
99-1003.
Fujiwara, M. and H. Cassell. 2007. Demography of the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Nature,
414: 537-541.
Gaskin, D.E. 1991. An update on the status of the right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in Canada.
Geraci, J.R. and T.G. Smith. 1976. Direct and indirect effects of oil on ringed seals (Phoca hispida) of
the Beaufort Sea. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 33: 1976-1984.
Gerstein, E.R., J.E. Blue and S.E. Forysthe, 2005. The Acoustics of Vessel Collisions with Marine
Mammals in Oceans, 2005. Proceeding of MTS/IEEE, September 17-23, 2005.
Gill, F.B. 1990. Ornithology. 1st Edition. W. H. Freeman and Company. United States of America.
766 pp.
Gill, R.E., Jr., P. Canevari and E. H. Iversen. 1998. Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis). In: A. Pooleand
F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 347. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,
PA.
Page 460
REFERENCES
Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The Birds of Canada. Revised Edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences,
Ottawa, ON.
Goff, G.P. and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in cold water off
Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 102: 1-5.
Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift and D. Thompson. 2004. A
review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal,
37(4): 16-34.
Gosse, M.M., A.S. Power, D.E. Hyslop and S.L. Pierce. 1998. Guidelines for Protection of Freshwater
Fish Habitat in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fisheries and Oceans, St. Johns, NL. Pg. 105 + 2
App.
Goudie, I. 1991. The status of the Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) in eastern North America.
Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service. St. Johns, NL.
Government of Canada. 1991. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Minister of Supply and
Services Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Government of Canada. 1994a. Migratory Birds Convention Act. Queens Printer for Canada.
Government of Canada. 1994b. Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations. Queens Printer for Canada.
1994.
Government of Canada. 2003. Species at Risk Act. Canada Gazette Part III. Queens Printer for
Canada.
Government of Canada. 2006. Canada Gazette Part 1. Vol. 140(23): Saturday June 10, 2006. Ottawa,
ON. 176 pp.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Hunting and Trapping Guide 2007-2008. Newfoundland
and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation. Wildlife Division. 59 pp.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 1989. Archaeological Investigation Permit Regulations.
Copy on file with the Provincial Archaeology Office, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation. St. Johns, NL.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 1992. Historic Resources Assessment and Impact
Management Summary. Copy on file at the Provincial Archaeology Office, Newfoundland and
Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. St. Johns, NL.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 2003. Newfoundland and Labrador Sustainable Forest
Management Strategy 2003.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 2006. Endangered Species Act. Newfoundland and
Labrador Regulation 57/02. Queens Printer. St. Johns, NL.
Grant, S.M. and J.A. Brown. 1998. Diel foraging cycles and interactions among juvenile cod (Gadus
morhua) at a nearshore site in Newfoundland. Canada Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sceinces,
55(6):1307-1316.
Gratto-Taylor, C.L. 1999. Status Report on the Eskimo Curlew in Canada. Unpublished report for
COSEWIC. CWS Saskatoon, SK.
Gratto-Taylor, C.L. 2001. Current status of the Eskimo Curlew in Canada. Bird Trends, 8: 44-46.
Green J.M. 1975. Restricted movements and homing of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus
(Walbaum) (Pisces: Labridae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 53:.1427-1431.
Page 461
REFERENCES
Green, J.M. and M. Farwell. 1971. Winter habits of the cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus) (Walbaum
1792) in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 49:1497-1499.
Greene, C.R., Jr. and M.W. McLennan. 2000. Sound levels from a 1210 in airgun array. Pp. 3-1-3-9. In:
W.J. Richardson (ed.). Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of Western Geophysicals
Open-water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2000: 90-day Report. Rep. TA2424-3.
Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for
Western Geophysical, Anchorage, AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver
Spring, MD. 121 pp.
Greene, Jr., C.R. 1999. Pile-driving and Vessel Sound Measurements during Installation of a Gas
Production Platform near Sable Island, Nova Scotia, during March and April, 1998. Report 205-2.
Report by Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA. and LGL Ltd., Environmental Research
Associates, King City, Ont., for Sable Offshore Energy Project, Halifax, NS.
Gregory, R. S and J.T. Anderson. 1997. Substrate selection and use of protective cover by juvenile
Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in inshore waters of Newfoundland. Marine Ecology Progress Series,
146:9-20.
Haig, S.M. and E. Elliott-Smith. 2004. Piping Plover. In: A. Poole (ed.). The Birds of North America
Online Database. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Piping_Plover/.
Hall, R. J., A.A. Belisle and L. Sileo. 1983. Residues of petroleum hydrocarbons in tissues of sea turtles
exposed to the Ixtoc I oil spill. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 19(2): 106-109.
Hammill, M.O. and G.B. Stenson. 2000. Estimated prey consumption by harp seals
(Phocagroenlandica), hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), and
harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in Atlantic Canada. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science,
26: 1-23.
Han, G. 2005. Wind-Driven Barotropic circulation off Newfoundland and Labrador. Continental Shelf
Research, 25: 2084-2106.
Haney, J. C., and S. D. MacDonald. 1995. Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea). In: A Poole and F. Gill (eds.).
The Birds of North America, No. 175. The Academy of Natural Sciences, PA, and The American
Ornithologists Union, Washington, DC.
Harding, G.C. 1992. American lobster (Homarus americanus Milne Edwards): A discussion paper on
their environmental requirements and the known anthropogenic effects on their populations.
Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,1887: vi + 16 pp.
Harrington, B. A. 2001. Red Knot (Calidris canutus). In The Birds of North America, No. 563 (A. Poole
and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Hart D.J., B. deYoung and J. Foley, 1999. Observations of Currents, Temperature and Salinity in Placentia
Bay, Newfoundland, 1998-9. Physics and Physical Oceanography Data Report 99-3, Department of
Physics and Physical Oceanography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, NL. 63 pp.
Hart, D.R. and A.S. Chute. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Sea Scallop, Placopectin
megellanicus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics, Second Edition. NOAA Technical
Memorandum, NMFS-NE-189.
Hart, R.E. and Evans, J.L, 2001. A Climatology of the Extratropical Transition of Atlantic Tropical
Cyclones, Journal of Climate, 14, pp. 546-564.
Hatch, J.J. 2002. in A. Poole; & F. Gill: Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea). Philadelphia, PA.: The Birds of
North America, 707.
Page 462
REFERENCES
Hatch, J.J. 2002. Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea). In: A. Poole and F. Gills (eds.). The Birds of North
America, No. 707. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Hay, K. 1982. Aerial Line-transects Estimates of Abundance of Humpback, Fin, and Long-finned Pilot
Whales in Newfoundland-Labrador Area. Report of the International Whaling Commission, 32:
475-486.
Healey, B.P. and G.B. Stenson. 2000. Estimating pup production and population size of the northwest
Atlantic harp seal (Phoca groenlandica). NAFO Scientific Research Document, 00/55.
Hitchcock, D.R., Newell, R.C. and Seiderer, L.J. 1999. Investigation of benthic and surface plumes
associated with marine aggregate mining in the United Kingdom. A report to the U.S. Department
of the Interior, MMS.
HMDC (Hibernia Management and Development Company). 1996. Economic Benefits from the
Hibernia Construction Project: Summary. Report prepared by Community Resource Services Ltd.,
St. Johns, NL.
Hodgins S. and D.O. Niwinski. 1989. Currents in Placentia Bay , Volume 1: Scientific Report. Prepared for
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Development and Tourism, by Seaconsult Limited, St.
Johns, NL.
Hooker, S.K., H. Whitehead and S. Gowans. 1999. Marine protected area design and the spatial and
temporal distribution of cetaceans in a submarine canyon. Conservation Biology, 13(3): 592-602.
Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and Johnson,
C. A., eds. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, N.Y.:
Cambridge University Press.
ICF Consulting 2006. Current Methodologies and Best Practices in Preparing Port Emission
Inventories, Final Report, January 5, 2006. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ICF Inernational 2007. Risk Assessment Grassy Point LNG. A report for Newfoundland LNG Ltd. 30
pp.+appendices.
Imber, M. 1975. Behaviour of petrels in relation to the moon and artificial lights. Notornis, 22: 302-. 306.
Important Bird Areas of Canada. 2007. Important Bird Areas of Canada. Available online at:
www.ibacanada.com.
International Ice Patrol Archived Data. 2007. Available online at: http://www.uscg.mil/LANTAREA/IIP/
General/data_archive.shtml.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2006. Red List.
Available online at: www.iucnredlist.org.
IPCC, 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. IPCC, Watson, R.T. and the Core
Writing Team (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 184; also available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm.
