Terasen Gas (Vancouver Island) Inc. (“TGVI”) Certificate of Public

Transcription

Scott A. Thomson
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and
Chief Financial Officer
16705 Fraser Highway
Surrey, B.C. V4N 0E8
Tel: (604) 592-7784
Fax: (604) 576-7074
Email: scott.thomson@terasengas.com
www.terasengas.com
February 18, 2008
British Columbia Utilities Commission
Sixth Floor
900 Howe Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2N3
Attention:
Regulatory Affairs Correspondence
Email: regulatory.affairs@terasengas.com
Ms. Erica M. Hamilton, Commission Secretary
Dear Ms. Hamilton:
Re:
Terasen Gas (Vancouver Island) Inc. (“TGVI”) Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity (“CPCN”) for the Mt. Hayes Storage Facility
Information Regarding the Filing and Review of Project Report in Compliance
with British Columbia Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) Order No. C-907
On June 5, 2007, TGVI filed an application for a CPCN to construct and operate a storage
facility at Mt. Hayes including the facilities required to connect to the TGVI gas transmission
system (the “Application”). On November 15, 2007, the Commission granted a CPCN by
Order No. C-9-07 (the “Order”) subject to a number of conditions, including that TGVI file a
report (the “Report”) by March 31, 2008 with the certain information regarding the
Engineering, Procurement and Construction (“EPC”) contract and updated cost estimates.
The Order further requires that the P90 cost estimate in the Report be equal or less than the
comparable P90 cost estimate in the Application ($200 million) and that the Commission has
approved the terms of the EPC contract following a process by which Intervenors may file
written submissions on the matter within seven (7) calendar days of the date that the Report
is filed with the Commission, and TGVI may reply in writing to the submissions within eleven
(11) calendar days of the filing of the Report.
The purpose of this letter is to provide information on the proposed timing of the filing and
review of a project report regarding the Mt. Hayes storage project (the “Project”) in
compliance with the Order. In addition, TGVI is herein providing a copy of the
Environmental and Social Review Update (the “ESR”) that was completed in November
2007.
Project Report Timeline
TGVI is currently finalizing the contractual arrangements required for implementation of the
Project, including the EPC contract, and expects to file the Report on or before Wednesday
March 19, 2008. Based on this date and the directions provided in the Order, TGVI
proposes the following timetable for Commission review of the Report:
TGVI Files Report
March 19, 2008
Intervenors file Submissions
March 26, 2008
TGVI files Reply Submission
March 30, 2008
Commission Approval
April 11, 2008
February 18, 2008
British Columbia Utilities Commission
TGVI Mt. Hayes Storage Facility – Information Regarding Order No. C-9-07 Project Report
Page 2
This timetable will support TGVI’s ability to provide notice to proceed to the EPC contractor
on or before April 16, 2008. Based on current discussions, it is expected that delays beyond
this date could impact the project completion date and also may result in cost escalation on
certain components of the Project. These issues will be discussed more fully in the Report.
Environmental and Social Review Update
In the Reasons for Decision issued December 15, 2007 accompanying the Order, the
Commission also directed TGVI to provide the updated ESR study as part of the Report.
The original ESR was completed in 2004 and had been reviewed as part of the regulatory
process associated with TGVI’s 2004 application for a proposed 1 BCF facility at the Mt.
Hayes location. The updated ESR study was completed in November 2007 and no issues
were identified that have any impact to the Project schedule or costs.
In order to provide an opportunity to review the study prior to the submission of the Report,
TGVI is providing the 2007 ESR attached with this submission. Due to file size and
conservation efforts, TGVI has provided only 5 hard copies of the ESR. Additional hard
copies will be provided to the Commission, if necessary, upon request. This submission will
be available on the Terasen Gas website at
http://www.terasengas.com/_AboutUs/RatesAndRegulatory/BCUCSubmissions/VancouverIslandSuns
hineCoast/MtHayesStorageProject/default.htm. The 2007 ESR is also posted separately on the
Terasen Gas website at www.terasengas.com/documents/LNG_ESR_Report.pdf. The Report,
when filed, will include a discussion of the 2007 ESR, however, a comparison of the 2004
and 2007 ESR studies is provided in Schedule A to this letter.
Summary
TGVI is providing this information in order to give adequate notice to the Commission of the
expected date the Report will be filed in order to support a timely review and approval
process. If you have any questions or require further information related to this information,
please do not hesitate to contact Tom Loski, Director of Regulatory Affairs at (604) 592-7464.
Sincerely,
TERASEN GAS (VANCOUVER ISLAND) INC.
Original signed by: Tom Loski
For:
Scott A. Thomson
cc (e-mail only): Registered Parties
Attachments
Schedule A – Comparison of the 2004 and 2007 ESR
Page 1
2007 Environmental & Social Review
The following list provides a summary of the primary revisions to the Mt. Hayes Storage
Project Environmental and Social Review between 2004 and the 2007 update.
•
Project description: The Project description was revised to include more detail
regarding the two pipelines, transmission line, access road, and electrical substation.
•
Assessment of Project Impact Significance: There were no changes in the Project
Impact Significance table.
•
Identification of wet, mature forest containing ephemeral drainages (Page 24): The
2007 ESR identified wet, mature forests crossed by the ancillary facilities at KP 0.7,
KP 1.0, KP 1.9, and KP 2.15. ESR notes “all drainages crossed by the pipeline or
powerline route are ephemeral and will likely be dry during construction.”
•
Air emissions (Page 27): Updated climate and air emission data.
•
Invasive species (Page 31): 2007 surveys identified non-native noxious or invasive
species in the LNG storage area.
•
Expanded information for ancillary facilities (Page 32, 36, 44, 45, 47): The 2007
ESR describes the biological and human environment features located in the proposed
ancillary facility routing.
•
Expanded involvement of First Nations (Page 34, 58-60): The expanded role of the
Chemainus First Nation is identified throughout including the selection of plant species to
be used in restoration, and the identification of resources of interest.
•
Zoning for LNG footprint: The 2007 ESR reflects the zoning change that was made to
accommodate the Project in the Cowichan Valley Regional District: U-1 (Utility).
•
Agricultural Land Reserve (Page 50): The 2007 ESR identified that the proposed
Project ancillary facilities will cross lands included in the Agricultural Land Reserve.
•
Riparian Areas Regulations in the Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN), and CVRD:
New regulations regarding riparian areas were put in place between the time when the
2004 and 2007 ESRs were prepared. The report identifies the potential need to acquire
permits (Page 20). Since the preparation of the report, discussions with Susan Cormie
(RDN) and Holly Clermont (MOE) confirmed that RAR assessments are not required.
Schedule A – Comparison of the 2004 and 2007 ESR
Page 2
•
Sub-surface Resources (Page 51): The 2007 ESR identifies that approximately 500 m
of the ancillary facilities associated with the Project will be located in a coal tenure area
from KP 0.0 to KP 0.5. Through this section, the pipeline and transmission line will be
adjacent to the existing forest service road. The ancillary facilities will also cross a
mineral tenure from KP 1.9 to KP 3.0.
•
Forestry land ownership (Page 52-53): In 2004, the forest land to be impacted by the
tank was privately owner by Weyerhauser Co. Since 2004, Island Timberlands has
purchased Weyerhaeuser’s interests. The Project will cross the Chemainus First Nation
woodlot from KP 1.8 to KP 5.0.
•
Trans-Canada Trail: 2007 ESR further identified the location for this trail, and the that
ancillary facilities will cross the trail at KP 1.9
•
Updated economic effects (Page 66): Updated economic information for the LNG
project is included in the 2007 ESR.
Terasen Gas (Vancouver Island) Inc.
Liquefied Natural Gas Facility
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL REVIEW
UPDATE
November 2007
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In 2004, an Environmental and Social Review (ESR) was conducted for a Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) Facility and connecting pipeline and powerline proposed by Terasen Gas (Vancouver
Island) Inc. at a site west of Mt. Hayes. The present report updates the ESR to reflect conditions
prevailing in 2007. Topics covered in the analysis include:
Physical Environment
•
•
•
•
Geology and Soils
Natural Hazards
Water and Aquatic Systems
Air Quality and Climate
Biological Environment
•
•
•
Vegetation
Wildlife
Fish and Fish Habitat
Human Environment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Urban and Rural Settlement
Transportation
Forestry
Recreation
Archaeology
Aesthetics
Noise
Domestic Water Supply
Economic Effects
Facility and Public Safety
•
•
•
•
•
•
Terasen LNG Facility
Forest Fires
Seismicity
Facility Integrity
Pipeline Integrity
LNG Transportation
Site Security
Environmental and Social Review
Page i
Cumulative Effects
•
•
Construction
Operation
Table 1 summarizes the significance of potential project impacts. Prior to the incorporation of
mitigation measures, the project is deemed to have NOT SIGNIFICANT impacts on all
categories with the exception of Water and Aquatic Systems and Vegetation. With the adoption
of the mitigation measures recommended in the report, impacts to the Water and Aquatic
Systems and Vegetation categories will be reduced to a NOT SIGNIFICANT level.
The nature and level of risks imposed by the facility on public safety as well as risks associated
with natural events on the facility will be fully managed by means of prudent design and
adherence to the appropriate Standards, Codes and Regulations pertinent to the LNG Facility.
Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this report will mitigate all residual
impacts to levels that are less than significant.
Page ii
Table 1. Summary of Project Impact Significance
Impact Significance*
Impact Topic
Unmitigated
Mitigated
N
N
S
N
N
N
N
N
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
•
Vegetation
•
Wildlife
•
Fish and Fish Habitat
S
N
N
N
N
N
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
•
Urban and Rural Settlement
•
Transportation
•
Forestry
•
Recreation
•
Archaeology
•
Aesthetics
•
Noise
•
Domestic Water Supply
•
Economic Effects
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
B
FACILITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
•
Forest Fires
•
Seismicity
•
Facility Integrity
•
Pipeline Integrity
•
LNG Transportation
•
Site Security
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
•
•
•
•
Geology and Soils
Natural Hazards
Water and Aquatic Systems
Air Quality and Climate
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
•
Construction
•
Operation
*
N=
Not Significant
S=
Significant
B=
Beneficial
N/A =
Not applicable; project design and construction standards incorporate these requirements
U=
Unknown due to lack of information
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Findings....................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Environmental and Social Review.............................................................. 1
LNG Project ........................................................................................................................ 2
Site Selection and Public Consultation ............................................................................. 14
Project Approvals.............................................................................................................. 20
Permits Required............................................................................................................... 20
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 21
Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 21
Water and Aquatic Systems .............................................................................................. 23
Air Quality and Climate.................................................................................................... 27
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
Biological Environment .................................................................................................... 30
Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 30
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 36
Fish, amphibians and their habitat .................................................................................... 41
4.0
Human Environment......................................................................................................... 44
4.1 Urban and Rural Settlement.............................................................................................. 44
4.2 Transportation, Utilities, and Services.............................................................................. 47
4.3 Agriculture ........................................................................................................................ 50
4.4 Sub-Surface resources....................................................................................................... 51
4.5 Forestry and Other Resource Use ..................................................................................... 52
4.6 Recreation and Backcountry Use...................................................................................... 56
4.7 Archaeology and Heritage ................................................................................................ 57
4.8 Aesthetic effects................................................................................................................ 60
4.9 Noise effects...................................................................................................................... 62
4.10 Domestic water supply...................................................................................................... 64
4.11 Economic effects............................................................................................................... 65
5.0
Facility and Public Safety ................................................................................................. 68
5.1 Forest Fire Protection........................................................................................................ 68
Page iv
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Seismicity.......................................................................................................................... 71
LNG Facility integrity....................................................................................................... 72
Pipeline Integrity............................................................................................................... 78
LNG Transport.................................................................................................................. 78
Emergency Response Plans .............................................................................................. 80
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 82
Other projects in specified project area ............................................................................ 82
Construction-related cumulative effects of the LNG Project and other projects.............. 83
Operation-related cumulative effects of the LNG Project and other projects .................. 84
7.0
References......................................................................................................................... 85
Page v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 2.1
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 4.1
Location of Proposed Site for the Terasen LNG Storage Facility .......................... 6
Generic Layout of the Proposed Terasen LNG Storage Facility ............................ 7
Stream locations on the Terasen LNG Storage Facility........................................ 25
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................... 35
Ungulate Winter Ranges near the Terasen LNG Storage Facility Project Area... 40
Proposed Island Timberlands Harvest Blocks and Roads .................................... 54
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 1.1
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 5.1
Summary of Project Impact Significance ................................................................ iii
Primary Codes and Regulations.............................................................................. 12
Environmental Canada Climate Normals – Nanaimo Airport................................ 27
Estimated Annual Air Emissions for the Terasen Gas 1.5 BCF LNG Facility ...... 29
Expenditure Pattern by Construction Element........................................................ 66
Estimated Economic Effects of Terasen LNG Project on BC GDP ...................... 66
Fire Risk Pattern – Cedar Station ........................................................................... 70
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Site Photographs
Appendix 2
Plant Species Recorded on the Proposed Terasen LNG Site in January 2004
Appendix 3
Provincially and Federally Listed Fish and Wildlife Species at Risk Known to
Occur in the South Island Forest District (CDC, 2007)
Appendix 4
Provincially and Federally Listed Plants and Plant Communities at Risk Known to
Occur in the South Island Forest District (CDC, 2007)
Appendix 5
Open House Notifications, Correspondence, and Press Clippings
Concerning the Proposed Terasen LNG Facility
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
LNG Tank Schematic
Red-legged Frog Habitat and Impact Assessment
Page vi
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL REVIEW
Terasen Gas (Vancouver Island) (Terasen) proposes to construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG)
peak shaving facility to the west of Mt. Hayes in Area H of the Cowichan Valley Regional
District (CVRD) to store up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas. In addition, two
pipelines would be constructed to join the LNG facility to the Terasen Gas main transmission
line. A substation will be constructed to transmit power from the existing BC Hydro
transmission line to a new power line that will provide electricity to operate the LNG facility.
Upgrades and additions to an existing road access will be required.
The LNG site was rezoned by the CVRD to allow operation of the LNG facility in 2004. The
connecting pipeline and power line will require approval from provincial regulatory agencies,
such as the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission (OGC).
This environmental and social review (ESR), initially prepared to assist the CVRD, other
regulatory agencies, and the public to understand the potential effects of the construction and
operation of the LNG facility on the environment and human activity in the area. The ESR has
been revised to include additional references to the pipeline, powerline and access road upgrades,
and includes changes to land cover and legislative amendments that have occurred since 2004.
The ESR is based on the most current information available on the design and siting of the LNG
facility and the connecting pipeline, powerline and access road. Terasen intends to seek a
“design-build” contract for the LNG facility, and for this reason, the final design and siting of
facilities within the “footprint” of the site may differ somewhat from the present design. These
changes are not expected to be substantive, and will not affect the results of this impact
assessment.
The individuals who contributed to this report include the following:
Terasen
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bill Manery, P.Eng.
Guy Wassick, P.Eng.
Mike Davies, P.Eng.
Debbie Warren, P.Eng.
Gary Van Alstyne
Janna Gillick, P.Eng.
Bruce Falstead
Sherry Sheffman
Page 1
•
Stan Ballance
Coers and Company – LNG Design Engineer
•
Don Coers, P.E.
AMEC Earth & Environmental – Geological and Geotechnical
•
Drum Cavers, P.Eng., P.Geo.
Westland Resource Group Inc. – Environmental and Land Use
•
•
•
•
•
•
David Harper, P.Ag., CPESC, M.C.I.P.
Rahul Ray
Carmen Holschuh, R.P.Bio.
Tara Lindsay
Mark Walmsley, P.Ag., P.Geo.
Wayne Biggs, P.Ag., R.P.Bio.
Specialist Subconsultants to Westland
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lynne Atwood, R.P.Bio. – Vegetation and Ecology
John Cooper, R.P.Bio. – Wildlife
Elke Wind, R.P. Bio – Amphibians
Ted Harding, R.P.Bio. – Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
Peter Eligh – Forestry
Bjorn Simonsen – Archaeology
John Sedley – Socio-economics
1.2 LNG PROJECT
1.2.1 Justification and Alternatives
Terasen, formerly known as Centra Gas, has been distributing natural gas to Vancouver Island
and Sunshine Coast customers since completion of the Vancouver Island Pipeline in 1991. As a
regulated utility, Terasen has an obligation to meet current and future natural gas requirements.
To meet these requirements Terasen is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas storage
facility near Mt. Hayes. The site is northwest of Ladysmith, in the North Oyster (Area H) area of
the CVRD. Ancillary support facilities (pipelines, power line, road) will pass through the
southern margin of Area C (Arrowsmith-Benson/Cranberry-Bright) in the Regional District of
Nanaimo (RDN). The LNG storage facility is proposed as the most efficient way to meet
growing peak demand on the Terasen system, primarily residential and commercial demand
Page 2
growth. The addition of LNG storage is part of a long-term plan (including future compression
and looping of the existing facilities) that will allow capacity to be added to the existing Terasen
pipeline system incrementally, if and when future load develops.
Demand for natural gas is weather sensitive, increasing with decreasing temperature. The
existing pipeline serving Vancouver Island, while fully utilized on peak winter days, has excess
capacity on warm summer days. LNG storage will allow natural gas to be transported to
Vancouver Island during the summer using available pipeline capacity, to be liquefied, and then
stored for use during periods of peak demand in the winter. The use of LNG for “peak shaving”
during winter will allow the existing pipeline to be used more efficiently and allow Terasen to
meet demand growth at the lowest cost.
As a “peak shaving” facility, the proposed LNG storage facility delays the need for additional
pipelines and compression to transport natural gas to Vancouver Island to meet peak demand.
Maximizing the amount of gas delivered through the pipeline, while minimizing expansion costs,
will ensure the lowest transportation cost for Terasen customers on Vancouver Island. Having
storage on Vancouver Island will also increase security of supply in case of pipeline service
interruption, and help reduce the future cost of natural gas for residential and commercial
customers.
1.2.2 Description of Area Affected
The site for the proposed storage facility was chosen by Terasen following a systematic
identification and examination of a number of candidate sites between Courtenay and Langford
and is referred to as the Mt. Hayes site. (Mt. Hayes is referred to as Mt. Cecil by some local
residents.)
The Mt. Hayes site is located approximately 6 km southwest of the Cassidy Airport and 6 km
northwest of the Town of Ladysmith. Elevation of the site is approximately 280 m above sea
level (ASL).
Most of the site has been clearcut harvested. The site and surrounding land is used for
commercial forestry and silviculture. The nearest resident is approximately 3 km to the north of
the site. Public access is limited by a locked gate on the existing resource road. The facility will
be located in a depression between Mt. Hayes on the east and another ridge to the west, helping
to minimize visual aesthetic effects of the project.
Two pipelines will be constructed to link the LNG tank to the existing Terasen transmission
pipeline near Timberlands Road. An electrical substation will be built near to a BC Hydro
transmission line, which parallels the Terasen transmission pipeline. A short (approximately
0.5 km) segment of new access road will be required at the LNG tank facility site.
Page 3
The connecting pipeline and powerline will be approximately 5 km long, and will generally
follow existing resource roads. Most of the land crossed by the proposed rights-of-way is
already disturbed by logging or gravel extraction. The existing access road will require
upgrading.
The rezoned parcel is approximately 42.7 ha, and is currently fee-simple owned by Island
Timberlands. The developed area for the LNG plant will be approximately 12 ha. Terasen
property beyond the 12 ha developed area is intended to remain undeveloped and available for
continued forestry and silviculture purposes as will any Terasen-controlled buffer area (including
the Crown land).
Two additional areas of land of approximately 21 ha to the west of the rezoned parcel and 24 ha
to the east will be leased or purchased from the Crown and Island Timberlands for the purpose of
maintaining land use controls that are needed to meet the various codes and standards required
for the LNG facility. No facilities will be constructed in these areas, other than the connecting
pipeline, powerline, and road access in the western buffer.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the general location of the site for the LNG facility, the Crown land buffer,
and connecting pipeline, powerline, and access road. Figure 1.2 shows a schematic layout of the
project facilities at the Mt. Hayes site.
Land requirements for the utility corridor that will contain the two pipelines, the powerline, and
the telecommunications line will nominally be 25 m wide (the statutory right-of-way for the two
pipelines will be approximately 18 m wide and the right-of-way for the powerline will be
approximately 7 m). The utility corridor will be located adjacent to the existing access road for
much of the route. Approximately 400 m the utility corridor will not be adjacent to an access
road, and will require an 11 m wide right-of-way (as shown on Figure 1.1). The access road is
nominally 15 m wide. Working space needed for the construction of the pipelines and powerline
will be up to 10 m wide, depending on the topography.
1.2.3 Description of Project Elements
Because the design of the LNG facility has not been finalized, the following description of the
plant facilities is general, and the specifics are subject to change as a result of the contractor’s
design and decisions reached by the B.C. Utilities Commission with regard to the facility.
The LNG plant will include:
•
systems for cleaning and liquefying the incoming natural gas taken from the existing
Terasen transmission pipeline,
•
a double wall nickel-steel tank specially constructed for storing the LNG at
atmospheric pressure,
Page 4
•
a system for collecting boil-off gas,
•
a system for vaporizing the stored LNG to convert it back into natural gas vapour,
•
a system for increasing the pressure of the gas for delivery back to the transmission
pipeline, and
•
numerous utility, safety, and security systems.
Page 5
This LNG storage tank will have a nominal volume of up to 69,000 m3, capable of holding the
equivalent of approximately 42,500 103m3 (1.5 Bcf 1) of natural gas in liquefied form. The plant
process design allows for filling the tank over approximately 200 days during the summer
season. To achieve this annual schedule, the plant will have the capacity to liquefy
approximately 210 103m3/day (7.5 mmscfd2) of natural gas per day. The plant will be able to
vaporize and inject up to 2,800 103m3/day (150 mmscfd) of natural gas back into the
transmission pipeline system.
Structures on the site will include an LNG storage tank, a fire water storage tank (approximately
1,500 m3 or 400,000 gallons) and several buildings for administration, process components,
utility, and cold storage. Some of the LNG process equipment for the gas treatment system,
liquefaction, and vaporization is expected to be located out of doors.
The dominant feature of the facility will be the LNG storage tank, which will be slightly larger
than 60 m diameter and about 55 m to the top of the hemispherical roof. The tank will be
surrounded by an earthen dike, with a holding capacity of not less than 110 percent of the gross
LNG tank storage capacity. The tank acts like a thermos , holding LNG at -162 degrees C at
essentially atmospheric pressure. The nine percent nickel steel inner tank holds the LNG. More
than 1.2 m (four feet) of insulation between the inner and outer tank walls keeps gas cold. A
small amount of LNG that vapourizes (boil-off) is collected and injected back into the pipeline
system.
All of the buildings at the site are expected to be prefabricated steel structures, although the
control building may be concrete block. The following buildings will be constructed on the site.
1
2
•
Administration building containing the control room, offices, shop and meeting
room, kitchen, and bathrooms. Approximate size is 25 m long, 15 m wide, and 5 m
eave height. This building will be climate controlled.
•
Compressor building will house the refrigeration compressor(s) and boil-off
compressor. This building will be approximately 18 m long by 15 m wide with an
eave height of 8 m. This building will be heated during maintenance activities.
•
A building (if required) to house the vapourization equipment. The building is
approximately 15m square and 8 m eave height.
•
Motor control center and emergency generator building will be approximately 12 m
square and 5 m high.
•
Fire water pump building will be approximately 6 m square by 4 m high.
•
A utility building will be required for natural gas inflow and outflow measurement,
approximately 10 m long by 5 m wide by 3 m high.
Bcf = billion cubic feet
mmscfd = million standard cubic feet per day
Page 8
•
•
•
A building may be required for the electrical substation, approximately 25 m long
by 20 m wide by 7 m high.
A warehouse and cold storage building will be about 18 m long by 12 m wide by
6 m tall.
Natural gas will be delivered to the LNG plant and returned to the transmission
system by two 219 mm (8 inch) diameter lateral pipelines of approximately 5 km
length. The pipelines will be constructed in a single pipeline right-of-way, generally
located adjacent to the existing forestry access road.
Electrical power to the facility will be provided by a new powerline that will extend from the
existing B.C. Hydro transmission line located east of the proposed site. An electrical substation,
to be located at the junction of the BC Hydro Transmission Line and the proposed utility corridor
will reduce the voltage to nominally 25 kV. The voltage will be further reduced at the LNG
facility to the required voltage. The new powerline will be adjacent to the new natural gas
pipelines that will be constructed between the LNG facility and the existing Terasen transmission
pipeline. These rights-of-way will also be used to provide telecommunications access to the site.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the location of the access road and the pipeline and powerline rights-of-way
(the ancillary facilities).
The facility will have a fire protection system including water storage and water pumps as well
as dry chemical fire extinguishing equipment. A natural water storage reservoir will be
maintained onsite for the purposes of maintaining adequate water supply at all times in the water
storage tank. Hazard detection systems, including gas, flame, smoke and temperature detectors
will be incorporated throughout the plant. Security and communication systems will be located
throughout the plant and will include intrusion monitoring and alarm systems consisting of
motion sensors and closed-circuit television cameras. A 2.5 m tall chain link security fence
topped with strands of barbed or razor wire will be built around the plant site. A remotely or
card operated electric gate will secure the main road entrance. The site will be manned at all
times and monitored electronically at Terasen’s central gas control facilities located in Surrey,
British Columbia.
Drainage of storm water will be provided to move clean water away from the site and into
natural existing drainage systems. As required, culverts will be placed under roads.
Roadways, dike ramps, and parking areas will be finished with stone and gravel. An access road
will be built around the outside of the plant and around or on the tank dike for emergency
vehicles.
Sidewalks between the control room, other buildings, process and equipment areas will be built
using concrete or asphalt.
An area in the parking and road area will be provided for helicopter landing.
Page 9
Access to the LNG Facility will utilize existing roads and short lengths of new road. Some
portions of the existing roads will require upgrading in order to provide safe use by construction
vehicles and to ensure year-round access by operational personnel.
1.2.4 Project Design and Construction
The design, construction, and safety aspects of the proposed Mt. Hayes LNG facility will be
based on well proven designs of similar facilities and founded on many years of industry
experience with LNG plants. Globally, there have been more than 240 LNG plants built during
the past 35 years. Terasen has owned and operated a peak shaving LNG plant in Delta, British
Columbia for 32 years.
Terasen will utilize experienced engineering, operating and safety personnel from the Delta
facility to assist with planning, engineering, construction and operation of the new facility. The
plant will be designed, engineered, and constructed by an international company that will employ
contractors and consultants that are experienced with LNG facilities. The plant will also comply
with the latest regulations, standards, and codes that relate to the design, construction, and
operation of such facilities.
1.2.4.1 Project Scope
The scope of the project will include design, detail engineering, material procurement,
construction, pre-commissioning, commissioning, testing, and project management to construct
and operate a facility that has the capability to:
•
Liquefy natural gas at a rate of 7.5 mmscfd
•
Store up to 1.5 Bcf of LNG.
•
Vaporize LNG at up to the rate of 150 mmscfd to deliver natural gas to the
transmission pipeline at a maximum pressure of 2,160 psig.
•
Fill LNG trucks.
Page 10
1.2.5 Project Engineering
Terasen will develop a detailed performance and code specification for the facility design and
then will employ an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) firm that will be
responsible for execution of all engineering and construction work to construct the project. This
company will have international experience with similar projects and meet qualifications set by
Terasen. The EPC firm will have a dedicated project engineering team to execute the design and
engineering activities. A project engineering manager will direct a team of principal lead
engineers for design and construction quality assurance of the cryogenic tank, civil structures,
LNG process, mechanical aspects, electrical and instrumentation facilities. This engineering
team will include resident site engineers, and document control personnel. The EPC contractor
will engage local consultants and contractors where feasible to supplement their work force.
Prior to EPC firm selection, Terasen will direct certain engineering activities through local
consultants for site selection, geo-technical, and seismic studies.
All designs, calculations, specifications, and drawings will be checked using peer reviews. The
project Engineering Manager will coordinate internal reviews, including Hazard and Operability
Analysis, to insure that the facility meets all project criteria for safety, performance, good
engineering practices, completeness, and timeliness. All material and equipment purchases and
site construction will be governed by the drawings and specifications.
Pipeline and powerline design and construction will not be included in the EPC contract but will
be separately managed by Terasen personnel. Inspection during construction will be undertaken
by Terasen representatives.
1.2.6 Design: Codes and Standards
The design, construction, and operation of LNG facilities and connecting pipelines are regulated
by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. The project will conform to the standards, codes, and
regulations in Table 1.1 and others as applicable.
The powerline will be designed and constructed to BC Hydro Engineering and Construction
Standards. The design and construction of the electrical substation will to the Canadian
Electrical Code CSA 22.1.
Page 11
Table 1.1 Primary Codes and Regulations
Code
Edition
B.C. Pipeline Act and
Pipeline Regulation
CSA Z 276
CSA Z 662
NBC
C.E.C.
API 620 App. Q
CSA B51
CAN/CSA A23.3-94
(R2000)
Terasen Standards
Description
2002
2007
2007
2005 & Revisions
2006
th
10 , Add. 1
2003
2000
As Applicable
Provincial Regulation of the Design, Construction
and Operation of Pipeline Facilities
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Production, Storage,
and Handling
Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems.
National Building Code of Canada
Canadian Electrical Code Part 1, 19th Edition
Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low
Pressure Storage Tanks
Boiler, Pressure Vessel, and Pressure Piping Code
Design of Concrete Structures
Standards for Equipment, Materials, Construction
Procedures, Inspection, Testing, Security, and Safety.
1.2.7 Construction Plan
The overall schedule duration of the LNG project’s design, engineering, construction and startup
is estimated to be approximately 36 months. The pipeline, powerline, and access road
construction have a significantly shorter development schedule and will be completed separately
during this same time frame.
The following describes the plan for development of the LNG facilities.