Jacobson, S.L. 2005. Mitigation Measures for Highway-caused Impacts to Birds. USDA Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191.
Jacques Whitford. 2003. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Laurentian Subbasin. Prepared for the
Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, St. Johns, NL and the Canada-Nova Scotia
Offshore Petroleum Board, Halifax, NS.
Page 463
REFERENCES
Jacques Whitford. 2004. ANEI Bear Head LNG Terminal Environmental Assessment, May 2004.
Jacques Whitford. 2006. Geotechnical Site Investigation Grassy Point LNG Project. A report to
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. 10 pp + app.
Jacques Whitford. 2007a. Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat Survey at Grassy Point. A report submitted
to Fisheries and Ocean Canada on behalf of Newfoundland LNG Ltd. 22 pp + app.
Jacques Whitford. 2007b. Marine Fish and Fish Habitat in the Grassy Point Area of Placentia Bay. A
report submitted to Fisheries and Ocean Canada on behalf of Newfoundland LNG Ltd. 37 pp +
app.
Jacques Whitford. 2007c. Stage 1 Historical Resources Assessment Grassy Point, Placentia Bay. A
report submitted to Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Archaeology Office on behalf of
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. 14 pp.
James, M.C. 2000. Distribution of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada:
Evidence from an Observer Program, Aerial Surveys, and a Volunteer Network of Fish Harvesters.
M.Sc. Thesis. Biology Department. Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, 71 pp.
James, M.C., S-M.A. Scott, K. Martin and R.A. Myers. 2006. Canadian waters provide critical habitat for
leatherback turtles. Biological Conservation, 133: 347-357.
Jensen, A.S., and Silber, G.K. 2003. Large Whale Ship Strike Database. U.S. Department of
Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-ORP.
Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs (Editors). 2003. Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico:
Annual report - Year 1. US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of
Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. 139 pp. Available online at:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/studies/2003/2003-069.pdf
Johnson, D.W., and D.J. Wildish. 1982. Avoidance of Dredge Spoil by herring (C.harengus harengus).
Bull Env Contam Toxicol, 26: 307-314.
Joyce, W.N., S.E.Campana, L. J. Natanson, N.E. Kohler, H.L. Jr. Pratt, and C.F. Jensen. 2002. Analysis
of stomach contents of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus Bonnaterre) in the northwest Atlantic.
ICES Journal of Marine Sciences, 59: 1263-1269.
Kamenos, N.A, P.G. Moore and J.M. Hall-Spencer. 2004. Small-scale distribution of juvenile gadoids in
shallow inshore waters; what role does maerl play? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 422-429.
Kastak, D. and R.J. Schusterman. 1995. Aerial and underwater hearing thresholds for 100 Hz pure
tones in two pinniped species. In: R.A. Kastalein, J.A. Thomas and P.E. Nachtigall (eds.). Sensory
Systems of Aquatic Animals. De Sphil Publishers, Woerden, Netherlands.
Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman and C. Reichmuth-Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary
threshold shift in pinnipeds: effects of noise level and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 118: 3,154-3,163.
Kastak, D., R.J. Schusterman, B.L. Southall and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary
threshold shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinniped. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 106: 1,142-1,148.
Katz, C.H., J.S. Cobb and M. Spaulding. 1994. Larval behaviour, hydrodynamic transport and potential
offshore-to-inshore recruitment in the American lobster Homarus americanus. Marine Ecological
Progress Series, 103: 265-273.
Page 464
REFERENCES
Keats, D.W. 1990. Food of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), in a sea urchin
dominated community in eastern Newfoundland. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 60:13-22.
Keevin, M.T., and Hempen, G.L. 1997. The Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions with
Methods to Mitigate Impacts. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. St. Louis, MO.
Kemp, G.A. and L.B. Keith. 1970. Dynamics and regulation of red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)
populations. Ecology, 51(5):763-779.
Kessel, B., D.A. Rocque and J.S. Barclay. 2002. Greater Scaup (Aythya marila). In: A. Poole and F. Gill
(eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 650. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Ketten, D.R. 1991. The marine mammal ear: Specializations for aquatic audition and echolocation. Pp:
717-750. In: D. Webster, R. Fay and A. Popper (eds.). The Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Ketten, D.R. 1992. The cetacean ear: Form, frequency, and evolution. Pp: 53-75. In: J.A. Thomas, R.A.
Kastelein and A. Y. Supin (eds.). Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. Plenum, New York.
Ketten, D.R. 1994. Functional analysis of whale ears: Adaptations for underwater hearing. IEEE
Proceedings of Underwater Acoustics, 1: 264-270.
Ketten, D.R. 2000. Cetacean ears. Pp: 43-108. In: W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay (eds.).
Hearing by Whales and Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Kinze, C.C. 2002. White-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris. Pp. 1332-1334 In: W.F. Perrin, B.
Wursig and J.G.M Thewissen (eds.). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA.
Klugh, A.B. 1927. Ecology of the red squirrel. Journal of Mammalogy, 8: 1-32.
Kovacs, K.M. 2002. Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata). Pp: 580-582. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Wursig and
J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Kulka, D.W. 2006. Abundance and distribution of sharks on the Grand Banks with particular reference
to the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO Science Research Council Document, 06-20.
Kulka, D.W. and C.M. Miri. 2003. The status of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiate Donovan, 1808) in
NAFO Division 3L, 3N, 3O and subdivision 3Ps. NAFO Science Council Research Document,
03/57.
Kulka, D.W., E.M. DeBlois and D.B. Atkinson. 1996. Non-traditional groundfish species on Labrador
Shelf and Grand Banks - skate. DFO Atlantic Fisheries Research Document, 96/98.
Kulka, D.W., M.R. Simpson and C.M. Miri. 2006. An assessment of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiate
Donovan, 1808) on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. NAFO Science Council Reseach
Document, 06/44.
Lagardere, J.P. 1982. Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks.
Marine Biology, 71(2): 177-185.
Laist, D., Knowlton, A., Mead, J., Collet, A., and Podesta, M. 2001. Collision between Ships and
Whales. Maine Mammal Science. 17(1): 35-75.
Lawrence P.J., L.A. Foster and R.H. Loucks 1973. Statistics of Currents for Navigation and Dispersion in
Canso Strait and Come by Chance Bay. Bedford Institute of Oceanography Report BI-73-6.
Page 465
REFERENCES
Lawson, G.L. and G.A. Rose. 1999. Changes in timing and location of cod spawning in Placentia Bay
(NAFO sub-division 3Ps), 1997-1998. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research
Document, 99/43.
Lawson, G.L., G.A. Rose and J. Brattey. 1998. Movement patterns of inshore cod in Subdivision 3Ps
(southern Newfoundland) based on marked-recapture studies during 1996-97. Canadian Science
Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 98/24
Lawson, J.W. 2006. Preliminary information on distribution and abundance of fin whales (Balaenoptera
physalus) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. International Whaling Commission Report.
SC/14/FW/21-SC/M06/FW21. Joint NAMMCO/IWC Scientific Workshop on the Catch History,
Stock Structure and Abundance of North Atlantic Fin Whales. Reykjavik, Iceland, 23-26 March,
2006.
Lawson, J.W. and J.F. Gosselin. 2003. SARCEP 2002 Pilot Cetacean Survey Atlantic Canada.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. SARCEP, 14p.
Lawson, J.W., R. A. Davis, W.J. Richardson and C.I. Malme. 2000. Assessment of Noise Issues
Relevant to Key Cetacean Species (Northern Bottlenose and Sperm Whales) in the Sable Gully
Area of Interest. Prepared for Oceans Act Coordination Office. LGL Report TA2446-2. July 20,
2000.
Ledrew, Fudge and Associates. 1990. Fish Habitat Assessment in the Vicinity of the GBS Construction
Site Locations at Come by Chance and Adams Head, Placentia Bay. A report for Mobil Oil
Canada.
Ledwell, W. and Huntington, J. 2006. Whale, Leatherback Sea Turtles and Basking Shark Entrapments
in Fishing Gear in Newfoundland and Labrador and a Summary of the Whale Release and
Strandings Program during 2005. A report to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. Johns,
Newfoundland, Canada.
Levin, P.S. 1994. Small-scale recruitment variation in a temperate fish: The roles of macrophytes and
food supply. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 40:271-281.
Levinton, J. S. 1982. Marine Ecology. Prentice-Hall, Inc. N.J., 526 p.
LGL Limited. 2000. Environmental Assessment of Exploration Drilling of Nova Scotia. Report prepared
for Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Gulf Canada Resources
Ltd., Chevron Canada Resources, EnCana Petroleum, Murphy Oil Ltd. and Norsk Hydro by LGL
Ltd., S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and Coastal Ocean Associates Inc.
LGL Limited. 2005. Western Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Strategic Environmental
Assessment. Prepared by LGL Limited for the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board,
St. Johns, NL.
Lien, J., K. Breek, D. Pinsent and H. Walter. 1986. Whale and Shark Entrapments in Inshore Fishing
Gear during 1986. A preliminary report to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St. Johns, NL. Memorial
University of Newfoundland, Whale Research Group. 68 pp.
Lilly, G.R. 1987. Interactions between Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and capelin (Mallotus villosus) off
Labrador and eastern Newfoundland: a review. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, 1567: 37 pp.
Linnamae, U. 1971. Preliminary Report of an Archaeological Survey of PlacentiaBay, Newfoundland.
Report on file at the Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Queen Elizabeth I Library, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, NL.
Page 466
REFERENCES
Longcore, J.R., D.G. McAuley, G.R. Hepp and J.M. Rhymer. 2000. American Black Duck (Anas
rubripes). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 481. The Birds of North
America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Loring, D.H. 1988. Trace metal geochemistry of Gulf of St. Lawrence. Pp. 99-122. In: P.M. Stain (ed.)
Chemical Oceanography in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences.
Lowther, P.E., C.C. Rimmer, B. Kessel, S.L. Johnson, and W. G. Ellison. 2001. Gray-cheeked Thrush
(Catharus minimus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 591. The Birds
of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart and D.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic
effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 28: 417-422.
MacAfee, A.W. and Bowyer, P.J., 2005. The Theory of Trapped-Fetch Waves with Tropical Cyclones an Operational Perspective. Weather and Forecasting, 20, pp. 229-244.
MacAfee, A.W. and Bowyer, P.J., 2005b. The Modeling of Trapped-Fetch Waves with Tropical
Cyclones-A Desktop Operational Model. Weather and Forecasting, 20, pp. 245-263
Madsen, P.T. 2005. Marine mammals and noise: Problems with root mean square sound pressure
levels for transients. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(6): 3,952-3,957.
Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behaviour during
exposures to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammals, 2: 231-240.
Mallory, M. and K. Metz. 1999. Common Merganser (Mergus merganser). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.).
The Birds of North America, No. 442. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the Potential Effects
of Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Feeding Humpback Whale Behaviour.
BBN Report 5851, OCS Study MMS 85-0019. Report from BBN Laboratories Inc., Cambridge, MA
for U.S. Minerals Management Service, NTIS PB86-218385. Anchorage, AK.
Maneveldt, G, D. Wilby , M. Potgieter, and M. Hendricks. 2006. The role of encrusting coralline algae in
the diets of selected intertidal herbivores. Journal of Applied Phycology. Vol 9:619-627.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, K. McCabe
and J. Murdoch. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys - A study of environmental implications.
Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) Journal, 40: 692-708.
McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor
array in the northeast Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98: 712-721.
McManus, J. W., and D. PAULY. 1990. Measuring ecological stress: variations on a theme by R. M.
Warwick. Mar. Biol., 106: 305308.
McRuer, J.T. Hurbut and B. Morin. 2000. Status of wolffish (Anarchicuas lupus) in the Maritimes (NAFO
Sub Area 4 and Division 5Ze). Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document,
2000/138.
Meteorological Service of Canada (Atlantic). 2005. A Climatology of Hurricanes for Canada
Improving our Awareness of the Threat. Available on CD-ROM from Environment Canada.
Page 467
REFERENCES
Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2001. Liberty Development and Production Plan Volume 1:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by the US Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region. Report OCS EIS/EA MMS 2001001.
Mitchell, E. and D.G. Chapman. 1977. Preliminary assessment of stocks of northwest Atlantic sei
whales. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue), 1: 117-120.
Mitchell, E.D. 1974. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin and other whale stocks. Pp. 108-69. In W.E.
Schevill (ed.). The Whale Problem: A Status Report. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. viii
+ 419 pp.
Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M. Lenhardt and R. George. 1994. Evaluation of
Seismic Sources for Repelling Sea Turtles from Hopper Dredges. Report from Virginia Institute of.
Marine Science., [Gloucester Point], VA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 33 pp.
Mhl, B., M. Wahlberg, P.T. Madsen, A. Heerfordt and A. Lund. 2003. The monopulsed nature of sperm
whale clicks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114: 1,143-1,154.
Moring, J. 1989. Food habitats and algal associations of juvenile lumpfish, Cyclopterus lumpus L., in
intertidal waters. Fisheries Bulletin US, 87:23-237.
Morrison, M. 1986. Bird populations as indicators of environmental change. Current Ornithology, 3:
429-451.
Mullin, K.D., L.V. Higgins, T.A. Jefferson and L.J. Hansen. 1994a. Sightings of the Clymene dolphin
(Stenella clymene) in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 10: 464-470.
Mullin, K.D., T.A. Jefferson, L.J. Hansen and W. Hoggard. 1994b. First sightings of melon-headed
whales (Peponocephala electra) in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 10: 342-348.
NAMMCO. (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) 1997. Report of the Scientific Committee. Pp.
96-178 In: NAMMCO Annual Report 1996. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Tromso,
Norway. Available online at: http://www.nammco.no.
National Energy Board and (NEB) and Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Agency. 1996.
Joint Panel Review for the Express Pipeline Project.
Naud, M.J., B. Long, J.C. Brethes and R. Sears. 2003. Influences of underwater bottom topography
and geomorphology on minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) distribution in the Mingan
Islands (Canada). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 83: 889896.
Newcombe, C.P., and J.O. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediments and fisheries: a synthesis for
quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management,
16(4): 693-727.
ecoregions_nfld.html.
Heritage.
2002.
Website:
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/environment/
Newfoundland and
climate.html.
Heritage.
2007.
Website:
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/environment/
Labrador
Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery Project. 2007. Environmental Impact Statement. Available at:
http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/Env/EA%202001/Project%20Info/1301.htm
Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency. 2006. Selected Economic Indicators Newfoundland and
Labrador 1995 to 2005. Updated September 1, 2006.
Page 468
REFERENCES
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
http://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/
Statistics
Agency/Community
Accounts.
2007.
Website:
Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism. 2007. Travel Guide. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Available online at: http://www.newfoundlandandlabradortourism.com.
Nightingale, B. and C. Simenstad, 2002. Artificial night-lighting effects on salmon and other fishes in
the Northwest. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting Conference, February 23-24,
2002, sponsored by The Urban Wildlands Group and the UCLA Institute of the Environment.
NLDEC (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation). 2007a.
Newfoundland and Labrador Hunting and Trapping Guide 2007-08. 59 pp.
NLDEC (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation). 2007b.
Stewardship
Zones:
Come
by
Chance.
Available
online
at
http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/ComProfiles/ComeByChance.htm
NLDF (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Finance). 2006. Government Releases Mid-Year
Update: Terra Nova Shutdown Impacts Fiscal Situation. News Release, 16 November 2006.
Available online at: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/fin/1116n04.htm
NLFM (Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities). 2005. Strengthening Our
Communities. Discussion Paper prepared by the Presidents Task Force on Municipal
Sustainability.
NLOFRA (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods). 2002. Five
Year Operating Plan for Forest Management District 1 (Avalon Peninsula).
NMFS (National Marine and Fisheries Service). 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to
specified activities; marine seismic-reflection data collection in southern California/Notice of
receipt of application. Federal Registry, 65: 16,374-16,379.
NMFS (National Marine and Fisheries Service). 2003. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to
specified activities; marine seismic testing in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Federal Registry, 68:
17,773-17,783.
NMFS
(National
Marine
Fisheries
Service).
2007.
Website
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/spermwhale.htm, accessed June 2007.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003. Oil and Sea Turtles:
Planning and Responses. 111 pp.
Biology,
NOIA (Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association). 2007. NOIA Membership Directory 2007.
Norris K.S. and W.E. Evans. 1966. 1966. Directionality of echolocation clicks in the rough-toothed
porpoise, Steno bredanensis (Lesson). Pp. 305-324. In: W.N. Tavolga (ed.). Marine Bio-Acoustics.
Pergamon Press, New York.
NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National Academies
Press. 192 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Marine mammals populations and ocean noise determining
when noise causes biologically significant effects. The national academies press. Washington,
DC.
NSEL. 1992. Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour Guideline for Environmental Noise
Measurement and Assessment.
Page 469
REFERENCES
NTL TERMPOL Review Committee 1999. A Report on Whiffen Head. 63 pp.