In order to deliver construction equipment to the site some upgrading is required on the existing
road. It is important to maintain the construction schedule to quickly prepare the site for tank
construction. Recently most of the timber on the site was harvested; however, some additional
timber will be removed before the site is graded in preparation for construction. Rock blasting in
some areas will be required to level the areas for the LNG tank and the process area. Materials
from the blasting will be used for building the dike walls around the LNG tank and for fill
material in other areas. Additional fill material may be imported to the site. A pond will be
created to collect run-off water to be used in the testing of the LNG tank and for fire water
supply for plant operations.
The LNG tank construction drives the schedule for completion of the LNG facility; it can take up
to 2.5 years to build the LNG tank. The concrete foundation for the LNG tank will be
constructed as soon as the site is prepared. This will be the largest concrete pour on the project.
It is anticipated that sufficient concrete can be produced from batch plants presently operating in
Page 12
the area. The outer carbon steel tank will be built next, followed by installation of the bottom
insulation. The inner cryogenic, 9 percent nickel steel tank will be build out of the weather
inside the outer tank. All welds on the inner tank are quality inspected using x-ray, ultrasonic or
equivalent technology. On completion of the tank’s structural components it will be overload
tested with water and also pressure tested with air. Perlite ore will be expanded and placed
between the inner and outer tank shell for insulation.
The construction of the process equipment is normally completed well within the timeline of the
construction of the LNG storage tank. The concrete foundation for equipment, buildings, pipe
support, and miscellaneous structures will be poured as required on the site. During this same
time underground facilities will be installed such as the firewater piping.
Most of the piping will be prefabricated into spools in a shop. As the major equipment is set on
their foundations, piping is routed between them. Buildings are generally built after the heavy
equipment is put into place. In areas where the presence of LNG or gas will be processed, the
electrical wiring, motors, equipment, and devices will be appropriately designed (per codes) for
the location. The control room and electrical switch gear will be located in non-process locations
some distance away.
During the construction phase, the facility site will also have trailer offices, parking areas,
temporary buildings, shipping containers and lay down areas (for warehousing and storage of
materials, construction equipment and tools).
Piping and vessels will be pressure tested and checked for leaks. Toward the end of the
construction phase, power is turned on to one piece of equipment at a time so that each can be
checked for operation. Not until the plant goes through a complete pre-commissioning process
and all personnel are trained for operational safety will gas enter the facility.
The last phases of the construction process are mechanical completion, commissioning, and startup of the LNG facility.
Pipeline and powerline construction and access road upgrades will be completed under separate
contracts using conventional construction plans in a time frame as required to support the LNG
facility construction.
1.2.8 Construction and Quality Control Procedures
Construction procedures for LNG facilities and the connecting utilities will be prepared in
accordance with detailed project engineering documents. Terasen and third party inspectors will
be employed to assure that the project is constructed in accordance with the detailed engineering
drawings and specifications.
Page 13
Inspection procedures for material and equipment quality, welding, dimensional control, nondestructive examination, hydrostatic and pneumatic testing will conform to the requirements and
standards of the project and regulations. Procedures will provide detailed descriptions of
apparatus, methods, evaluation and acceptance criterion and reporting that is to be implemented
by qualified personnel.
This project will utilize procedures that have been developed and used on previous similar and
successful LNG plant and linear projects.
1.2.9 Construction Safety
The site construction activities will be executed in accordance with the Workers Compensation
Act of B.C., Terasen corporate policies, contractual health and safety specifications and specific
plans of the site construction contractors.
Contractor evaluation and selection will include assessment of their corporate safety program
and their safety track record. Major contractors will be required to have site safety supervisors
that are responsible for the training of project site personnel in safe work practices. All new
employees will be required to have a session in safety awareness orientation.
1.3 SITE SELECTION AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION
1.3.1 Site Selection
Terasen undertook a rigorous, systematic study to identify possible sites for the LNG facility
between the Courtenay area and the Langford area. A strip of land five kilometres wide on either
side of the existing gas transmission pipeline (to minimize impacts and costs of the connecting
pipelines and powerline) was examined on the basis of excluding land with the following
characteristics:
•
Within 500 m of a building or structure,
•
Within 500 m of a paved road,
•
Within 500 m of a railway,
•
Slope greater than 20 percent,
•
Land within a community watershed,
•
Land within a park or protected area, and
•
Land designated as a sensitive ecosystem.
The Duke Point industrial area was specifically included in the study based on its existing
industrial zoning designation.
Page 14
On this basis, approximately twenty-five (25) Candidate Areas were identified. Following this
step, a helicopter supported field reconnaissance was undertaken to gain further understanding of
the characteristics of the Candidate Areas in regard to terrain and geotechnical conditions as well
as location within the viewshed of populated areas. Based on this study and further pipeline
system hydraulic analyses, three potential sites were selected for further study. These three sites
were:
Site 18 – West of Mt. Hayes
Site 21 – West of Mt. Prevost
Site 25 – Duke Point Industrial Area.
Meetings and presentations were held with local governments (municipal and regional) and First
Nations to outline the rationale for the project and the site selection process. Open Houses were
held in early December 2003 in Duncan and Cedar to introduce the public to the project and the
characteristics of LNG, to answer any questions brought forward, and to solicit opinions on the
candidate sites.
Based on further analyses of the three candidate sites and the information gained from the public
at the initial Open Houses, Site 18 (the site west of Mt. Hayes) was chosen as the preferred site
for the facility. The Mt. Hayes site was chosen because:
•
The site offers good foundation and geotechnical conditions.
•
The site is well hidden from the viewshed to the east, where people live, and is
isolated from land uses other than commercial forestry.
•
Most of the plant site has been clearcut logged.
•
Potential environmental and archaeological values were considered minor.
•
The pipeline connection to the Terasen mainline does not significantly impact
property owners and does not cross any fish-bearing streams.
•
There is existing access to the site.
•
Construction and operating costs are reasonable.
•
The public who attended the Open Houses in December did not voice a concern
about the Mt. Hayes location.
Following the decision to select the site west of Mt. Hayes for the LNG facility, Terasen held
another Open House on January 14, 2004 at the North Oyster School on Cedar Road. The
purpose of this meeting was to fully inform the public about the decision and to further respond
to questions raised by the public as well as to provide those members of the public who did not
attend the earlier Open Houses, an opportunity to learn about the project. The general view of
the public who attended the Open House was that Terasen had made an appropriate decision in
Page 15
selecting Mt. Hayes as the preferred site and that the construction and operation of an LNG
facility at the location was generally acceptable.
1.3.2 Public Consultation
1.3.2.1 Project Communications and Consultation Planning
As a result of experience gained during the development of major natural gas projects over the
past 12 years, Terasen has developed an effective public consultation model. The model
commits the Company to identify and consult with audiences who are affected by Terasen’s
major projects such as the proposed LNG storage facility.
The Terasen public consultation model includes the following components:
•
•
•
Research: identifying key audiences, gathering the views of residents living in
communities in the vicinity of the proposed project, and identifying issues;
Public Consultation Plan: developing communication and consultation objectives,
and ensuring the deployment of sufficient human and financial resources to meet the
objectives; and
Public Consultation Activities:
Information: implementing a program of information dissemination to key
audiences throughout the project;
Consultation: face-to-face dialogue and ongoing discussions with different
target audiences and collecting local community feedback; and
Decision Making: incorporating local knowledge into the project’s decisionmaking process and seeking public acceptance and community consensus.
The three priorities of Terasen’s public consultation program are:
1.
To distribute information about the project;
2.
To create opportunities for residents in communities to educate themselves about
the project and provide feedback; and
3.
To seek public and community acceptance for the project through ongoing dialogue
with interested parties.
Terasen’s public consultation process gathers the views of residents living in communities and
local landowners on a variety of matters including:
•
The location of new facilities (detailed site assessment);
•
Property and compensation issues;
•
Methods for minimizing local disruption and disturbance;
Page 16
•
Identifying and developing local economic opportunities;
•
Developing an inventory of local goods and service providers; and
•
Ensuring that project plans are consistent with official Community and Regional
Plans.
An important component of Terasen’s consultation process lies in the recognition of First
Nations communities that have an interest in a project. First Nations interests differ according to
whether the project affects Reserves or traditional use areas, and according to cultural
differences. Hence, First Nations consultation requires a separate but coordinated program of
communications activities that are concurrent with consultation with non-native communities.
1.3.2.2 Public Consultation to Date
A preliminary communications program to inform key government stakeholders of the proposed
LNG storage facility began in May 2003 with a meeting with the Deputy Minister of Energy and
Mines.
Correspondence (letters and email) on the status of the project was sent out on May 22,
November 21, and December 30, 2003 to:
•
The Minister of Energy and Mines,
•
MLAs for Cowichan-Ladysmith, Nanaimo and Nanaimo-Parksville,
•
Mayors of Duncan, North Cowichan, Ladysmith, and Nanaimo,
•
Chiefs of Halalt, Lyackson, Chemainus and Snuneymuxw First Nations and
Cowichan Tribes,
•
Chairpersons and Directors of the Cowichan Valley Regional District and the
Regional District of Nanaimo, and
•
Intervenors on the Vancouver Island Gas Pipeline (VIGP) Project.
In 2003 and January 2004, presentations about the project were made on the following dates to:
•
September 4, 2003
Cowichan Region Economic Development Commission
•
September 10, 2003
Cowichan Valley Regional District Board of Directors
•
September 17, 2003
Corporation of the District of North Cowichan
•
September 29, 2003
Nanaimo City Council
•
October 28, 2003
Regional District of Nanaimo Committee of the Whole
•
September 5, 2003
Chief of Cowichan Tribes and Business Development
Officer from Khowutzum Development Corporation
•
November 12, 2003
Snuneymuxw First Nation
Page 17
•
January 14, 2004
Chemainus First Nation
Focus Group Sessions – October 2003
Prior to formal public consultation, Terasen conducted a series of focus groups with members of
the general public on Vancouver Island in order to determine what kind of information they
would like to receive from Terasen regarding the proposed project. Since the most likely site for
the LNG storage facility would be located in mid-Island, participants for the focus groups were
recruited from the region adjacent to the natural gas pipeline between Duncan and Nanaimo.
Two focus groups, with a total of 24 participants, were held: one in Duncan on October 27, 2003
and the other in Nanaimo on October 28, 2003.
The specific objectives of the focus group research were:
•
To understand the general public’s awareness of, and familiarity with, LNG storage
facilities;
•
To gauge initial reactions to the proposed project, including the general public’s
perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of the facility;
•
To assist Terasen in understanding the issues around site selection for the proposed
LNG storage facility among residents of the mid-Island;
•
To determine what information the general public would like to have about the
proposed project in order to feel appropriately informed; and
•
To determine what mechanisms the general public would find appropriate for the
dissemination of information about the proposed project.
Public Open Houses, December 2003, and January 2004
Based on the information gained from the focus group sessions, public Open Houses were
planned for December 2003. One was held in Duncan and the other in Cedar.
A third Open House was held in January 2004 in Ladysmith to inform the community that the
preferred site had been selected in their area.
The objectives of the Open Houses were:
•
To provide as many people as possible with information about the project and the
three candidate sites.
•
To create opportunities for members of the project team and residents in the
community to meet one another.
Page 18
•
To identify issues and concerns in the community that need to be addressed as the
project proceeds.
•
To identify further information needs brought forward by the public and interest
groups.
Issues and Concerns Raised at Open Houses
The following issues and concerns were expressed by visitors to the Open Houses either by way
of conversations with project team members or on the survey form provided:
•
General questions about the project and about LNG
•
Impact on views
•
Noise
•
Vibration
•
Light pollution
•
The effect of seismic activity on the facility
•
Property values
•
Danger from forest fires
•
Access road
•
Impact on water supply (groundwater or community watersheds)
•
Safety
•
Environmental impact, particularly possible impacts to the groundwater aquifer
•
Aboriginal participation in the project
•
Security
•
Increased truck traffic on local roads
•
Employment opportunities
•
Benefits to local community.
Each of the above will be addressed through site selection, design and equipment selection in
order to mitigate impacts from the project to acceptable levels. Information sharing and
consultation will continue throughout the life of the project.
Page 19
1.4 PROJECT APPROVALS
1.4.1 CVRD Approvals
Terasen applied for a zoning change in 2004 to accommodate the LNG project. The zoning
application was approved, rezoning the LNG site from F-1 Primary Forestry to U-1 under the
CVRD Electoral Area H plan. The U-1 zone accommodates the construction and operation of
the Terasen LNG facility.
1.4.2 Provincial and Federal Approvals
The main provincial approvals required for the project will be from the B.C. Utilities
Commission (BCUC) and the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission (OGC). Terasen’s application for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the BCUC was approved by
Order No. C-9-07 on November 15, 2007. Approvals have been obtained from the OGC for a
variety of activities associated with site preparation and construction. Permits will be obtained
through the OGC for design, construction, and operation of the facility and the connecting
pipelines. The OGC will also be the issuing authority for any permits required under the Water
Act, the Forests Act, and the Land Act. The design and construction of the powerline and related
facilities will be undertaken in accordance with B.C. Hydro’s specifications and design
requirements. Terasen will provide the OGC with a copy of the Road Use Agreement to be
prepared jointly with Timberwest.
At present, no permits or authorizations are expected to be required from Federal authorities.
1.5 PERMITS REQUIRED
Provincial government
Terasen will complete a Schedule A application for the ancillary facility crossing of Agricultural
Land Reserve land, as required by the OGC. Terasen may also be required to acquire a burning
permit to burn slash.
Local Government
Although no fish-bearing or permanent streams will be affected by the project, the Riparian Area
Regulations adopted by the Regional District of Nanaimo and Cowichan Valley Regional
District may apply to the study area. If required, Terasen will obtain applicable development
permits from the local governments.
Page 20
2.0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Overview
The proposed site for the LNG facility and connecting utilities is located in the Nanaimo lowland
section of the Georgia Depression Physiographic Subdivision. In general this area is
characterized by glacial drift deposits as well as glacially abraded rock surfaces and outcrops of
resistant rock types. Bedrock types are dominated by sedimentary, volcanic and intrusive types
throughout the area, although at the site, intrusive rock predominates.
The site elevation is between 275 m and 295 m ASL and is generally beyond the limits of marine
influence during glacial and post-glacial periods. There is no evidence of glaciofluvial or
glaciomarine deposits in the tank area. The landscape is dominated by bedrock overcrops and
areas exhibiting a veneer of glacial till overlying granodiorite bedrock. Small depressional areas
exhibit wetlands characterized by the accumulation of organic material. The pipeline and
powerline route generally crosses similar terrain to the south and west of the LNG site. Near the
connection with the existing mainline, the landscape is characterized by rapidly drained,
fluvioglacial sands and gravels.
The area drains generally to the west and northwest by way of small, ephemeral streams that
drain eventually into Haslam Creek, which is approximately 2.5 km from the proposed site.
The slope of the land ranges from 5 degrees to 15 degrees throughout the development site, and
up to 30 degrees on the flanks of Mt. Hayes to the east.