NTT (Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal). 1996. Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal Project
Environmental Assessment. Volumes 2 and 3. A report by Jacques Whitford Limited.
ODriscoll, R.L. and G.L. Rose. 1999. 1999 Acoustic surveys in Placentia Bay and 3Ps, June 1996.
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 99/41.
ODriscoll, R.L. G.A. Rose, J.T. Anderson and F. Mowbray. 2000. Spatial association between cod and
capelin: A perspective on the inshore-offshore dichotomy. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Research Document, 2000/083.
Obbard, M.E. 1987. Red squirrel. Pp. 264-268. In: G.J. Novak, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch (eds.). Wild
Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association.
OMOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment). 1995. Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in
Class 3 Areas (Rural). Publication NPC-232, October 1995, 12 pp.
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment (U.S. Congress)). 1977. Transportation of Liquefied Natural
Gas, NTIS order #PB-273486. Available online at:http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgibin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk3/1977/7712/771203.PDF.
PAA (Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and Labrador). 2000. Maritime Barrens South
Coast Barrens Subregion 6c. Ecoregions Brochures prepared by Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation.
Palka, D., A. Read and C. Potter. 1997. Summary of knowledge of white-sided dolphins
(Lagenorhynchus albirostris) from US and Canadian Atlantic Waters. Report of the International
Whaling Commission, 47: 729-734.
Parry, Gregory D and Anne Gason. 2006. The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters
in western Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research 79 (2006) 272-284.
Parsons, T.R., Y. Matta, and C.M. Lalli. 1984. A manual of chemistry and biological methods for sea
water analysis. Elmsford, NY. Pergamon Press 173 pp.
Payne J.F. and N. May. 1979. Further studies on the effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on mixedfunction oxidases in marine organisms. Pp. 339-347. In: M.A. Q. Khan, J.J. Lech and J.J. Menn
(eds.). Pesticides and Xenobiotic Metabolism in Aquatic Organisms. American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC.
Payne, J.F., J.W. Kiceniuk, W.R. Squires and G.L. Fletcher. 1978. Pathological changes in a marine fish
after six month exposure to petroleum. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 35:
665-667.
Peakall, D.B., D. Hallett, D.S. Miller, R.G. Butler and W.B. Kinter. 1980. Effects of Ingested Crude Oil
on Black Guillemots: A Combined Field and Laboratory Study. Ambio 9: 28-30.
Peakall, D.B., D.J. Hallet, J.R. Bend, G.L. Foureman and D.S. Miller. 1982. Toxicity of Prudhoe Bay
Crude Oil and its Aromatic Fractions to Nestling Herring Gulls. Environmental Resources 27: 206215.
Pearce, C.M., J.L. Manuel, S.M. Gallager, D.A. Manning, R.K. ODor and E. Bourget. 2004. Depth and
timing of settlement of veligers from different populations of giant scallop, Placopectin
magellanicus (Gmelin), in thermally stratified mesocosms. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology,
312: 187-214.
Page 470
REFERENCES
Peddicord, R.K. 1980. Direct effects of suspended sediments on aquatic organisms. In: Contaminants
and Sediments, Vol. 1 (R.A. Baker, ed.). Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
Pereira, J.J., R. Goldberg, J.J. Ziskowski, P.L. Berrien, W.W. Morse and D.L. Johnson. 1999. Essential
Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, Life History
and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-138.
Perry, E.A., G.B. Stenson, S.E. Bartlett, W.S. Davidson and S.M. Carr. 2000. DNA sequence analysis
identifies genetically distinguishable populations of harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) in the
northwest and northeast Atlantic. Marine Biology. 137: 53-58.
Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster and G.K. Silber. 1999. The great whales: History and status of six species
listed as endangered under the US Endangered Species Act of 1973. Marine Fisheries Review,
61: 1-74.
Pimm, S.L. 1990. The decline of the Newfoundland crossbill. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 5: 350 351.
Pinet, P.R. 1992. Oceanography: An Introduction to the Planet Oceanus. West Publishing Company.
United States of America. 571 pp.
Popper, A.N. 2003. Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries, 28(10): 24-31.
PRAC (Petroleum Research Atlantic Canada). 2003. Socio-Economic Benefits from Petroleum Industry
Activity in Newfoundland and Labrador. Prepared by Community Resource Service Ltd., St.
Johns, NL.
Prinsenberg, S.J., I.K. Peterson and A. van der Baaren, 1996. Interaction Between Atmosphere and Ice
Cover off Labrador and Newfoundland from 1962 to 1994. Symposium on Climate Variability and
Climate Change in Atlantic Canada, Halifax, NS, December 3-6, 1996.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. Nesting of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in Pacific Mexico, with
a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia, 4: 741-747.
Quest 2007. Siting Study for the Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal. A report for
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. by Quest Consultants Inc. 13pp. + app. \
Read, A.J. 1999. Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (Linnaeus, 1758). Pp. 323-355. In: S.H.
Ridgway and R.J. Harrison (eds.). Handbook of Marine Mammals - Vol. 6: The Second Book of
Dolphins and the Porpoises. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Reddin, D.G. 2006. Perspectives on the marine ecology of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the
Northwest Atlantic. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2006/018.
Reddin, D.G., P. Downton and K.D. Friedland. 2006. Diurnal and nocturnal temperatures for Atlantic
salmon post-smolts (Salmo salar L.) during their early marine life. Fishery Bulletin, 104(3): 415427.
Reed, J.R., J.L. Sincock and J.P. Hailman. 1985. Light attraction in endangered procellariform birds:
Reduction by shielding upward radiation. Auk; 102(2): 377-383.
Reeves, R., C. Smeek, C.C. Kinze, R.L. Brownell, Jr. and J. Lien. 1999. White-beaked dolphin
Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray 1846. Pp: 1-30. In: S.H. Ridgeway and R. Harrison (eds.).
Handbook of Marine Mammals Volume 6: The Second Book of Dolphins and Porpoises. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA. 484 pp.
Reid, D.G., T.E. Code, A.C.H. Reid and S.M. Herrero. 1994. Food habits of the river otter in a boreal
ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 72: 1306-1313.
Page 471
REFERENCES
Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I.
Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to
a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology. 31:85-94.
Reijnen, R., Foppen, R., Braak, C. T., and J. Thissen. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird
populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads.
Journal of Applied Ecology. 32:187-202.
Richardson, W.J., B. Wursig and C.R. Greene. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena
mysticetus, to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustic Society
of America, 79(4): 1,117-1,128.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise.
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, W.R. Koski, C.I. Malme, G.W. Miller, M.A. Smultea and B. Wursig.
1990. Acoustic Effects of Oil Production Activities on Bowhead and White Whales Visible during
Spring Migration near Pt. Barrow, Alaska, 1989 Phase: Sound Propagation and Whale Responses
to Playbacks of Continuous Drilling Noise from an Ice Platform, as Studied in Pack Ice Conditions.
Outer Continental Shelf Study, MMS 90-0017.
RMRI 2007. Quantitative Assessment of Oil Spill Risk for the South Coast of Newfoundland and
Labrador. A report for Transport Canada. CAN/0179/R003. 329 pages + app.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/TP/TP14740/menu.htm
Robertson, G. J., and R. I. Goudie. 1999. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus). In:A. Poole and F.
Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 466. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,
PA.
Robichaud, D., and G.A. Rose. 1999. Distribution of 0 and 1 Group Cod in Nearshore Waters of
Placentia Bay (NAFO Subdivision 3Ps), 1997-1998. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat
Research Doc. 99/66. 12 p.
Robinson, C.L.K., and I.D. Cuthbert. 1996. The impacts of backshore developments on nearshore biota
and their habitats (No. 2432/WP1192n). Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Nanaimo.
Rothfels, M. 2001. Shorebirds at risk in Canada. Bird Trends, 8: 43-44.
Rusch, D.A. and W.G. Reeder. 1978. Population ecology of Alberta red squirrels. Ecology, 59: 400-420.
SARA Website 2007. Species at Risk. Available online at: http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/.
Scheidat, M., Castro, C., Gonzales, J., and Willians, R. 2004. Behavioural responce of humpback
whales to whale watching boats near Isla de la Plata, Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Journal
of Cetacean and Research Management. 6: 63-68.
Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masked hearing
thresholds (MTTS) of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus
leucas, after exposure to intense tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107: 3,4963,508.
Schmiegelow, F.K.A, C.S. Machtans and S.J. Hannon. 1997. Are boreal birds resilient to forest
fragmentation? An experimental study of short-term community responses. Ecology, 78: 19141932.
Schusterman, R.J., Kastak, D., Levenson, D.H., Reichmuth, C.J., and L., S.B. 2000. Why pinnipeds
don't echolocate. J Acoust Soc Am. 107: 2256-2264.
Page 472
REFERENCES
Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 219.
Seaconsult. 1988. Final Report, Placentia Bay Circulation Study, Phase 1. Prepared for Department of
Newfoundland and Labrador Development and Tourism, and for the Canadian Coast Guard, by
Seaconsult Limited, St. Johns, NL. 13 pp.
Sears, R. and J. Calambokidis. 2002. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Blue Whale
Balaenoptera musculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Ottawa, ON.
Seton, R., J. Lien, D. Nelson, and P. Hann. 1992. A Survey of Blue Whales (Balaenoptera musculus),
other Cetaceans, Seals and Marine Birds on the South Coast of Newfoundland, March 1992. St.
Johns, NF.: Memorial University of Newfoundland, Whale Research Group. 68p.
SIGTTO. 2000. Safety in Liquefied Gas Marine Transporation
London:SIGTTO. Available at www.sigtto.org.
and Terminal
Operations.
Simpson, M.R. and D.W. Kulka 2002.Status of three Wolffish species (Anarhicus lupus, A. minor and A.
denticulatus) in Newfoundland waters (NAFO Divisions 2GHJ3KLNOP). DFO Can. Sci. Advis.
Sec. Res. Doc. 2002/078
Sjare, B., B. Nakashima and D. Mercer. 2003. Integrating scientific and local ecological knowledge to
identify potential critical habitats: A case study in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland. Canadian Science
Advisory Secretariat Research Document; 2003/114. 15 pp.
Sjare, B., M. Lebeuf and G. Vienott. 2005. Harbour seals in Newfoundland and Labrador: A preliminary