2.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
The predominant surficial deposit is shallow glacial till overlying bedrock. There are frequent
exposures of bedrock throughout the area. The glacial till is typically composed of silty sand
with a variable content of coarser rock particles up to boulder sizes. Peat and similar organic soil
deposits are present in small ponds and depressed areas scattered across the lower areas of the
site and surrounding areas.
The area is underlain by generally strong granodiorite bedrock (similar to granite). Areas farther
to the west of Mt. Hayes are shown on available geologic mapping to be underlain by sandstone,
shale, conglomerate, arkose and coal of the sedimentary Nanaimo Group. The terrain to the west
is covered with deeper glacial till and no exposures of sedimentary rocks have been identified
close to the site during the work to date.
Page 21
Photo 2.1 in Appendix 1 is looking east from near the west property boundary at the broad ridge
(center of photo) on which the process area and LNG tank would be located. The connecting
rights-of-way would be near the centre of the photo, heading northwest. Mt. Hayes is in the
center background. The existing logging road that presently provides access to the site is in the
background of the photo near the trees. The trees on the right are located on the site of the
proposed retention pond. The soil in the photo is glacial till that overlies shallow granodiorite
rock.
Photo 2.2 in Appendix 1 is looking north along the existing logging access road at the ridge on
which the main facilities would be located. The approximate locations of the tank and dike and
the plant and process areas are noted. The till is composed of granodiorite rock overlain by
shallow till. The road at the right side of the photo would be relocated to the right (east). The
water retention pond would be in the treed area in the left background of the photo.
The ridge on which the tank is proposed to be located has been trenched to expose the rock in
selected areas. The rock was found at depths of 1 to 2 m and in all cases the rock mass was
strong and blocky (rather than weak or highly fragmented). No evidence of acid generating rock
has been found to date.
2.1.2 Natural Hazards
No natural hazards such as slides, rock fall, or avalanches have been identified that would affect
the site, ancillary structures, or the ancillary facility route.
2.1.3 Project Effects
2.1.3.1 Construction
The site is well suited for the proposed construction from a geotechnical point of view. Site
development will consist of reasonably straightforward cutting and filling, relocation of short
sections of ephemeral streams and relocation of a portion of the existing logging road. Ancillary
facility construction is also considered to be straightforward, given the gently sloping, easy
terrain that will be crossed.
The proposed LNG tank will be located on one of the ridges in the northern part of the site. The
tank will be constructed on a cut bench in the rock cored ridge with additional fill around the
perimeter outside of the tank foundation. The process and work area will be located on a cut
bench with perimeter fills to the west of the tank. A retention pond for testing water required at
the end of construction will be constructed in the swampy area in the southern part of the site.
Following hydrostatic testing, the storage area will be reconstructed to create a smaller pond with
perimeter marshes. Minor surface water accumulations from the site may also be routed through
Page 22
this pond. A “refuge pond” will be created to prevent harm to amphibians during the tank
construction and hydrostatic testing periods.
The tank and plant-process bench will be constructed by cutting up to 3 to 4 m off the top of the
ridge to create a flat bench that may step down to the west. Fill will be placed around the edges
of the sloping terrain. Structures will typically be founded on rock, glacial till or fill as
appropriate for the type of structure involved. A dike will be constructed around the tank for
secondary impoundment.
A water retention pond will be constructed at the south part of the site in a low area. During
construction of the water retention pond, streams draining into the area will be dammed using
sandbags and pumped past the construction area. Some or all of the existing peat in the pond
area will be removed and stockpiled in appropriate areas. A dike incorporating facilities for
water elevation control such as a stop log will be constructed to allow ponding of water for
testing the tank. After the tank is constructed and tested, it is anticipated that the water level will
be lowered and the stockpiled peat and fine grained sediments will be used to construct a marsh
in part of the former pond area. The center or west side will be left as open water for wildlife use
and to provide a location where water can be stored and periodically used to recharge the
emergency fire water tank on site.
2.1.4 Mitigation Measures
Sediment generation during construction will be controlled by appropriate measures including
damming and pumping small ephemeral streams past work areas, silt fencing, and sediment
collection or settling facilities. Sediment-laden water that may be generated will be pumped to
suitable land remote from streams where it can filter through the soil or settle locally so that
sediment release to ephemeral streams from the construction area is controlled.
2.2 WATER AND AQUATIC SYSTEMS
The Terasen LNG project area contains a forested wet area near the southwest corner of the site
and five ephemeral drainages draining east to west across the site. Figure 2.1 shows the location
of the five stream drainages in the site. As shown in Photo 2.3 and Photo 2.4 in Appendix 1, the
natural vegetation has been retained in the forested wet area and a few trees remain along
Drainage #2 where the drainage exits the wet area on the western side of the site.
The forested wet area covers approximately 2 ha of the project area and contains coniferous
trees, deciduous shrubs, and many standing dead trees. The vegetation communities in the wet
zone vary according to soil moisture conditions and light availability, and can be described by
Page 23
three plant associations in the very dry maritime Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic
subzone (CWHxm). Two of the communities are associated with wet soils and the third is a
remnant of the forest stand that occurred on the site before it was logged. The wet soil
communities are (1) the Lodgepole pine - sphagnum moss (Pinus contorta- Sphagnum spp)
(CWHxm/11) and (2) western redcedar – slough sedge (Thuja plicata – Carex obnupta)
(CWHxm/15). The remnant forest community is the Douglas-fir, Western hemlock – salal
(Pseudotsuga menziesii ssp menziesii – Gaultheria shallon) (CWHxm/03).
The perimeter of the forested wet area contains numerous pools of standing water that are filled
with slough sedge, shown in Photo 2.5 in Appendix 1, and surrounded by hardhack (Spiraea
douglasii ssp. douglasii) and red alder (Alnus rubra). Toward the centre, behind the perimeter of
standing water, a dense band of conifers, primarily western redcedar and western hemlock
occupy slightly drier soils, shown in Photo 2.6 in Appendix 1. Near the centre of the wet area,
there is a small sphagnum moss bog. The sphagnum layer varies in thickness throughout the
bog. Standing water occurs in some locations of the bog, however in neighbouring areas the
water level is approximately 10 cm below the sphagnum moss. As shown in Photo 2.7 in
Appendix 1, salal and Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum) are the primary shrub species in this
central bog.
Drainages #1, #2, and #3 do not have defined channels through the logged area that surrounds
the forested wetland. However, there is evidence that Drainage #1 drains into several pools of
standing water at the southeast corner of the wet area. Drainage #2 drains through the northern
edge of the wet area. Although dispersed across the cut-over area, Drainage #2 forms a wide
band of slow moving water in the forested wet area. The drainage covers an area that is
approximately 5 m wide and 20 cm deep. The vegetation in slow-moving water is thick and
consists of slough sedge interspersed with a dense thicket of hardhack and patches of Pacific
crab apple, shown in Photo 2.8 in Appendix 1. The drainage narrows to a well-defined channel
at the northwestern edge of the wet area and drains toward the forested area on the western
boundary of the site. Drainage #3 is a channeled drainage. Water flowing from the logged slope
on the eastern portion of the site is captured in the road ditch, passes through a culvert and then
disperses through the coarse woody debris of the logged area toward the proposed tank facility.
Existing vegetation in and around Drainage # 3 is negligible. Drainage # 4, shown in Photo 2.9
in Appendix 1, occurs on the northern edge of the site, in an unlogged area. Drainage # 4 is
surrounded by western hemlock, Douglas-fir, western redcedar and red alder and an understory
of Swordfern (Polystichum munitum) and small amounts of salal. Drainage # 4 is very close to
the boundary of the cut-over area and many wind-thrown trees cover the area, shown in
Photo 2.10 in Appendix 1.
The powerline and pipeline route crosses three areas of wet, maturing forest containing
ephemeral drainages. There are no well defined stream channels or ponds in these areas. The
wet maturing forest areas are located at approximately KP 0.7, KP 1.0 to KP 1.9, and KP 2.15.
Page 24
Figure 2.1 Stream Drainage Locations
!
!
Liquified Natural Gas
Storage Facility
!
Proposed Pipeline
!
Proposed Powerline
!
!
Proposed LNG Tank
!
!
!
!
Access through Gravel Pit
Rezoned Area
!
!
!
!
Mount Hayes Buffer
5429403
!
O
!
!
Site West of Mt. Hayes
Stream Drainage Locations
Process
Area
!
!
Existing Roads
LNG Tank
!
0
50
UTM Zone 10
200
NAD 83
Western Buffer
20 ha (Crown Land)
Mount
Hayes
[
!
100
Meters
!
±
!
November 2, 2007
m5
Strea
!
O
!
LNG_ltr_str_141107.mxd
1:7,004
St
re a
Eastern Buffer
20 ha
(Terasen Property)
m4
Retention
Pond
am
S tr
re
St
Mt. Hayes Main
ea
2
3
5428903
m
Stream 1
REZONED AREA 42 ha
(Terasen Property)
431972
432472
432972
433472
All drainages crossed by the pipeline or powerline route are ephemeral and will likely be dry
during construction.
The forested wet area will be converted to an open water pond. Impacts to the existing aquatic
ecosystems will be SIGNIFICANT because the natural vegetation will not be allowed to
regenerate. Conversion of the area may result in the following:
•
The organic soil layer will be removed from the pond area. Organic material will
be removed from the area to deepen the pond.
•
The natural drainage patterns and hydrological cycle on the site will be changed.
Drainages #4 and #5 will be channeled into the pond and the water will be retained
for use during and after construction.
Construction of the right of way for the power line, pipeline and access road will involve
clearing of vegetation in forested wet areas. Impacts to the existing aquatic ecosystems are
considered to be NOT SIGNIFICANT.
2.2.2.2 Operation
During the operational phase of the Terasen LNG facility and associated linear corridor, impacts
to the aquatic ecosystem are considered to be NOT SIGNIFICANT.
•
Organics removed from the centre of the pond area will be stockpiled and used to
construct marsh areas around the perimeter of the pond.
•
Low growing, water dependent shrubs and herbs will be seeded or planted around
the post-construction perimeter of the open water pond. Commercially available
seed or plant material of appropriate species, such as Pacific and Scouler’s willow
(Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra and S. scouleriana, respectively), red-osier dogwood
(Cornus stolonifera), slough sedge, and bearded fescue, would be used.
•
Large pieces of coarse woody debris may be secured in the standing water to
provide amphibian and invertebrate habitat, and resting sites for waterfowl.
•
The streamflow in the creek at the north-end of the property (the creek that will
receive streamflow from diverted Drainage #3) will be monitored during
construction. If necessary, a wet area with biotic features resembling the forested
Page 26
wet area replaced by the open water pond will be constructed on the creek, outside
of the project area.
•
During construction, if there is water flowing in the ephemeral streams crossed by
the pipeline, the flow will be dammed and pumped or flumed around the trench.
•
The bed and banks of all ephemeral stream crossings will be fully restored
following construction using appropriate drainage restoration techniques.
Mitigated impacts of the LNG facility on the vegetation communities associated with the aquatic
ecosystems are considered NOT SIGNIFICANT because the extent of the impacts are limited
to the project site (approximately 12 ha) and changes on the site will not affect the adjacent
forestland. It is considered that restoration following construction will result in BENEFICIAL
impacts to the affected landscape.
2.3 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE
The climate of the general project area is dominated by low pressure systems in the winter and
high pressure systems in the summer. Prevailing winds are dominantly from the southeast in the
winter and from the northwest in the summer. The Vancouver Island Mountain Range
significantly modifies the moisture-laden air masses moving easterly from the west side of the
island.
Table 2.1 illustrates some of the climate normals for the area. The data outlines what is often
referred to as the “Mediterranean climate” of the area, which exhibits cool to mild summer
temperatures and mild winter temperatures. Temperature extremes are quite rare in this type of
climate.
Table 2.1 Environmental Canada Climate Normals – Nanaimo Airport
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
Rainfall (mm)
142
123
106
63
50
45
26
32
39
97
191
166
1078
Snowfall (cm)
27
16
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
238
81
Mean snow depth
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
Daily mean
temperature (°C)
3
4
6
9
12
15
18
18
15
10
5
3
9
Maximum wind
gust (km/h) and
direction
82
64
71
56
51
69
48
42
55
72
64
64
S
W
NW
N
S
SW
NW
SW
W
S
NW
W
(cm)
Page 27
During the construction phase of the project, impacts to climate and air quality will be of low
magnitude and duration and NOT SIGNIFICANT, but may include:
•
Minor dust associated with earth moving activities; and
•
The operation of diesel generators (for site power and lighting) as well as diesel and
gasoline powered construction equipment, will result in the generation of minor air
emissions.
2.3.2.2 Operation
Table 2.2 summarizes the annual air emission estimates for the LNG facility. The emissions
from the facility will vary according to the amount of gas being liquefied and sent out, which is a
function of demand. The operation of the LNG plant does not normally result in the venting or
flaring of natural gas, but does require the burning of natural gas for the vaporization process.
Vaporization will result in annual atmospheric emissions of approximately 25 kg of
hydrocarbons (HC), 1,414 kg of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 986 kg of carbon monoxide (CO), 4.2
tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), 22 kg of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 1,448 kg of Sulfur HC, and 19 kg
of particulates. These relatively small volumes of emissions are considered NOT
SIGNIFICANT in relation to the ambient air quality criteria.
No specific mitigation measures are identified or necessary due to the very low impact of the
project on air quality and climate.
Page 28
Table 2.2 Estimated Annual Air Emissions for the Terasen Gas 1.5 BCF LNG Storage Facility3
Source
HC
Amine system vent(2)
Amine system oil
heater(2)
Feed gas heater, H1001 (C-B)(3)
Vaporizer heater,
H2001A/B(J-B)(4)
Diesel fire water
pump(5)
Diesel generator(5)
Total
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
3
NOx
lb/yr
kg/yr
lb/yr
kg/yr
0
0
0
0
0
40
CO
SO2
lb/yr
kg/yr
Particulates
lb/yr
kg/yr
Sulfur HC(1)
lb/yr
kg/yr
lb/yr
kg/yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,191
397
180
408
185
25
11
0
0
18
256
116
367
167
3.6
1.7
29
5
2.3
751
511
1143
519
0.5
0.3
3.5
1.7
73
33
3
2
2
6
3
1,264
574
253
115
54
25
2,740
1,414
2,174
986
CO2
lb/yr
kg/yr
1,448
2,334,360
1,058,907
0
0
1,290,006
585,170
13
0
0
2,734,508
1,240,421
0.2
0
0
0
2,856,255
1,295,648
0.9
0.8
0.3
0
0
5,180
2,349
18
8
11
5
0
0
43,212
19,602
49
22
41
19
3,191
1,448
9,263,520
4,202,096
Sulfur HC represents sulfur-containing hydrocarbons. These components are not broken down or oxidized in the amine system, but rather are
desorbed from the solvent and released as is.
Emissions from these sources are based on 200 days of liquefier operation at design rate with no additional contingency.
Emissions from the feed gas heater are based on 200 days of liquefier operation and 10 days of sendout at design rates. Operation at these rates
for these lengths of time would completely fill and completely empty the tank. The emission rates do not include any other contingency.
Emissions from the vaporizer heater(s) are based on 10 days of sendout at the design rate.
Emissions from these sources are based on operating the respective equipment at maximum capacity for one hour per month for twelve months.
Estimates were generated by Chicago Bridge and Iron Company in 2005 for a 1 BCF facility and multiplied by 1.5 to estimate emissions for a 1.5 BCF facility.
Page 29
3.0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Overview
The biological components addressed in this ESR include vegetation, wildlife and aquatic
resources (fish and fish habitat).
The proposed site for the Terasen LNG facility and connecting ancillary facilities are situated in
the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) and Coastal Douglas Fir (CDF) biogeoclimatic zones.
Most of the natural vegetation of the proposed facility site and ancillary facility right of way
between Baxter Road and the site (Figure 1.1) has been logged or significantly altered by recent
logging practices.
Wildlife resource use is primarily limited to the few undisturbed portions of the site, namely
forested areas adjacent to the existing access road, wet forest habitats crossed by the ancillary
facilities, and a wetland area near the centre of the LNG site property. Wildlife species common
to the Ladysmith-Nanaimo area such as black-tailed deer, black bear, wolf, and a number of
songbirds were recorded on the site and ancillary facilities.
The nearest fish-bearing watercourse to the site is Haslam Creek. Several ephemeral streams
drain across the area through small wetland areas. These ephemeral streams are not fish bearing.
Additional information on the biological resources of the LNG facility site and ancillary facilities
is presented in the following sections.
3.1 VEGETATION
LNG Storage Site
Approximately 90 percent of the site for the LNG Facility was clearcut logged in 2002 and
replanted with Coastal Douglas-fir and western redcedar in spring 2003 (approximately 50
percent of the buffer area has also been clearcut logged). Numerous herbaceous and shrub
species are also becoming re-established on the site, including red alder, salal and sword fern.
An extensive cover of woody material was left on the soil surface after logging (Photo 3.1 in
Appendix 1). Several invasive weed species have become established on the site since it was
logged.
A mature second growth forested area near the southwestern corner of the property was not
disturbed by the logging. Vegetation information for this wet forested area is discussed in
Section 2.2. A vegetation buffer was also left on both sides of Drainage #2, where the drainage
Page 30
exits the west side of the forested wet area. However, as shown in Photo 3.2 in Appendix 1, the
buffer has been impacted by past wind-throw events and few trees remain standing. A
significant length (approximately 45%) of the proposed pipeline and powerline route has also
been logged and replanted within the last decade, or has been affected by gravel extraction
processes.
Before the site was logged, the plant community was a Douglas-fir, western hemlock – salal dry
maritime association within the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic subzone
(CWHxm/03). An unlogged portion of this community remains in the northeast corner of the
site.
The very dry maritime Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) biogeoclimatic zone occurs above the
Coastal Douglas-fir (CDF) zone at elevations between 150-m and 700-m and is found in all
major valleys along the east side of Vancouver Island. Similar forest communities are also
common along the Sunshine coast and on the east side of the Fraser valley. The CWH zone is
the most productive forest region in Canada and most of its ecosystems are used for industrial
forestry. There is a long history of timber harvesting within the Vancouver Island CWH zone
and most remaining forests are second or third growth stands.
The CWHxm zone is cooler and wetter than the CDF. Conifers and mosses dominate the
vegetation, while the shrub and herb layers are poorly developed. The plant community of the
CWHxm/03 is typically dominated by Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, and
small amounts of lodgepole pine. The understory species is commonly salal, with scattered red
huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), dull Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa) and baldhip rose
(Rosa gymnocarpa). Twinflower (Linnaea borealis) and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) are the
primary herbs and Oregon beaked moss (Kindbergia oregana) and step moss (Hylocomium
splendens) the common mosses. Plant species recorded on the site during a January 2004 field
survey are included in Appendix 2. Appendix 4 contains a list of plant species and communities
at risk that are known to occur in the South Island Forest District.
The limited geographical extent of these low-elevation forest types and the intensive forestry
activity of the region are partly responsible for the Ministry of Environment classifying
undisturbed examples of these forests as either endangered (Red-list) or vulnerable (Blue-list).
On Crown land, an undisturbed example of the Douglas-fir, western hemlock-salal dry maritime
plant community is on the provincial Blue-list.
The following non-native noxious or invasive species were recorded in 2007 in the LNG storage
area: Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (C.
vulgare), Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus), Orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), Yellow hawkweed (Hieracium pratense), snap
dragon (Antirrhinum majus). Canada thistle and Oxeye daisy are shown in Photo 3.3 in
Appendix 1.
Page 31
Ancillary Facilities
Approximately 60% of the 5 km right of way associated with ancillary facilities is adjacent to
existing roads. Of the 2.1 km of ‘greenfield’ right of way, approximately 40% follows through
recently logged areas. The right of way occurs in recently logged, young, and maturing
coniferous forests in the Coastal Douglas Fir (CDF) and Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH)
biogeoclimatic zones.
The Coastal Douglas Fir biogeoclimatic zone occurs downslope from the CWH zone. The right
of way for the ancillary facilities occurs in the CDF for the first kilometre, before transitioning
into the CWH forests described above. The CDF occurs at low elevations along southeastern
Vancouver Island, at elevations between sea level and 150 m. The CDF occurs in a rainshadow
and therefore experiences relatively warm and dry summers and mild and wet winters. The CDF
experiences the mildest climate in Canada. Typical forests in the area are dominated by Douglas
fir, grand fir, and western redcedar. Common understory species often include salal (Gaultheria
shallon), dull Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), baldhip rose
(Rosa gymnocarpa), snowberry (Symphorocarpus albus), and vanilla leaf (Achlys triphylla). The
lower elevation CDF can be distinguished from the CWH zone because western hemlock is less
prevalent, while grand fir, oceanspray, dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), and snowberry are more
common.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the vegetation habitats crossed by the ancillary facilities. Each of these
habitat types is described below:
•
•
•
Cleared Areas. Many of the forests in the area have been logged within the last 5 to 8
years. Various harvesting techniques were employed, and some of the cleared areas have
well spaced, single seed trees remaining, while others have been completely cleared.
Because of the amount of soil disturbance, non-native species have invaded many of
these cleared areas. The right of way crosses cleared areas for approximately 35% of its
entire length.
Shrubs. Some of the previously cleared areas crossed by the right of way for the
ancillary facilities are currently dominated by shrubby vegetation and tree seedlings.
These areas were cleared less than 20 years ago. Dominant species include salal, red
alder, and western red-cedar, western hemlock, and western white pine seedlings. The
right of way crosses shrub habitat for approximately 10% of its entire length.
Young Forest. Many of the forests on southern Vancouver Island have been cleared
within the past 80 years, and have regenerated to this successional stage. Forest stands
may be predominately single storied, or may have begun to differentiate into distinct
layers. Dominant tree species in the study area include Douglas fir, western hemlock, and
western redcedar, western white pine and red alder. The right of way for the ancillary
facilities will cross young forest habitat for approximately 35% of its length.
Page 32
•
Maturing Forest. Some sections of the right of way cross maturing forest habitats where
trees that have become established since the last disturbance event are maturing, and as a
result, a second layer of shade tolerant trees have developed. The canopy in these forests
tends to be more open, and the understories more developed. In some areas of the study
area, the soils supporting these maturing forests are rich and wet, creating very
productive stands. Western redcedar, black cottonwood, western hemlock, and Douglas
fir are dominant tree species in these areas, and the understory contains red huckleberry
(Vaccinium parvifolium), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and devil’s club (Oplopanax
horridus) in patches. The right of way for ancillary facilities will cross maturing forest
for approximately 20% of its length.
Because of the previous logging disturbances in the area, a number of non-native weed species
have been introduced to the area. In some cases, infestations of these weeds have become
relatively continuous. Species include Scotch broom, yellow hawk weed, clover (Trifolium sp.),
orchard grass, English holly (Ilex aquifolium), Canada thistle, bull thistle, and Himalayan
blackberry.
Effects of the construction phase of the LNG project on the vegetation communities at the LNG
site and ancillary facilities are NOT SIGNIFICANT, since the majority of the area including the
buffer area and proposed pipeline and powerline route, has been logged or significantly affected
by other industrial activities (roads and gravel extraction).
3.1.2.2 Operation
The operational phase of the Terasen project will have a SIGNIFICANT impact on plant
communities because the natural vegetation will not be allowed to regenerate over the majority
of the site or rights-of-way. The vegetation that is restored to the area will be low growing.
Page 33
•
All vegetation will be removed from the work areas for construction purposes.
Drainage # 3 will be rerouted around the northeastern corner of the site to prevent
drainage into the area that will contain the LNG storage tank. The reroute may
require the clearing of additional forested vegetation (Photo 3.4 in Appendix 1).
•
A rare plant survey of the project area will be conducted prior to construction. If
rare plants are found, they will be carefully removed from the site and replanted in a
similar habitat as close to the project area as possible.
•
The spread of noxious weeds and invasive non-native species will be controlled
during construction and during the restoration phase of the project. Species such as
Scotch broom and Canada thistle will be controlled.
•
The organic soil layers will be removed from the site, where practical, prior to
construction. The organic material will be stockpiled onsite. If necessary, the
stockpiles will be seeded with an annual agronomic grass species to prevent wind
erosion and weed invasion.
•
The pipeline and powerline rights-of-way will be stabilized and restored following
construction of the ancillary facilities. Temporary stabilization measures may be
implemented if necessary.
•
Outside of the areas required for maintenance and pipeline inspection, restoration of
the site and connecting rights of way will be completed using native species
appropriate to the area. Where appropriate, plants species of interest to the
Chemainus First Nation will be used in the restoration program.
•
Terasen will stabilize all slopes subject to surface erosion and the site will be
contoured to minimize unwanted runoff.
•
The stockpiled organic material will be redistributed on the site prior to restoration
seeding and planting.
•
The natural forest community will be allowed to regenerate in all portions of the
disturbed area not required for the plant facilities.
•
The Crown land intended for use as a buffer area, will not be disturbed
Mitigated impacts of the LNG facility and connecting rights-of-way on the natural vegetation
communities are considered NOT SIGNIFICANT because the extent of the impact is limited to
the project site and short utility rights-of-way, and changes will not impact the plant
communities adjacent to the project area.
Page 34
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
rR
d.
Figure 3.1
Terasen Gas
Mt. Hayes LNG Storage
te
#
7[
!
!
Vegetation and
Wildlife Habitat
!
!
Young Forest
!
7
#
O
!
Cleared area
!
!
!
Young Forest;
ephemeral drainage
!
[
!
Cameron Road
!
Access Road
Through MoT
Gravel Pit
k
Proposed
Electrical
Substation
!
5431800
!
Ninatti Road
!
m
sla
Cleared Area
!
Ha
e
Cre
Ba
x
Cleared area
!
Proposed Electrical Substation
Proposed LNG Tank
Proposed Pipeline
Existing Mainline
!
!
!
Proposed Powerline
!!
Cleared area
!
!
Young Forest
Cleared area
!
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
!
!
Existing Roads
!
Young Forest
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
5430800
Rezoned Area
!
[
Young Forest
Maturing Wet Forest
!
Cleared Area
!
Cleared Area
!
!
!
[
Maturing Wet Forest
!
!
!
!
!
!
Young/Maturing Forest
!
!
!
[
!
!
!
Cleared Area
!
5429800
!
!
!
Cleared Area
!
Shrubs
!
!
Process
Area
LNG Tank
!
!
!
!
[
Mount
Hayes
O
!
!
Wetland
Pipeline Route Information: IPPI June. 2006;
Base mapping: Government of British Columbia TRIM 2005
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any
errors associated with the data used to generate this
product or in the product itself, users of these data are
advised that errors in the data may be present.
Wetland
Mt. Hayes Main
5428800
Cleared Area
0
UTM 10, NAD 83
November 13, 2007
431598
432598
433598
434598
435598
125
250
Metres
500
±
LNG_tab_wild_141107.mxd
3.2 WILDLIFE
The project area is situated within an industrial managed forest landscape with an extensive fire,
logging, and development history. The LNG storage facility area is situated entirely within a
second-growth coniferous forest with scattered vets, most of which has been recently logged.
The proposed pipeline and powerline route that will connect the storage facility with the existing
utilities near the Island Highway runs for about 4.9 km, mainly through second-growth forest,
recently harvested areas, and cleared areas along an existing road (Baxter Road) corridor.
Vegetation characteristics of forested parts of the area are described in Section 3.1. Wildlife
values in the area are related mainly to the remaining forest and wetland areas, specifically stand
structure, riparian habitats (swamps and tiny creeks), security cover and foraging habitat for
ungulates. As shown in Photo 3.5 in Appendix 1, the site contains scattered veteran coniferous
trees that may provide perching habitat for large raptors such as Bald Eagles and Red-tailed
Hawks. Stand structure is characterized as:
•
•
•
•
Stand Age – young or recently harvested
Canopy Closure – high or none
Wildlife Trees – scattered standing large and old trees and dead snags
Undergrowth – light to moderate in forested areas.
In the LNG storage site, a small swamp wetland is slated for development as the water retention
pond (Photo 3.6 in Appendix 1). The wetland area contains a mix of conifers, snags, small open
areas of dense salal and other shrubs, and pools of water.
Along the right of way for ancillary facilities is an area of mature wet forest that has large
conifers, wildlife trees, and small gap openings in the canopy (KP 1.0 to KP 1.9). A number of
wildlife trees had cavities suitable for secondary cavity nesters, such as western screech owl or
northern pygmy owl. Black bear tracks were observed in some of the gap openings.
Observed and expected wildlife species occurrence and use are typical of low elevation secondgrowth coniferous stands and recently harvested areas on southeastern Vancouver Island. Based
on distributions and habitat reported in Campbell et al (1990a, 1990b, 1997, 2001) and Stevens
(1995), the most abundant breeding birds expected in the area include widely occurring species
such as winter wren, dark-eyed junco, American robin, Swainson’s thrush, Pacific-slope
flycatcher, Hammond’s flycatcher, varied thrush, song sparrow, blue grouse, Steller’s jay and
chestnut-backed chickadee. During site visits in November 2003 and January 2004, the only bird
species observed included pine siskin, red crossbill, winter wren, and dark-eyed junco.
Page 36
Mammals with widespread distribution on eastern Vancouver Island (Cowan and Guiguet 1956)
such as mink, marten, black bear, black-tailed deer, rodents, and shrews likely occur regularly in
the area. During site visits in November 2003 and January 2004 the only mammal observed was
Red Squirrel. During a site visit in September 2007, tracks of black-tailed deer, black bear, and
wolf were observed in the right of way for the ancillary facilities. Sign of black-tailed deer is
relatively common throughout the area including in forest and recently harvested areas. It
appears that deer regularly bed down (Photo 3.7 in Appendix 1) in the swamp wetland area on
the LNG storage site shown in Photo 3.5 (Appendix 1). This area is likely used relatively more
heavily now than previously because it sits entirely within an area recently harvested by
clearcutting and provides good security cover within an otherwise open area.