summary of new data on aspects of biology, ecology and contaminant profiles. Canadian Science
Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2005/030.
Smith, W.H.F., 1994. Bathymetric prediction from dense satellite altimetry and sparse shipboard
bathymetry. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99: 21803-21824.
Smultea, M.A. and B. Wrsig. 1995. Behavioral reactions of bottlenose dolphins to the Mega Borg oil spill,
Gulf of Mexico 1990. Aquat. Mamm. 21:171-181.
SNC Lavalin 2007. Thermal Plume Modelling Study at Grassy Point Placentia Bay. A report for
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. 10 pp + app.
Sooley, D.R., E.A. Luiker and M.A. Barnes. 1998. Standard Methods Guide for Freshwater Fish and
Fish Habitat Surveys in Newfoundland and Labrador: Rivers & Streams. Fisheries and Oceans,
St. Johns, NF. iii + 50 pp.
Sorensen, P.W., R.J. Medved, M.A.M. Hyman and H.E. Winn. 1984. Distribution and abundance of
cetaceans in the vicinity of human activities along the Continental Shelf of the northwestern
Atlantic. Marine Environmental Research, 12: 69-81.
Soutiere, E.C. 1979. Effects of timber harvesting on marten in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management,
43: 850-860.
Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C.Steyermark, P.T. Plotkiin and F.V. Paladino. 1996.
Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: Are leatherback turtles going extinct?
Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 2(2): 209-222.
St. Aubin, D.J., J.R. Geraci, T.G. Smith and T.G. Friesen. 1985. How do bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops
truncatus, react to oil films under different light conditions? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 430-436.
Page 473
REFERENCES
Stacey, P.J. and R.W. Baird. 1991. Status of the false killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens, in Canada.
Canadian Field-Naturalist, 105: 189-197.
Stafford, K.M., C.G. Fox and D.S. Clark. 1998. Long-range acoustic detection and localization of blue
whale calls in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 104:
3,616-3,625.
Stalmaster, Mark V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. University Books, New York.
Statistics Canada. 1986. 1986 Census of Canada. Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON.
Statistics Canada. 2007. Labour Force Information, March 11 to 17, 2007. Released April 5, 2007 by
Statistics Canada, Labour Statistics Division, Labout Force Survey Program. Catalogue No. 71001-XIE.
Stevenson, D.K. and M.L. Scott. 2005. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring,
Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics, Second Edition. NOAA Technical
Memorandum, NMFS-NE-192.
Stobo, W.T. and C.T. Zwanenburg. 1990. Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) pup production on Sable
Island and estimates of recent production in the Northwest Atlantic. Pp: 171-184. In: W.D. Bowen
(ed.). Population Biology of Sealworm (Pseudoterranova decipiens) in Relation to its Intermediate
and Seal Hosts. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences: 222 pp.
Stockner, J.G. and N.J. Antia 1976. Phytoplankton adaptation to environmental stresses from toxicants,
nutrients and pollutants- a warning. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada, 33: 2089-2096.
Stout, H.B. 1993. Overview of oiled bird rehabilitation. In The Effects of Oil on Wildlife, pp A38-A39.
Third International Conference.
Swail, V.R. and A.T. Cox. 2000. On the use of NCEP/NCAR reanalysis surface marine wind fields for a
long term North Atlantic wave hindcast. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanographic technology,
17: 532-545.
Swail, V.R., Cardone, V.J., Fertguson, M., Gummerz, D.J., Harris, E.L., Orelup, E.A., Cox, A.T. 2006.
The MSC50 Wind and Wave Reanalysis. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Wave
Hindcasting and Forecasting, September 25-29, 2006, Victoria, BC [available online at:
http://www.waveworkshop.org/9thWaves/].
Swail, V.R., E.A. Ceccacci and A.T. Cox. 2000. The AES40 North Atlantic Wave Reanalysis: Validation
and Climate Assessment. 6th International Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting, Nov.
6-10, 2000, Monterey, CA.
Swiss, J.J. and J.M. Osborne. 1976. Baseline Characteristics of Come by Chance Bay, Newfoundland.
Surveillance Report EPS-5-AR-76-9, Atlantic Region, Environment Canada EPS, St. Johns, NL.
TERMPOL Review Committee. 1999. TERMPOL Review Process - Report on Whiffen Head. Canadian
Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, St. Johns, NL.
73 pp.
Page 474
REFERENCES
Thalheimer, E. 2000: Construction noise control program and mitigation strategy at the Central
Artery/Tunnel Project. Noise Control Engineering Journal, 48(5): 157-165.
Thompson, T.J., H.E. Winn and P.J. Perkins. 1979. Mysticete sounds. Pp: 403-431. In: H.E. Winn and
B.L. Olla (eds.). Behaviour of Marine Animals, Vol 3: Cetaceans. Plenum, New York.
Thomson, D.H., R.A. Davis, R. Belore, E. Gonzalez, J. Christian, V.D. Moulton, and R.E. Harris. 2000.
Environmental Assessment of Exploration Drilling Off Nova Scotia. Report prepared for Canada
Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Shell Canada Ltd.,
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Gulf Canada Resources Ltd., Chevron Canada Resources, EnCana
Petroleum Ltd., Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Norsk Hydro Canada Oil & Gas Inc.
Titman, R. D. 1999. Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The
Birds of North America, No. 443. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Todd, S, P. Stevick, J. Lien, F. Marques and D. Ketten. 1996. Behavioural effects of exposure to
underwater explosions in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Canadian Journal of
Zoology, 74(9): 1661-1672.
Town of Arnolds Cove. 1992. Town of Arnolds Cove Municipal Plan and Development Regulations.
Developed by Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Urban
and Rural Planning Division.
Town of Arnolds Cove. 2007a. Municipal Plan and Development Regulations Amendment Industrial
General Designation and Zone Whiffen Head and Grassy Point New Industrial General
Designation and Zone. March 2007.
Town of Arnolds Cove. 2007b. Website.http://www.townofarnoldscove.com. Accessed on July 15, 2007.
Transport Canada 2007. Quantitative Assessment of Oil Spill Risk for the South Coast of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Tupper, M. 1994. Settlement and Post-settlement Processes in the Population Regulation of a
Temperature Reef Fish: The Role of Energy. Ph.D. thesis. Dalhousie University., Halifax, NS.
Tupper, M. and R.G. Boutilier 1997. Effects of habitat on settlement, growth, predation risk and survival
of a temperate reef fish. Marine Ecology Progress Services. 151: 225-236.
Turnpenny, A.W. and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. The Effects on Marine Fish, Diving Mammals and Birds of
Underwater Sounds Generated by Seismic Surveys. Report by FAWLEY Aquatic Research
Laboratory Ltd.
Tyack P.L. and C.W. Clark. 2000. Communication and acoustic behaviour of dolphins and whales. Pp:
156-224. In: W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay (eds.). Hearing by Whales and Dolphins.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound for Engineers. Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
US Department of Transportation, 2006:
FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/handbook/index.htm)Vanderlaan, A.S.N and C.T.
Taggart. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: The probability of lethal injury based on vessel
speed. Marine Mammal Science, 231: 144-156.
Van
Guelpen, L. and C.C. Davis. 1979. Seasonal movements of the winter flounder
Pseudopleuronectes americanus, in two contrasting inshore locations in Newfoundland.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 108: 26-37.
Page 475
REFERENCES
Wahle, R.A and L.S. Incze. 1997. Pre- and post-settlement processes in recruitment of the American
Lobster. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 217: 179-207.
Wahle, R.A. and R.S. Steneck. 1992. Habitat restrictions in early benthic life: experiments on habitat
selection and in situ predation with the American lobster. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology, 157: 91-114.
Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of marine
mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4):6-15.
Watkins, W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal
Science, 2: 251-262.
Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill. 1979. Distinctive characteristics of underwaters calls of the harp seal,
Phoca groenlandica, during the breeding season. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66:
983-988.
Weir, R.D. 1976. Annotated Bibliography of Bird Kills at Man-made Obstacles: A Review of the State of
the Art and Solutions.
Whitcomb, R.F., J.F. Lynch, M.K. Klimkiewicz, C.S. Robins, B.L. Whitcomb and D. Bystrak. 1981.
Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Ecological Studies, 41:
125-206.
Whitehead, H., W.D. Bowen, S.K. Hooker and S. Gowans. 1998. Marine mammals. Pp. 186-221. In:
W.G. Harrison and D.G. Fenton (eds.), The Gully: A Scientific review of Its Environment and
ecosystem. DFO, Ottawa, ON. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document,
98/83.
Wiese, F.K. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999. Marine Bird and Mammal Surveys on the Newfoundland
Grand from Offshore Supply Vessels. Report prepared for Husky Oil, St. Johns, NF.
Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettman, A.W. Diamond and J. Linke. 2001.
Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
42: 1285-1290.
Wiese. F.K. 1999. Beached bird surveys in Se Newfoundland 1984-1997. Unpublished Canadian
Wildlife Service Contract Report KE209-8-043.
Williams U.P. and J.W. Kiceniuk. 1987. Feeding reductions and recovery in cunner Tautogolabrus
adspersus following exposure to crude oil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 38: 1044-1048.
Winn, H.E. and P.J. Perkins. 1976. Distribution and sounds of the minke whale, with a review of
mysticete sounds. Cetology, 19: 1-12.
Witham, R. 1978. Does a problem exist relative to small sea turtles and oil spills? Pp: 629-632. In: The
Proceedings of the Conference on Assessment of Ecological Impacts of Oil Spills, 14-17 June
1978, Keystone, CO.
Wolfe, M.L., N.V. Debyle, R.S. Winchell and T.R. McCabe. 1982. Snowshoe hare
in northern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management, 46: 662-670.
cover relationships
Woodley, T.H. and D.E. Gaskin. 1996. Environmental characteristics of North Atlantic right and fin
whale habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 74: p: 75-84.
Wright, D.G. and G.E. Hopky. 1998. Guidelines for the use of explosives in or near Canadian fisheries
waters. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2107.
Page 476
REFERENCES
Wrsig, B., C.R. Greene, Jr. and T.A. Jefferson. 2000. Development of an air bubble curtain to reduce
underwater noise of percussive piling. Marine Environmental Research, 49: 79-93.
Page 477
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. Open House Summaries
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS .......................................................................................... 1