Some well defined wildlife trails (Photo 3.8 in Appendix 1) occur in both LNG storage tank area
and the right of way for ancillary facilities. Of the Red and Blue-listed birds (Appendix 3) that
occur in the region, only the western screech-owl, northern pygmy-owl, northern goshawk, and
band-tailed pigeon have a moderate likelihood of occurring on the site. Suitable breeding habitat
for the western screech-owl, northern pygmy-owl, and band-tailed pigeon is limited in the
project area, and habitats in the project area are not suitable for breeding northern goshawks.
Occurrences of these species are expected to be rare.
Appendix 3 lists the Red and Blue-listed mammals that occur on southern Vancouver Island. Of
these species, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Roosevelt elk, common water shrew and ermine may
use habitats in the project area. Habitat for bats is limited in the project area due to the lack of
large trees with loose bark and cavities, or caves, for roosting, but some foraging habitat is
present in open areas. Common water shrew and ermine may occur in the maturing wet forests
of the ancillary facilities right of way.
Roosevelt elk are known to occur in the area. The project area has suitable elk habitat, as there is
a mosaic of recently harvested areas for foraging and forested areas for security cover. A
complex of Ungulate Winter Ranges, legally protected areas under the BC Forest and Range
Practices Act, are located adjacent to the LNG storage site and ancillary facility right of way
(Figure 3.2).
Habitat suitability for non-listed forest raptors such as Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk,
merlin, red-tailed hawk, bald eagle, great horned owl, barred owl, and northern saw-whet owl is
minimal or low for much of the project area due to young stand age, scarcity of larger trees, and
scarcity of dense thickets. Veteran trees in the area were examined for presence of large stick
nests, but none were observed.
Woodpecker habitat is limited by the scarcity of wildlife trees. Several wildlife trees at different
stages of decay were observed scattered throughout forested parts of the project area. Wildlife
trees were examined for evidence of recent use by woodpeckers or cavity-nesting birds. Several
snags with very old foraging excavations of Pileated Woodpecker were noted, and are shown in
Page 37
Photo 3.9 in Appendix 1, but no recent sign was observed in the remaining forests of the LNG
site. A number of suitable wildlife trees with more recent excavations of pileated woodpecker
and northern flicker were observed in maturing forest stands crossed by the ancillary facility
right of way.
Construction of the facility will result in a small loss of second-growth forest due to the footprint
of the project, recognizing that the entire area owned by Island Timberlands may be harvested.
Within the fenced compound around the LNG tank, pond, and work areas, regeneration of forest
and vegetation will be discouraged and the value of that area to wildlife will become negligible.
Portions of the storage facility area may not be fenced and natural habitat will be maintained.
Forest cleared for the temporary workspace to construction ancillary facilities will be allowed to
regenerate to an early seral stage with grasses, forbs and small shrubs allowed in areas not used
for maintenance and pipeline inspection. This will provide some new habitat for small mammals
such as rodents and shrews, ground-dwelling birds such as grouse and several songbird species,
and good foraging habitat for deer, elk, and black bears. Forest land included in the buffer area
west of the plant site, with the exception of the utility rights-of-way, will not be impacted.
There will be a loss of a small amount of security cover for ungulates as the swampy area is used
regularly for bedding by ungulates. However, alternative bedding habitat exists throughout the
general area. If the large veteran trees are cut, potential perching habitat and nesting habitat for
large raptors such as bald eagles and red-tailed hawks will be lost, but there are numerous
alternative trees in the general area. Similarly, some suitable wildlife trees may be cleared for
the ancillary facilities right of way, but wildlife trees also occur in adjacent habitats to the narrow
right of way.
Construction activity will likely temporarily displace black-tailed deer, black bear and Roosevelt
elk from using nearby adjacent areas during the construction period, but large amounts of
alternative habitat are available in the general area. The resulting impact is considered to be of
low magnitude and extent and NOT SIGNIFICANT.
3.2.2.2 Operation
Operation of the LNG facility will pose no threat to wildlife populations in the area. However,
increased traffic by Terasen’s Operations Personnel along the access roads to the facility and
activity in and around the project area footprint could discourage use by black-tailed deer and
Roosevelt elk. The ungulates often habituate to routine human activities and impact to use of
nearby areas is expected to minimal.
Page 38
The new rights-of-way will provide new foraging habitat for ungulates, bears, small mammals,
and several bird species.
The resulting operational impacts are considered to be of low magnitude and NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
Minor route adjustments will be considered to minimize overlap with the ungulate winter ranges
occurring adjacent to the LNG storage site and ancillary facilities right of way (west of KP 4.2 to
KP 4.4). To minimize long term disturbance to ungulates, shrubs, and conifers will be planted
along the perimeter of the disturbed area that is adjacent to the ungulate winter range. Plant
species used should be selected to screen operational activities from the ungulate winter range
and increase the habitat’s security values.
Five minor drainages pass through the LNG storage facility site, one of which at least will be
partially diverted during construction. Portions of these drainages (Photo 3.11 in Appendix 1)
that are outside of the fenced perimeter of the storage facility site are candidates for habitat
enhancements in the form of plantings of shrubs and trees that are palatable to ungulates or
provide nesting habitat for songbirds. Retention of Coarse Woody Debris along the drainages
will help maintain habitat for small mammals and amphibians (see Section 3.3).
Seeding of the rights-of-way with native plant species that have good forage value for ungulates
and bears would enhance foraging habitat in the general area and help mitigate the loss of habitat
on the project footprint.
Once clearing plans for the ancillary facilities right of way have been finalized, a route walk of
young and maturing sections of forest to be cleared for the right of way will be completed to
identify and flag wildlife trees. If feasible, clearing of these wildlife trees will be avoided.
All clearing activities will take place outside of the migratory bird breeding season, April 1 to
July 31, to minimize the risks to breeding birds.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, overall impacts are considered to be
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Page 39
Roosevelt Elk Ungulate Winter Range
!
!
!
!
!
!
[
!
!
[
!
Figure 3.2
Storage Facility
!
!
!
!
Ungulate Winter Range
5430726
!
!
Ungulate Winter Range*
!
O
!
!
!
!
!
!
Proposed Pipeline
Proposed Powerline
!
Rezoned Area
!
Mount Hayes Buffer
!
5430226
!
Proposed LNG Tank
!
[
Existing Roads
!
* Data from BC Government LRDW,
September 2007
!
!
±
0
!
100 200
Meters
UTM Zone 10
400
NAD 83
!
5429726
!
1:14,288
!
November 16, 2007
LNG_ltr_uwr_161107.mxd
!
!
!
!
Process
Area LNG Tank
!
!
5429226
!
Western Buffer
20 ha (Crown Land)
[
O
!
!
Retention
Pond
Eastern Buffer
20 ha
(Terasen Property)
Mount
Hayes
5428726
Mt. Hayes Main
REZONED AREA 42 ha
(Terasen Property)
430969
431469
431969
Island
Site West of Mt. HayesTimberlands
432469
432969
433469
433969
3.3 FISH, AMPHIBIANS AND THEIR HABITAT
The project area is located in the extreme upstream and upland portion of an unnamed tributary
to Haslam Creek. There is a 60 m drop over the lower 400 m section of the Unnamed Tributary
(30 percent slope). Based on this information it is likely that barriers to upstream migration are
present and that no upstream migration of fish into the tributary from Haslam Creek occurs.
From 500 m to 1.7 km, the Unnamed Tributary flows across a lower gradient (5%) channel and
wetland area. Based on a field inspection it appears that this portion of the channel has stream
flow volumes and habitat characteristics that have the potential to support resident trout. The
most notable feature is a large wetland (200 m x 60 m - open water pond) located at the upper
end of this section, well outside the footprint for the LNG facility. The site for the LNG facility
is located approximately 1 km upstream from this wetland and is located on several minor
tributaries to this wetland. The mainstem of the “Unnamed Tributary” and a larger tributary are
located to the south and well outside the proposed development area.
The two minor tributaries within the LNG site are at best seasonal channels dry in the summer
and only flowing during the period of winter precipitation. These tributaries were inspected in
both December 2003 and January 2004, both times just after the occurrence of significant storm
events. In both cases, stream discharge was minimal, suggesting that not only would these
channels be dry in the summer, but it is also likely that dewatering could potentially occur during
dry periods over the winter. Due to these observations, it was concluded that these streams could
not support fish year round and it appears that only a part of one of these channels could
potentially support winter rearing by resident fish.
The other aquatic habitat present on the site is a wetland that is located within the footprint of the
proposed retention pond. The wetland, which contains a variety of wetland vegetation species, is
described in more detail in Section 3.1. Standing water (30 cm deep max.) was limited to a small
portion of the wetland at the outlet. For the most part the wetland had a soft, saturated ground
surface but pockets of shallow standing water were so limited and likely seasonal in nature. The
wetland is not thought to provide fish habitat.
The connecting ancillary facility right of way crosses a few ephemeral streams that are expected
to be dry during construction, and are not thought to be fish bearing.
The LNG Storage area has a number of wetlands that are known to be used by red-legged frogs,
a Blue listed species in British Columbia. A detailed assessment for red-legged frogs was
conducted by a qualified herpetologist. The assessment results are presented in Appendix 7.
Page 41
Construction of the LNG facility will require the diversion of a 220 m section of stream channel.
Due to the absence of fish and fish habitat in this stream, there will be no impacts on fish as a
result of construction at the tank site or the diversion of the drainage channel.
It is proposed that the existing wetland be excavated and developed as a much larger water
retention pond. There is also no direct loss of fish habitat in the wetland as potential habitat is
extremely limited.
The creation of the retention pond will affect a wetland used by red-legged frogs. A detailed
assessment is contained in Appendix 7.
Given the short duration and limited extent of these possible impacts, their magnitude is
considered low and the impacts NOT SIGNIFICANT.
3.3.2.2 Operation
Impacts during the operation of the LNG facility and connecting utilities are considered NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
As there is no rearing potential within the tributary proposed for diversion, there is little
requirement for mitigation for fish habitat to be considered. The key issue during construction
will be to ensure that there is no reduction of drainage area presently directed into this system.
Elimination of the wetland will be compensated for by the construction of the retention pond.
Details about the construction of the retention pond and adjacent wetland habitat are contained in
the Red-legged frog assessment report contained in Appendix 7. There is a 100 m section of
stream channel between the retention pond dam outlet and the western property boundary. It is
suggested that increased wetland habitat could be created in this channel. Installing 3 or 4 lowlevel weirs would create shallow impoundments, thus increasing the total amount of wetland
habitat. Wetland vegetation removed and stored during the excavation of the retention pond is
planned to be placed around the margin of the new retention pond and around the margins of
these proposed smaller impoundments.
Page 42
Standard pipeline crossing (dry or isolated) techniques and channel and bank stabilization
procedures will be followed to prevent sedimentation or erosion problems after construction.
Overall impacts to fish and fish habitat are considered NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Page 43
4.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Overview
Terasen applied an extensive site selection process to ensure that the location of the LNG facility
and ancillary facilities would minimize human impacts. The Mt. Hayes site was selected in part
because it is distant from human settlement or other facilities. As a result, the LNG facility and
associated ancillary infrastructure connecting facilities will have few impacts on settled areas,
either in the CVRD, Ladysmith, or the Regional District of Nanaimo.
4.1 URBAN AND RURAL SETTLEMENT
LNG Tank Facility
The proposed LNG facility footprint has been rezoned as U-1 (Utility-LNG) under the Cowichan
Valley Regional District Electoral Area H zoning bylaw. The zoning change accommodates the
construction and operation of the Terasen LNG facility. Conditions of use stipulated in the
bylaw provide direction for the development of the LNG facility.
There is no residential development within three kilometres of the LNG tank site. The nearest
development is north of Timberlands Road, where the Rondalyn Resort recreational vehicle park
houses both temporary and permanent residents. The nearest settlements of substantial numbers
of people is in Cassidy, 5 km to the northeast, and Ladysmith, located on the other side of Mt.
Hayes from the facility, approximately 6 km to the southeast.
Ancillary Infrastructure
The proposed electrical substation is located adjacent to the existing Terasen pipeline right of
way in the Regional District of Nanaimo. The station will be located approximately 500 m
southwest of a mobile home development, and 500 m northwest of a farm and residence.
The pipeline and powerline rights-of-way will extend from the existing Terasen pipeline and the
electrical substation to the LNG site. The rights-of-way will cross private lands held by Island
Timberlands from KP 0.0 to KP 1.0 and one privately-owned rural property for approximately
60 m, from 0.3 to KP 0.4. From KP 1.0 to KP 5.0, the rights-of-way cross provincial Crown
lands. The pipeline and transmission line will be located approximately 1 km south of the
Rondalyn Resort at KP 1.5. An active gravel operation is located between the ancillary
infrastructure and the Rondalyn Resort.
Page 44
Access to the LNG tank site will use a combination of existing resource roads and new access
roads. The new segment of the access road, from KP 1.3 to KP 2.5, will cross Crown land. The
new access road in the LNG buffer and the tank site will cross Crown and private land.
From the electrical substation at KP 0.0 to KP 1.8, the ancillary facilities are located in the
Regional District of Nanaimo. Through this section, the Arrowsmith Benson-Cranberry Bright
Official Community Plan (OCP) applies. The OCP designation for this part of the right-of-way
is Resource.
The rights-of-way will cross lands with the following designations.
•
Agricultural Land Reserve.
•
Sensitive Ecosystem Development Permit Area. The ancillary facilities do not cross any
areas identified in the Area C inventory of natural and environmental features, however, the
electrical substation and approximately 300 m of the right-of-way is located in the Sensitive
Ecosystem Development Permit Area (DPA). The DPA applies to the eastern half of the
Area C OCP area. Where the ancillary facilities cross the DPA, they are located in a heavily
disturbed area previously classified as Forest Land Reserve. Lands that were formerly
managed under the Forest Land Reserve system were exempt from Sensitive Ecosystem DPA
requirements. As a result, the LNG project is not considered inconsistent with this
designation. No issues have been identified.
•
Fish Habitat Protection Development Permit Area. This DPA applies to all mapped and
unmapped watercourses in the plan area. The DPA is established “to ensure the protection of
the natural environment in accordance with the Fish Protection Act by protecting the
features, functions, and conditions critical to support fish processes and ensuring appropriate
measures are in place for the protection of the natural environment.” If applicable, Terasen
will address DPA requirements.
From KP 1.8 to the LNG site at KP 5.0, the rights-of-way are located in the CVRD, Area H
(North Oyster-Diamond). The planning designation for this area is F-1, Primary Forestry. The
ancillary facilities are not inconsistent with this designation.
A site reportedly used historically for manufacturing explosives lies to the north of the pipeline
lateral near its junction with the Vancouver Island mainline (Reynolds pers. comm.). Facilities
have been removed from this site, and the property will not be disturbed by pipeline or road
construction.
Page 45
During construction, the most noticeable effect the project will have on nearby settlements is a
modest increase in truck traffic. Through the two and one half year construction interval, almost
daily work will be conducted at the LNG site. Heavy equipment will be needed to grade the
facility and low-boy trailers will need to access the site with materials and equipment. Present
designs call for an average of three trucks per day to support construction, plus 25 cars for
construction workers each day. These estimates include construction of the LNG facility, plus
support ancillary facilities.
The effect of these traffic volumes on human settlements is considered to be low, given the
resource-based focus of the area, and distance between the project and residences. Road access
to the future LNG tank site is currently via the Island Timberlands gated road. Public access to
the site is presently limited, so the LNG project will not disrupt existing access to the site.
The usual nuisance impact associated with construction (noise, dust, mud) will not affect
communities because of the substantial distance between the LNG site and housing. Impacts of
construction of the electrical substation, pipeline, transmission line, and access road are expected
to be of short duration. Nuisance impacts are expected to be minor and the impact is considered
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
4.1.2.2 Operation
The operation of the LNG facility will produce little or no noise or emissions that will affect
settled areas. The use of liquefaction and vapourization units, pumps, and other equipment at the
tank site will generate little noise that will be heard beyond the property boundary. It is
conceivable that when the gas odorizer unit is being recharged with odorant from a truck, a small
amount of odorant may escape. These small, fugitive emissions are unlikely to be noticed by any
residents. Traffic on the access road during normal operations will be negligible. With an
average of two employees onsite during the day, and one at night, traffic is estimated to be six
vehicles per day (including employees and deliveries). As with the construction traffic, these
vehicles will use the private gravel road, Baxter Road, Timberlands Road, and the Island
Highway, having little effect on neighbourhoods.
Operation of the pipeline and transmission line is not expected to affect human use. Operational
impacts on settled areas are temporary and low in magnitude, and are considered NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
Page 46
With the LNG facility and utility connections being constructed according to proven designs,
standards and construction techniques, few additional mitigation measures are needed to protect
settled areas. Prior to construction of the LNG tank and ancillary facilities, information will be
distributed through local media. Signage will be used in and around construction areas to notify
users and residents of active operations.
If road or pipeline construction is conducted during a dry period of the year, some dust
suppression actions may be needed. Any blasting or similar noisy activities associated with
construction should be conducted during daylight hours to minimize disruption of distant
residents.
4.2 TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES, AND SERVICES.
LNG Tank Facility
Transportation in the vicinity of the site is provided by logging roads owned or maintained by
Timberwest and Island Timberlands. These roads are connected to the Island Highway via
Baxter Road and Timberlands Road. (See section 4.5 for a discussion of forest roads).
The British Columbia Land and Resource Data Warehouse was reviewed to determine the
location of ground water wells and points of diversion (PODs) on or near the proposed LNG
storage facility. No wells or PODs were found within 2 km of the proposed LNG facility.
Electrical, water, and sewer services do not exist on or near the LNG tank site.
The closest wells to the ancillary facilities are located approximately 300 m northwest of KP 0.5,
and 300 m southeast of KP0.0. A cluster of wells and PODs is located approximately 1 km
southeast of KP 0.0.
The project calls for access along existing industrial roads, and the construction of 1.8 km of new
road. The connection of these roads will provide a linkage from the electrical substation to the
Page 47
LNG facility. Some upgrading of the existing logging road will also be conducted. The
completed access route will generally parallel the pipeline and powerline rights-of-way. This
road will be a gravel road, passing through several areas that have been clearcut logged, and
some areas with standing timber.
The reduction of operable forest resulting from the construction of the access road is considered
a low magnitude impact.
The construction of the LNG facility will result in approximately 2300 transport and equipment
truck trips over a 2.5-year construction period. The trucks will include:
•
Construction equipment,
•
Tank component transport,
•
Concrete transport,
•
Process equipment and piping transport,
•
Gravel and soil,
•
Pipeline materials and construction equipment,
•
Electricity transmission materials and construction equipment, and
•
Other delivery trucks.
Over the construction period, approximately three trucks per day could be expected. During
certain intervals, the volume of truck traffic will be higher, potentially increasing to ten trucks
per day. In addition to this truck traffic, approximately 25 construction worker vehicles will
access the site each day. These volumes are modest, and will not create a significant impact on
the existing road system. Even at peak construction periods, little or no disruption of the
transportation system is expected.
Pipeline and transmission line infrastructure will be built adjacent to existing roads for more than
half of the distance from the electrical substation to the LNG tank site. In the remainder, an
access road will be developed. Construction of the ancillary infrastructure will not add
significant volumes of traffic nor generally cause public access to be restricted.
Drinking and other water will be trucked in during construction. A liquid waste management
service will be retained during construction.
The ancillary facilities in the Regional District of Nanaimo will be located in the North Oyster
Fire Protection Area. Terasen will communicate with fire officials from this Fire Protection area
and the Ladysmith fire department prior to and during the construction of the project to increase
preparedness and to reduce fire risks. Construction of the support infrastructure is not expected
to affect nearby fire protective services. The impact is considered to be NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Page 48
The magnitude of impacts of these service facilities on the site and surrounding areas are low.
Impacts are considered NOT SIGNIFICANT.
4.2.2.2 Operation
The LNG facility is expected to have a maximum of nine permanent employees, with an average
of two staff onsite during the day and one at night. This number of employees working three
shifts per day could generate up to five vehicles per day carrying employees. An additional one
car or truck per day on average could reach the site with deliveries or visitors. This level of
traffic is considered to be of low magnitude, and the impact on the existing road system is
considered NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Drinking water for the facility will be provided by truck. Other domestic or industrial water and
fire-fighting water will be provided by the pond and tank system on the site. The aquatic effects
of the pond system are discussed in Section 2.2.
Sewage disposal will be provided via a septic field.
These utilities will have no effect on surrounding services, and the impact is considered NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
The proposed LNG site lies outside of local fire protection service areas. Terasen will not rely
on adjacent fire departments for fire protection services, but will provide these services on-site.
Terasen will establish protocols with and liaise with the local fire department and provide
opportunities for LNG emergency training for local fire fighters. The LNG facility is not
expected to have an impact on nearby fire protective services, and the impact is considered to be
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
As planned, the LNG facility and utility connections will require little mitigation to avoid
impacts on transportation, utilities, and services. Terasen will:
provide flag persons at road crossings if required by the movement of oversize loads
or large numbers of construction vehicles during short intervals
provide water to nearby residents if water supply is disrupted during the construction
period, and
communicate with local fire departments to share project information
Page 49
4.3 AGRICULTURE
LNG Tank Facility
The LNG tank is not located in an area that supports agricultural activity. The LNG facility site
and electrical substation do not affect any land used for agriculture or lands designated under the
provincial Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) system.
The ancillary facilities will cross approximately 700 m of ALR lands (from KP 1.1 to KP 1.8).
The ALR land crossed by the ancillary facilities are currently forested, poorly drained, and are
not used for farming or ranching.
The ALR lands crossed by the project are forested and are not actively used for agriculture.
Terasen will obtain appropriate permits to cross ALR lands with the ancillary facilities.
Construction of the project will not disturb agricultural activity, and as a result, the impact is
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
4.3.2.2 Operation
It is unlikely that the forested ALR land crossed by the LNG project will be cultivated in the
foreseeable future. The location of the ancillary facilities on the forested ALR is not expected to
limit agricultural activity on nearby parcels of land. The land crossed by the ancillary facilities
could have future restrictions as to the type of activity that can be undertaken on these grounds,
to protect the integrity of the underground pipeline. Given the small amount of land that will be
affected, the impact is NOT SIGNIFICANT
4.3.2.3 Mitigation
The pipeline and transmission line rights-of-way will be restored and replanted with appropriate
species. Given the ALR status of the land, but the lack of agricultural activity, no agricultural
mitigation is required.
Page 50
4.4 SUB-SURFACE RESOURCES
Large bands of land across southern Vancouver Island have been staked for sub-surface mineral
exploration and extraction purposes, and have a long history of resource extraction. Small
concentrations of mineral tenures exist in the vicinity of the LNG project. The LNG tank facility
will not be located in or adjacent to any sub-surface resource claims.
The electrical substation, and approximately 500 m of the ancillary facilities will be located in a
944 ha coal tenure claim from KP 0.0 to KP 0.5. Through this section, the pipeline and
transmission line will be adjacent to the existing forest service road. No new access road will be
constructed in this segment.
The pipeline, transmission line, and a segment of the access road will cross a 169 ha mineral
tenure from KP 1.9 to KP 2.5. From KP 2.5 to KP 3.0, the pipeline and transmission line will
cross the mineral tenure, but will be adjacent to the existing forest service road, reducing effects
on the tenure.
No active exploration or development has been identified for the two sub-surface tenures.
Access may be temporarily affected during the construction period, but these impacts are not
expected to substantially affect tenure holders. The impact is NOT SIGNIFICANT.
4.4.2.2 Operation
Exploration and development will likely be restricted near the pipeline right-of-way after the
project is complete due to safety considerations. The location of the ancillary facilities adjacent
to the forest service road for approximately half of the distance the tenure is crossed will reduce
potential impacts on future exploration and development. The impact is NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Page 51
4.4.2.3 Mitigation
Terasen will work with tenure holders to identify issues and reach agreements with regard to
potential project effects on mineral extraction. The discussions are expected to resolve any
concerns held by the tenure holders.
4.5 FORESTRY AND OTHER RESOURCE USE
LNG Facility
The forests of the project area are in the “Very Dry Maritime, Coastal Western Hemlock
(CWHxm)” biogeoclimatic zone. The forest that existed prior to harvest was predominantly
Coastal Douglas-fir with a minor stand component of western redcedar. Small amounts of
Lodgepole pine and deciduous species occupy niche sites in isolated areas.
The LNG facility site and associated infrastructure is located in the South Island Forest District.
The LNG tank facility will be located on private lands. Much of the 42 ha area rezoned as U-1
to accommodate the LNG project, has been logged. A wetland area, 1.2 ha in size, has been
reserved from forest harvesting, consistent with regulations directing forestry and harvesting
activity in British Columbia.
The Crown land west of the site to be utilized as a buffer is in the Provincial Forest and
approximately 50 percent of the land has been clearcut harvested. Island Timberlands is
currently laying out cutblocks in the eastern portion of the buffer area.
Approximately 3.3 ha of the 4.4 ha of the site to be developed for the tank area and the
processing site have been recently logged. Approximately 1 ha on the north side of the project
site remains treed.
In 2004, most of the area to be developed for the LNG facility was located in Block 814, held by
Weyerhaeuser Co. Since that time, Island Timberlands has purchased the property. No forestry
operations are planned in the area in the next two years (Dodd, pers. comm.). However, one cut
block has been laid out, and another is being planned (Figure 4.1). One block is centred on
Mount Hayes, east of the LNG project in the project buffer. The second block is centred on
Island Timberlands property, more than 750 m southeast of the ancillary facilities from KP 2.5 to
KP 4.0. Road construction for these two blocks is expected to occur in 2009 at the earliest, with
possible forest harvesting to occur in 2010. As currently planned, the proposed roads do not
cross the area rezoned for the LNG facility and is located well away from the ancillary facilities.
No forestry issues have been identified.
Page 52
The woodlot held by the Chemainus First Nation has been recently expanded. The woodlot
includes much of the buffer area to the east of the area zoned to accommodate the Terasen LNG
facility.
Timberwest also manages forests in the Mt. Hayes region (Dodd, pers. comm.), although logging
plans in the project area are unknown.
Roads in the vicinity of the LNG facility are forest service roads and private roads under the
management of Timberwest and Island Timberlands. Public roads managed by Timberwest and
Island Timberlands are authorized under road use permits from the Province of British
Columbia.
The pipeline and transmission line will cross private and Crown lands currently used for forestry
and gravel extraction purposes. Private land parcels owned by Island Timberlands and an
individual are crossed for 1km and 60 m respectively. The pipeline and transmission line cross
Crown land for the remainder of the right-of-way length.
The ancillary facilities will cross the Chemainus First Nation woodlot from KP 1.8 to KP 5.0.
Approximately 1.2 km of the right-of-way will require clearing of mature trees. Immature trees
will be cleared from cutblocks for 1.5 km of the route length.
Page 53
Figure 4.1
Proposed Island Timberlands Harvest Blocks and Roads
10
0
!
!
Storage Facility
!
5430678
!
200
ISLAND
TIMBERLANDS
GP LTD.
!
Site West of Mt. Hayes
CROWN
Proposed Island Timberlands
Harvest Blocks and Roads
TIMBERWEST
FOREST
I LIMITED
!
ISLAND
TIMBERLANDS
GP LTD.
!
Island Timberlands
Future Harvest Block*
!
ISLAND
TIMBERLANDS
GP LTD.
Future Forest Road*
!
Proposed LNG Tank
300
TIMBERWEST
Rezoned
Area
FOREST
I
LIMITED
Mount Hayes Buffer
ISLAND
TIMBERLANDS
GP LTD.
!
!
!
Existing Roads
Western Buffer 20 ha
(Crown Land)
!
Forest Roads - Permitted
400
!
Forest Service Roads
!
!
* Future harvest block and road information
provided by Island Timberlands,
November 2007.
Forest Roads, BC Government LRDW,
November 2007
[
Process
Area
!
±
95
CROWN
190
Meters
UTM Zone 10
LNG
Tank
O
!
!
1:15,000
0
Eastern
Buffer
20 ha
(Terasen
Property)
380
Retention
Pond
NAD 83
Mount
Hayes
5428678
s
Mt. H aye Main
November 16, 2007
CROWN
!
5429678
!
Proposed Powerline
100
!
!
ISLAND
TIMBERLANDS
GP LTD.
!
Proposed Pipeline
Existing Mainline
!
20
0
!
O!
!
!
#
7
[
Proposed Electrical Substation
ISLAND
TIMBERLANDS
GP LTD.
ISLAND
TIMBERLANDS
GP LTD.
Block#
011207
LNG_ltr_tim_161107.mxd
REZONED AREA 42 ha
(Terasen Property)
ISLAND
TIMBERLANDS
GP LTD.
300
CROWN
CROWN
300
30
0
300
431294
432294
433294
434294
Block#
012101
With recent harvesting in the project area, no logging will be required to undertake construction
of the LNG facility. Because much of the project area is in a logging clearcut area, removal of
logging slash will be conducted as part of site preparation. Burning may be required to remove
logging slash.
Clearing for the pipeline and powerline right will be required north and east of the plant site.
Depending on the LNG construction schedule, and the location of Island Timberlands
development interests, overlaps could occur with forest road construction and LNG project
construction. Co-ordination with Island Timberlands will be important to reduce potential
overlaps.
Communication with the Chemainus First Nation will be required to identify operational issues
and coordinate access to their woodlot during the LNG construction period.
Of the total area to be developed for the LNG tank site, site preparation and construction activity
will eliminate approximately 12 ha of new plantation. A smaller area will be removed for the
ancillary facility rights-of-way. This removal is considered to be of limited extent and low
magnitude. The impact is NOT SIGNIFICANT.
4.5.2.2 Operation
The impacts of the loss of the disturbed area (approximately 12 ha) to sustainable forest
management are negligible in the context of the productive forest lands on Vancouver Island.