1.1
FIRST ROUND OPEN HOUSES: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2006 .......................................1
1.2
SECOND ROUND OPEN HOUSES: MAY 22-24, 2007.........................................................2

1.2.1 Southern Harbour Open House May 22, 2007 ..............................................................3
1.2.2 Arnolds Cove Open House May 22, 2007 ....................................................................4
1.2.3 Clarenville Open House May 23, 2007 ..........................................................................5
1.2.4 Sunnyside Open House May 24, 2007 ..........................................................................6
1.2.5 Come By Chance Open House May 24, 2007...............................................................8
1.3
THIRD ROUND OPEN HOUSES: NOVEMBER 15, 2007......................................................8

1.3.1 Arnolds Cove Open House November 15, 2007...........................................................9
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Come By Chance Open House Comments.................................................................1

Arnolds Cove Open House Comments.......................................................................2
Questions/Comments Southern Harbour Open House ............................................3
Feedback Forms Southern Harbour Open House....................................................3
Questions/Comments Arnolds Cove Open House ..................................................4
Feedback Forms Arnolds Cove Open House ..........................................................4
Questions/Comments Clarenville Open House ........................................................5
Feedback Forms Clarenville Open House................................................................6
Questions/Comments Sunnyside Open House ........................................................7
Feedback Forms Sunnyside Open House................................................................7
Questions/Comments Come By Chance..................................................................8
Feedback Forms Come By Chance .........................................................................8
Questions/Comments Arnolds Cove Open House ................................................10
Feedback Forms Arnolds Cove Open House ........................................................10
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Page i
1.0
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
1.1
First Round Open Houses: Friday, December 15, 2006
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. held open houses in Come By Chance and Arnolds Cove on Friday,
December 15, 2006.
The purpose of each open house was to provide information regarding the Project to the public and to
receive input on the issues to be addressed in the EIS.
The meetings were advertised by circulating a flyer to every household in Arnolds Cove, Clarenville,
Come By Chance, Sunnyside and Southern Harbour. Notification advertisements were also placed on
the community television channel and in the Clarenville Packet newspaper two weeks prior to the open
house.
Approximately 20 people attended the morning session in Come By Chance, and approximately 30
people attended the afternoon/evening session in Arnolds Cove.
The format for each open house included the following elements:
poster displays of the overall site plan, tug basin and jetty construction;
a brochure providing an overview on LNG, a site plan for Grassy Point and methods for public
participation during the provincial and federal EA processes. A copy of the brochure was then
mailed to key stakeholders; and
a handout and video summarizing the chemical and physical properties of LNG, safety and
security of LNG terminals and industry standards for terminals and shipping (printed from
www.LNGfacts.org).
Comments received at the Come By Chance and Arnolds Cove open houses are provided in Tables 1
and 2, respectively.
Table 1
Come By Chance Open House Comments
Questions/Comments
When will construction start?
How many jobs will be created?
What kind of jobs will be created?
There are prime fishing grounds off Grassy Point.
When will tendering of contracts start?
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Times Recorded
2
2
3
1
3
Page 1
Table 2
Arnolds Cove Open House Comments
Questions/Comments
How many jobs will be created?
What kind of jobs will be created?
What happens when LNG is spilled on water?
Will there be access to the Bordeaux Trail?
Will Mr. Adams ashes be moved (a burial site on Bordeaux Island)
Will fishing be allowed near Grassy Point?
The Project will be very good for the area with lots of spin offs.
Oil spill response capability in the area needs to be increased.
1.2
Times Recorded
3
5
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
Second Round Open Houses: May 22-24, 2007
Newfoundland LNG Ltd. hosted open houses from May 22 to 24, 2007, in the communities of Southern
Harbour, Come By Chance, Arnolds Cove, Clarenville and Sunnyside.
The purpose of each open house was to provide information to the public regarding the Project and to
receive input on the issues to be addressed in the EIS. Representatives of Newfoundland LNG Ltd.
presented information about the Project and answered questions from the public.
The open houses were advertised for two weeks prior to the sessions in The Telegram, The Packet and
the Gazette newspapers, as well as through the local radio station and community television channel. A
media advisory was also released one week prior to the sessions, and flyers were circulated to every
household in Arnolds Cove, Come By Chance, Sunnyside and Southern Harbour. Email invitations
were sent to key industry and community stakeholders and to regulatory representatives.
an information package providing an overview of the status of the Project, including information
on the site infrastructure, storage tanks, economic development and employment opportunities,
safety and the environment, as well as information for fishers;
a feedback form for obtaining public comments on the Project;
a visitor registry or guest book;
a series of display panels to communicate the open house information objectives, such as the
Projects economic benefits, LNG and vessel safety, the environment and an overall site plan;
presentations from Project team leaders on topics of public interest (e.g., LNG safety and
transportation issues);
representation from the Project team, consultant team and invited government officials (e.g.,
members of the TRC), as appropriate;
an opportunity for questions, answers and dialogue between guests and the Project team; and
a video summarizing the chemical and physical properties of LNG, safety and security of LNG
terminals and industry standards for terminals and shipping.
The data in the information packages were updated as the Project progressed and tailored to answer
previous stakeholder questions. For example, the information kits evolved to include detailed
information about LNG safety, because in earlier open house sessions, stakeholders indicated that
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Page 2
safety was a concern about which they needed information. Each handout included a Newfoundland
LNG Ltd. contact name, number and email where people could phone for additional information.
Mechanisms to receive feedback from the public were put in place to support the consultation process.
These included feedback forms distributed during open houses/public meetings, question and answer
periods during open houses, Internet feedback forms on the Project website and the formation of a
community liaison committee. Feedback received through public consultation was then communicated
to Project managers, engineers and environmental consultants so that it could be considered in the
Project design and EA processes.
1.2.1
Southern Harbour Open House May 22, 2007
On the afternoon of May 22, 2007, fifteen people attended the Southern Harbour open house, including
representatives from these stakeholder groups:
TC;
DFO;
FFAW; and
NLDOB.
Questions/comments and feedback form results from the Southern Harbour open house are provided in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Table 3
Questions/Comments Southern Harbour Open House
What is the difference between CNG and LNG? LNG is not explosive, correct?
A safety zone will be required. How will it be different from that required by other tankers traversing Placentia
Bay?
How big will the safety zone be?
There are prime fishing grounds off Grassy Point.
When will tendering of contracts start?
Will the VTS need to be widened to accommodate the safety zone?
Table 4
Feedback Forms Southern Harbour Open House
Questions/Comments
Format and content
Presentation
Responses to questions
Appropriate to needs
Handout materials
Value of session
Interest in Project
Five Forms Completed

Unacceptable Poor
Average
Good
2
1
2
3
3
Excellent
3
4
3
2
2
Very valuable: 5
Fisheries
DFO X 2
Government representative
Provided with sufficient and appropriate information Yes: 5
Concerns regarding Project
No: 1
Suggestions to address concerns
Yes: 1 (no suggestions mentioned)
Comments:
Great presentation and format.
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Page 3
1.2.2
Arnolds Cove Open House May 22, 2007
On the evening of May 22, 2007, 34 people attended the Arnolds Cove open house, including
TC;
DFO;
FFAW;
APA;
Town of Normans Cove;
North Atlantic Refining Limited (NARL); and
Icewater Seafoods.
Questions/comments and feedback form results from the Arnolds Cove open house are provided in
Table 5
Questions/Comments Arnolds Cove Open House
What will be the hiring practices? Will you be hiring local people first?
What training programs will be set up to ensure the community is prepared for future employment opportunities?
Has Newfoundland LNG Ltd. spoken with the College of the North Atlantic about setting up training programs?
Although Newfoundland LNG Ltd. has acknowledged that the facility will impact the fish harvesters in the area, it
is important that they understand that the project will also impact people who work in the fish plants.
Is this strictly a storage facility and not a treatment facility?
How many tanks will be constructed initially?
Please provide an update on the status of the ship-to-ship transfer technology the project will be using? Will
regulatory authorities approve it this year?
Will the tanks be prefabricated outside of Newfoundland?
Suggestion that a separate meeting take place with fishers in the area.
Are there plans to hold additional consultations in other areas outside of the Grassy Point area, such as in St.
Brides and Marystown?
Table 6
Feedback Forms Arnolds Cove Open House
Questions/Comments
Format and content
Presentation
Handout materials
Value of session
Interest in Project
Provided with sufficient and

appropriate information
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
18 FORMS COMPLETED
Unacceptable
Poor Average
1
2
2
5
2
Very valuable: 11
Somewhat valuable: 5
Industry Marine pilot
Employment X 3
Member of local community X 6
Member of municipality X 5
Member of fire dept/part-time handler
Yes: 17
No: 1
Good
10
8
9
5
4
Excellent
7
8
7
8
12
Page 4
Questions/Comments
Comments:
1.2.3
18 FORMS COMPLETED
Unacceptable
Poor Average
Good
Excellent
Yes: 6
No: 12
Concerns:
local hiring X 3
environment X 1
Will the process be loud?
Yes: 4
Suggestions to address concerns:
training
continue with these kinds of meetings
train and hire locally
liaise with community through liaison committee
No concerns at this time, pending Termpol and further information
Positive feedback to presentation X4
Very glad that I attended.
Wondering about continuation of walking trail to Bordeaux.
Very progressive. Looks very feasible for the area. So far excellent.
Clarenville Open House May 23, 2007
Thirteen people attended the Clarenville open house on May 23, 2007, including representatives from
these groups:
DFO;
Women in Resource Development;
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; and
APA.
Questions/comments and feedback form results from the Clarenville open house are provided in Tables
7 and 8, respectively.
Table 7
Questions/Comments Clarenville Open House
How many additional tankers will be entering Placentia Bay as a result of the terminal?
From a safety perspective, every fishing vessel in Placentia Bay should have an AIS. Industry in area should
consider investing in these devices for local fishers.
Will there be training programs? How will someone access these programs?
What does long-term storage of LNG mean?
What are the criteria for berthing and double berthing? Will the project work with pilots in the area to ensure they
understand these procedures?
Will the berm surrounding each tank contain the whole contents of a tank?
When a tanker is in the harbour, will there be a safety zone?
When an LNG vessel is being piloted in the harbour, will all other traffic stop on the bay?
What is the timeline to construct the tanks?
Will the tanks be prefabricated?
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Page 5
Table 8
Feedback Forms Clarenville Open House
Questions/Comments
Format and content
Presentation
Handout materials
Value of session
Interest in Project

Suggestions to address
concerns
Comments:
1.2.4
ELEVEN FORMS COMPLETED

Unacceptable
Poor
Average
Good
5
4
4
4
5
Excellent
6
7
7
6
6
Very valuable: 9
Industry X 2
Pilot X 2
Member of community X 2
Regulator
Employment X 2
Works with DITRD
Yes: 10
No: 1
Yes: 1
No: 10
Concerns:
Loss of habitat to be addressed
Yes: 1
Suggestions:
Approved compensation plan
Good presentation everything covered
Appreciated seeing a video with underwater video
Most helpful session wish more people had attended
Great economic opportunity. Good session. A great start. Im sure more
information will flow over time.
Great Project.
Very informative X 2
Sunnyside Open House May 24, 2007
Sixteen people attended the open house in Sunnyside on May 24, 2007, including representatives from
these groups:
Icewater Seafoods;
Rural Secretariat;
Canadian Coast Guard; and
Town of Sunnyside.
Questions/comments and feedback form results from the Sunnyside open house are provided in Tables
9 and 10, respectively.
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Page 6
Table 9
Questions/Comments Sunnyside Open House
Will the facility be phased in over time?

There appears to be a great deal of enthusiasm. Is this Project actually going to happen?
Have your clients made commitments to this Project? Do they consider this commercially viable?
Positive feedback regarding educational nature of website.
Procurement question: A business person was looking for contact names, so he can get involved in the
procurement loop early because of the long lead time for some equipment that maybe required.
Will the Project be using local people in the union? Will local companies be hired?
Has the project contacted the Building Trades Council or Pipefitters union yet?
Because of out migration, many union people have left the area to find work. They would like to return home. Will
this be considered when dealing with labour matters?
Government has identified a labour skills shortage in the province. This Project appears to be not in the mix when
discussing future projects and their labour requirements.
Christmas will be an important time to communicate with workers who are home for the holidays. Hopefully more
information will be available at that time.
The pending retirements of an aging workforce in the province will also impact the Projects labour requirements.
What is the timeline for LNG tankers to start coming into Placentia Bay? What is the timeline for the jetty?
How many tugs will be onsite?
Are there special trades needed?
What kind of education will be required for field operators and processing? What kind of training will be provided?
Information requested on the kinds of jobs that will be created.
When will the tanks be built?
Is it possible that there will be no tanks and only ship-to-ship technology will be used to transfer LNG?
Is Newfoundland LNG Ltd. in competition with other companies?
Is this the first storage facility for Newfoundland LNG?
Table 10
Feedback Forms Sunnyside Open House
Questions/Comments
Format and content
Presentation
Handout materials
Value of session
Interest in Project


Comments:
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
ELEVEN FORMS COMPLETED

Unacceptable
Poor Average
2
2
Good
7
6
3
3
5
Excellent
3
4
7
5
4
Very valuable: 9
Construction worker
Member of community X 2
Employment X 2
Procurement opportunity X 2
Sunnyside Harbour Authority
Coast Guard
Yes: 10
Yes: 1
No: 10
Concerns:
Future employment/safety/environmental safety
Effects on shipping, anchorage, cooperation with fishing and other
commercial interests
Yes: 1
Good info
Good for community. Keeps family home and employed.
Good session, would like to see more fishers
Page 7
1.2.5
Come By Chance Open House May 24, 2007
Nine people attended the open house in Come By Chance on May 24, 2007, including representatives
from these groups:
TC; and
Town of Come By Chance.
Questions/comments and feedback form results from the Come By Chance open house are provided in
Table 11
Questions/Comments Come By Chance
Where will the access road be located?