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Terasen will communicate development plans with Island Timberlands, Timberwest, and the
Chemainus First Nation to reduce traffic or other operational conflicts during construction of the
LNG project and use of resource roads.
Page 55
4.6 RECREATION AND BACKCOUNTRY USE
Although much portions of the forested land around Mt. Hayes is in private hands, members of
the public nonetheless gain access to this area for backcountry recreation. All-terrain vehicle
(ATV) use of the road is common, both on the private land and on adjacent Crown land.
Although specific information on the kinds of recreational activities is not available, similar
areas elsewhere are used for such activities as ATV use, hunting, hiking, collection of nontimber forest products, and wildlife viewing. It is likely that these kinds of activities also occur
in the Mt. Hayes area. The extent and intensity of these uses are not known.
The BC recreation inventory identifies the recreational importance of the areas across British
Columbia on a scale from low, moderate, high, and very high. The LNG facility and electrical
substation are unranked.
A section of the supporting ancillary facilities, from KP 0.9 to KP 5.0 is ranked as moderate
recreation importance under the BC recreation inventory system.
The Trans Canada Trail parallels a forest service road in the vicinity of the LNG ancillary
facilities (Photo 4.1). The new pipeline, transmission line, and access road will cross the Trans
Canada trail at KP 1.9.
A substantial amount of activity will occur on the site and on the rights-of-way and access roads
during the construction period. Construction activities may prove disruptive for those seeking to
use nearby logging roads although these potential impacts will be temporary and are not
considered much different from the current situation where active logging results in significant
truck traffic at certain times. Hikers on the Trans Canada Trail may be temporarily rerouted, or
alternative means of access provided across the disturbed area during the construction period to
ensure public safety. These impacts will be temporary, lasting only as long as construction in the
vicinity of the trail.
The number of people affected is unknown, but due to the distance from population centres and
the temporary nature of the disturbance, the magnitude of the impact is considered low and the
duration short. Trans Canada Trail users may encounter truck traffic during the construction
Page 56
period. These impacts will only last as long as the construction period. The impact on trail use
is considered NOT SIGNIFICANT.
The construction of the LNG facility will remove 12 ha from the inventory of backcountry lands
available for public use. This small area is considered to have a NOT SIGNIFICANT impact
on the total inventory of wild lands in Area H.
4.6.2.2 Operation
Because the LNG facility itself is relatively quiet, it is not expected to have a disruptive effect on
surrounding recreational or backcountry use. As is the case during construction, approximately
12 ha will be removed from the inventory of land available for recreation or backcountry use.
The overall impact of the facilities on recreation and backcountry use is considered to have a low
magnitude and to be not significant.
The Terasen facilities are being designed to minimize environmental impact. Construction to
meet these design goals will create little need to mitigate impacts on recreation and backcountry
use. Maintaining a quiet facility with limited nighttime lighting will reduce the noticeable effect
of the facility on the surrounding backcountry. If trucks involved in construction cross the Trans
Canada Trail, caution signs will be posted both hikers and drivers. Signage will also be posted at
trail access points to alert hikers to potential disruption along the trail. The trail will be restored
to pre-construction levels.
4.7 ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE
The proposed South Island Timberlands site for the Terasen LNG facility is situated within the
asserted traditional territory of the Chemainus First Nation of Vancouver Island. The Chemainus
Nation represents one of six southern Vancouver Island First Nations who are members of the
Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group. The Treaty Group represents all six Nations for the purposes of
on-going negotiations with the two senior levels of government in the current B.C. Treaty
Process. Since the proposed Terasen LNG facility will be situated on private land (presently part
of Island Timberlands’ holdings), the site is unlikely to be subject to future land claims or
restrictions that may be part of an eventual treaty agreement. A Crown Land parcel situated
adjacent to the west boundary of the proposed LNG plant site could be included in the
preliminary land selection suite being negotiated by the Hul'qumi’num Treaty Group, although
this has not been confirmed. The route of the proposed rights-of-way to serve the LNG plant
Page 57
may cross a portion of this Crown parcel, as will the buffer area required to the west of the
Weyerhaeuser property.
With respect to archaeological resources that may be protected under the terms of the B.C.
Heritage Conservation Act, our review of the B.C. Archaeological Site Registry Data Base
(maintained by the Archaeology and Registry Services Branch of the B.C. Ministry of
Sustainable Resource Management) indicates that there are no documented archaeological sites
or features within either the LNG plant site or along any portion of the utility rights-of-way
alignment. Furthermore, the results of two reconnaissance-level field examinations of the
proposed LNG plant site – including examinations of numerous existing sub-surface exposures
and standing red cedars and other extant timber species on the plant site) did not locate any
archaeological sites or features. These examinations also indicate that the LNG plant site locale,
including the adjacent buffer area, has a low to nil potential for containing evidence of
archaeological deposits, remains, or features, whether on the surface or in a sub-surface context.
An archaeological assessment of the utility right-of-way (pipelines and powerline) was
recommended in the Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) project that focused on the
LNG plant site. The Overview Study report indicated that the proposed utility alignment might
contain areas of archaeological site potential (including culturally modified trees, or CMTs), as
well as culturally sensitive areas of interest to local First Nations people. The examination of the
utility right-of-way focused on the following objectives:
•
to identify and document archaeological resources if present; and
•
to identify areas that might have a potential for containing archaeological resources
and for which additional archaeological investigations at the Archaeological Impact
Assessment (AIA) level might be required.
Our review of archaeological and ethnographic literature sources for the study area, coupled with
information obtained from Chemainus First Nation sources, indicated that the Haslam Creek
drainage, lying well to the north of the ancillary facilities has always been an important natural
resource procurement area for the Chemainus people, mainly associated with deer and elk
hunting, as well as fishing and plant gathering activities. In particular, the area now occupied by
the Rondalyn Resort and trailer park is considered to be a sacred and important place to the
Chemainus people (John Jim, personal communication, March, 2004). However, we must note
that the lands traversed by the proposed pipeline are well to the south of the Rondalyn property
and, to our knowledge, do not contain any specific areas of cultural significance to the
Chemainus Nation.
Most areas containing evidence of past aboriginal land-use or settlement on southern Vancouver
Island occur in the form of shell midden deposits found along ocean shorelines, although a small
number of shell midden deposits have also been documented in inland locations. A more
Page 58
common cultural feature in inland areas is the occurrence of Culturally Modified Tree (CMT)
features associated primarily with first-growth forested lands. Culturally modified trees provide
evidence of past (and sometimes continuing) forest utilization practices by local First Nations
people, but these features are normally associated with areas containing stands of first-growth
timber, primarily red cedar. We note in this context that virtually no first-growth timber has
been observed in the LNG plant study area or along the utility rights-of-way. However, there is
ample evidence of once large stands of old-growth red cedar and Douglas-fir throughout the
area. This is now in the form of old stumps, most of which exhibit “spring-board” notches,
indicative of old-growth timber harvesting practices prior to the common use of chain saws for
felling trees, generally accepted as being prior to the World War II era.
Another archaeological site type found in inland locations, particularly in the Nanaimo to
Chemainus area of Vancouver Island, are “petroglyphs”, or rock carvings. Such sites contain
incised geometric, human, and anthropomorphic figures – usually on sandstone –the past
meaning or function of which are generally unknown. As already noted, a prerequisite for high
petroglyph potential is the presence of sandstone boulders or exposed outcrops of sandstone,
none of which have been observed in the specific LNG plant study area or along the access
rights-of-way.
As indicated in the foregoing report section, the LNG plant site contains no known
archaeological sites or features and is considered to have a low to nil potential for the presence of
as-yet undiscovered archaeological resources. Given this scenario, it is expected that the
proposed construction of the LNG plant facility will have no impact on archaeological sites or
features in the footprint of the plant and its associated facilities (i.e. Retention Pond, ProcessWork Areas, Access Roads, Parking and Service Areas, etc.).
A field reconnaissance of the proposed utility alignment corridor was carried out by a threeperson field team composed of the project archaeologist (Bjorn Simonsen) and two members of
the Chemainus First Nation (John Jim and Lawrence Harris). The field team carried out a foot
traverse of the entire 5 km alignment corridor, beginning at the site of the proposed LNG plant
and buffer area, and proceeding east to its terminus at the existing Terasen pipeline just south of
Timberlands Road.
Numerous stumps and fallen timber from pre-World War II logging activity along the utility
corridor were examined for the presence of cultural modification. The types of cultural
modification evidence that might have been expected to be found include “test holes,”
aboriginally logged stumps,” “plank scarred trees,” and “canoe tree,” all part of the Aboriginally-
Page 59
Logged Trees category for coastal British Columbia. CMTs (Stryd, 1997; 29). More commonly
occurring bark-stripped trees were not expected to be found, due to the effect of past clearcut
logging in all sections of the corridor.
At the conclusion of our field examination, no evidence of cultural modification had been
observed on any of the old-growth stumps, fallen timber or second-growth stands, nor were any
areas that might have supported past settlement of other cultural activity identified. One location
in the mid-portion of the corridor was found to contain a patch of devil’s club (Oplopanax
horridus). The devil’s club was found at the edge of a cedar swamp, just south of the large
gravel pit. Devil’s club is a valued medicine plant by members of the Chemainus Nation and is
rare in the study area (John Jim, personal communication, March, 2004). The patch of devil’s
club appears to be situated within the corridor, but could be easily avoided by a minor
adjustment. In order to facilitate re-location by field surveyors in the course of plotting the final
utility alignment, the field team marked the boundaries of the patch with orange flagging and
recorded the GPS coordinates.
4.7.2.2 Operation
The Operation stage of the proposed Terasen LNG project is not expected to have any impact on
archaeological resources. This conclusion is based on our finding that no archaeological
resources are present, or if present, that any operational impacts can be readily mitigated.
4.7.3 Mitigation Measures and Additional Study
In the case of the proposed LNG plant site location and buffer area, where no archaeological
resources are known or anticipated, no mitigative actions are required. This conclusion also
applies to the access and service rights-of-way.
It is the opinion of the project archaeologist that the LNG plant site and buffer and the utility
corridor – as presently proposed – have no potential for containing archaeological resources and
that no further archaeological investigations are considered warranted, either prior to or in the
course of pipeline construction. If, however, changes are made to the location of the LNG site or
the utility corridor, archaeological investigation should be conducted prior to ground disturbing
activities.
4.8 AESTHETIC EFFECTS
The landscape in which the LNG site and access and service rights-of-way is located can be
categorized as rolling. The low hills, such as Mt. Hayes, and other ridges help to define valleys
Page 60
that descend from the mountainous spine to the coastal plain of eastern Vancouver Island. The
study area landscape has been heavily disturbed by logging activity. Much of the LNG facility
site and surroundings have been recently clearcut and is covered by logging slash. Surrounding
areas are forested with mature and immature coniferous trees. These forested areas are
interrupted by cutblocks and logging roads.
Construction of the project facilities will be characterized by moderate truck and vehicle traffic
accessing the site, clearing, grading, and potentially some blasting. During dry periods, this
activity may generate dust. Clearing of the site and removal of existing slash will likely be
accompanied by slash burning. Even with adherence to provincial guidelines for slash burning,
smoke generated by slash burning may be noticeable in Ladysmith or Cassidy.
These aesthetic effects will be modest. Not only will the impacts be of short duration, but also
the construction area is so isolated that few people will notice negative aesthetic effects of
construction. Hence, the aesthetic effects of project construction are considered to be of low
magnitude and NOT SIGNIFICANT.
4.8.2.2 Operation
The completed LNG facility will be located on the west-facing flanks of Mt. Hayes. The tank
and buildings associated with the LNG facility will be below the ridgeline of Mt. Hayes, and
therefore will neither be silhouetted nor will they disrupt the contours of the mountain. The site
is low enough on the mountainside to be blocked from view from the primary population centers
of Ladysmith and Cassidy. Location of most of the utility corridor adjacent to the existing
access road will ensure the landscape along the corridor is not significantly changed from that
which exists at present. Terasen’s investigations indicate that the tank will not be visible to any
residents. The distance separating the facility from residents will ensure that neither construction
nor operation of the LNG facility will result in aesthetic effects.
Terasen will install lighting at the LNG facility that complies with Workers’ Compensation
Board requirements and is consistent with standard industrial practice. These lights will be
shielded to reduce leakage of light to the night sky. The introduction of industrial levels of
lighting into the dark rural landscape will constitute a change from existing conditions. As with
visibility, the distance between the LNG facility and the nearest resident will reduce the
magnitude of the lighting impact to low levels, and also will ensure that the impact remains NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
Page 61
Even though the aesthetic impacts of the LNG facility are of low magnitude and not significant,
Terasen will implement some measures to further reduce aesthetic impacts.
•
Reducing lighting levels would further mitigate noticeable light. Recognizing that
worker safety and facility security are high priorities, Terasen will investigate the
use of low-intensity lighting in non-critical areas, and put the lighting on timers,
motion detectors, or human activated switches. Using the minimum level of
necessary light, and only during periods when it is needed, will not only limit visual
impacts, but will reduce energy consumption and operating costs of the facility.
•
Terasen will paint the LNG tank and ancillary structures in non-reflective earth
tones. Such a colour scheme will reduce the potential visibility of the facility in the
rural landscape.
•
Minimizing the cleared right-of-way for the combined road, pipeline, and powerline
will reduce the vegetation and visual effects of the development.
4.9 NOISE EFFECTS
The proposed LNG facility is located in a relatively remote area. Noise at the Mt. Hayes site is
generally environmental background generated by wind through the trees, birds, and water in
small streams. Industrial noise can be heard when logging operations are underway, involving
falling, bucking, loading, hauling, road building, etc. Also occasional through traffic (trucks)
can be heard. Equipment and trucks operating in the gravel pits near the ancillary facility
corridor generate noise during daylight hours. The nearest resident to the proposed site is 3 km
away. The operation of the proposed Terasen LNG facility will have no impact on the existing
noise sources, i.e. environmental background and logging activities will likely continue in the
general area.
Construction is anticipated to extend over a 2 1/2 year period, beginning in the spring of 2008.
Construction activities listed below will occur only during specific time periods over the full
construction period, as required to complete the facility. Daytime noise sources during
construction would include:
•
Activities that currently occasionally occur in the area:
Page 62
•
o
Timber clearing;
o
Upgrading of the existing access road and construction of a short section of
new road ; and
o
Transportation of personnel.
New activities that will occur:
o
Stump and brush clearing;
o
Site civil work including cutting and filling to prepare the site for facility
equipment and building construction;
o
Blasting to prepare the site for foundation work in areas of bedrock; and
o
Rough grading of the site.
General construction activities associated with tank erection include building framing and
erection, pipe fabrication, hauling of equipment and materials, pile driving, and other general
industrial construction site work. Diesel driven power generators and air compressors will be
required until the electricity line is installed.
During construction, noise at the facility site will not affect local residents due to the separation
distance.
Local residents near the existing Terasen transmission pipeline will possibly hear the short term
noise from construction of the pipeline laterals, power supply line, and access road
improvements. These activities will occur during normal daylight working hours for the period
of time required to complete the work. These impacts are of moderate magnitude, moderate
duration