Are you working with the Smart Bay project?
There is a municipal forum in June. Would the company provide brochures and posters that can be given out
during the event?
Table 12
Feedback Forms Come By Chance
Questions/Comments
Format and content
Presentation
Handout materials
Value of session
Interest in Project

THREE COMPLETED
Unacceptable
Poor Average
Good
2
2
2
2
2
Excellent
1
1
1
1
1
Very valuable: 3
Equipment rentals and sales
Local fisheries
Government
Yes: 3
No:
Yes: 1
No: 2
Concern:
Local employment and maximized benefits
All aspects of the public consultation plan have been thoroughly documented. Stakeholder issues have
been identified and recorded throughout the Project permitting process. These issues have been
addressed as further details or solutions became clear. The development of a Community Liaison
Committee will provide area residents with a direct communication channel to Newfoundland LNG Ltd.
representatives and will help ensure that issues are brought forward and dealt with by the Project team
in a timely manner.
1.3
Third Round Open Houses: November 15, 2007
Public participation during the comprehensive study was delegated the Proponent. An Open House
was held on November 15, 2007 in Arnolds Cove, where 25 persons attended. The Proponent,
environmental consultants and RAs displayed posters and talked with attendees at the open house.
Attendees were provided with information on the Project description, potential effects, baseline surveys,
proposed mitigations, public safety and the consultation process. An executive summary of the Grassy
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Page 8
Point LNG Storage and Transshipment Terminal Comprehensive Study Report was also provided as a
handout at the open house and people were given two weeks to submit comments to the RA. X
comments were received by the RA. Comments and concerns were recorded during the open house by
recording verbal comments and by offering an Exit Survey. Newfoundland LNG Ltd. hosted a public
open house on November 15, 2007 in the community of Arnolds Cove.
This open house was advertised for two weeks prior to the session in The Telegram and The Packet as
well as through the community television channel. Flyers were circulated to every household in Arnolds
Cove, Come By Chance, Sunnyside, Normans Cove, North Harbour and Southern Harbour. Email
invitations were sent to key industry and community stakeholders and to regulatory representatives.
A draft CSR Executive Summary providing an overview of the status of the Project, including
information on the site infrastructure, storage tanks, economic development and employment
opportunities, safety and the environment, as well as information for fishers. Each handout
included a Newfoundland LNG Ltd. contact name, number and email where people could phone
for additional information;
a feedback form for obtaining public comments on the Project;
a visitor registry or guest book;
a series of display panels to communicate the open house information objectives, such as the
Projects economic benefits, LNG and vessel safety, the environment, the fisheries, two site
plans, and study results of the Comprehensive Study Report;
representation from the Project team, consultant team and invited government officials (e.g.,
members of the TC), as appropriate;
an opportunity for questions, answers and dialogue between guests and the Project team; and
a video summarizing the chemical and physical properties of LNG, safety and security of LNG
terminals and industry standards for terminals and shipping.
Mechanisms to receive feedback from the public were put in place to support the consultation process.
These included feedback forms distributed during the open house, questions recorded and answered
during the open house, Internet feedback forms on the Project website and feedback from the
community liaison committee. Feedback received through public consultation was then communicated
to Project managers, engineers and environmental consultants so that it could be considered in the
Project design and EA processes. Participants were given 30 days to provide comment on the
Executive summary to the RA.
1.3.1
Arnolds Cove Open House November 15, 2007
On the afternoon of November 15, 2007, 25 people attended the Arnolds Cove open house, including
TC;
DFO;
FFAW; and
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA).
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Page 9
Questions/comments and feedback form results from the Arnolds Cove open house are provided in
Table 13
Questions/Comments Arnolds Cove Open House
How do people forward their resumes for employment?

What training will be in place?
Concern expressed about increased vessel traffic in the bay.
The surrounding communities are in favour of the project.
Local hiring is important for the project.
When will procurement information be available?
How will women get training and employment information?
What employment opportunities will be available?
Table 14
Feedback Forms Arnolds Cove Open House
Questions/Comments
Format and content
Presentation
Handout materials
Value of session
Interest in Project

Twenty Five Forms Completed

Unacceptable
Poor
Average
2
1
2
1
Good
13
13
Excellent
10
12
5
8
15
15
Very valuable: 20
Local X4
Government observer: industrial benefits
Industry X5
Health agency
Mayor of Baine Harbour
Environmental impact due to increased shipping
Involved with complimentary projects
MHA for area
Environmental / social issues
Yes: 22
No: 1
Somewhat: 1
I have a good understanding from Googling for LNG information in connection

with many aspects of its effects (social, environment, health, economic, etc.)
No: 15
Yes: 8
Suggestions to address concerns Local employment and finding a balance between tankers and fishing grounds
Employ local people
Potential impacts on health infrastructure/ explosive potential
Will this project interfere with other projects?
Cumulative affects of increased shipping in the head of Placentia Bay.
Use the exact language that studies have used: spills, accidents, BLEVE/RPT
etc. I used them and was argued down.
Comments:
Great presentation and format.
There should be meetings with fishers of the area at frequent intervals to keep
them informed and involved.
The project should be good for the area if the company is committed to hiring
from the local areas.
Set out the plan for local employment and training
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Page 10
Questions/Comments
OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Twenty Five Forms Completed

Unacceptable
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
The project will be positive for the area and the province.
Create a liaison committee for municipal members, regulators and interested
parties to support the transfer of information.
Good concept for province
Good for the economy
Very informative
It is a major project that is good for the economy as the area needs the
employment
Communicate safety record of LNG
Great displays and information
The people are courteous but must be more straightforward.
All literature describing how safe and secure the shipment and storage is of
LNG refer to Coast Guard oversight, intensive and constant, and tugboats to
help large ships avoid obstacles, etc. The product to be stored by LNG
Newfoundland is for US consumption. Who is going to provide safety and
security for a very large terminal and many ships in a busy bay with other
industry, all types of fishing, marine ferries, recreational boating, a famous bird
sanctuary and whale watches?
How would such a terminal and traffic impact on all of these above, as well as
on the population centres in terms of: health; permanent job creation vs.
community losses due to infrastructure, insurance rate increases; tourism (who
is studying the potential effects on tourism and ferry traffic?); freedom to move
around the waters of the bay and on the coast beside it?
Why does LNG Newfoundland say that LNG is not flammable, when it is
extremely flammable if a vapour cloud is released, meeting any source of
ignition between the LFL and the UFL of 5-15% gas mixed with air?
What nearby large treatment centers could see to any injured members of the
workforce within minutes, when every minute would count?
What area of land around the terminal and on the Bay would be permanently
off limits to any traffic unrelated to the project?
Does Canada lose its right to police its own shores because the product and
terminal belong to extra-national interests? It appears that this would be the
case.
Page 11
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
Agencies and Persons Consulted (Commercial Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector)
APPENDIX B
DFO
Max Eddy, Fisheries Officer, Arnolds Cove
Robin Smith, Acting Chief Resource Management, Grand Bank
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (2006 and 2007)
Mike Warren, Executive Director, Policy and Planning
Todd Budgell, Manager of Aquaculture Licencing and Inspections
Elizabeth Barlow, Salmonid Aquaculturalist
Claudette Laing, Aquaculture Licencing Administrator
Cook Aquaculture
Nell Halse, Director of Communications
Robert Sweeney, Consultant, St. Stephen NB
Placentia Bay Aquaculture Operators (2006 and 2007)
Ambrose Jones, Petite Forte
Peter Leonard, Southern Harbour
Bernard Norman, Rushoon
Mervin Hollett, Arnolds Cove
Don Pomeroy, Placentia
Andrew Walsh, St. Johns
Joseph Pevie, Arnolds Cove
Calyton Moulton, Red Harbour
Joseph Keating, Holyrood
Christopher Warren, Arnolds Cove
Placentia Bay Fishers
Earl Johnson, North Harbour (member of the Projects Community Liaison Committee)
Ross Dunphy, Arnolds Cove
Mervin Hollett, Arnolds Cove
Cec Penney, Arnolds Cove *
Fishers attending Project HADD meeting (list from E. Johnson meeting, 15 July, 2007)
Fisher, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW)
Pius Power, FFAW Business Agent
Jamie Coady, Fisheries Liaison Co-ordinator

Grassy Point LNG Terminal Comprehensive Study Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grassy Point LNG Terminal Comprehensive Study Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grassy Point LNG Transshipment and Storage Terminal

Comprehensive Study Report

With Respect to the Requirements

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

Marine Transportation and Safety

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

Decommissioning and Abandonment

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Atlantic Canadian Conservation Data Centre

An effect that impairs or damages the environment, including an adverse effect

Automated Information Systems

Atlantic Pilotage Authority

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Approved Terms of Reference for an Environmental Certificate (dated May 25,

Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion

gas produced in LNG storage tanks as it warms up in storage either in tanks or in

basic sound level

Conventional Air Contaminant

Canadian Border Services Agencies

Canadian Coast Guard

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

Environmental Assessment Certificate

Carbon dioxide equivalent

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

at very low temperature; having or relating to extremely low temperatures

Canada Shipping Act

Canada Shipping Act (2001) effective July 1, 2007

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT

Comprehensive Study Report prepared pursuant to CEAA

Coastal Western Hemlock ecosystem

Canadian Wildlife Service

Distributed Control System

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (or Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Differential Global Positioning System

Dead weight tonnes

Eastern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone

Eastern Canada Response Corporation

Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental Impact Statement

Emergency Measures Organization

A report that presents the results of an environmental assessment.

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS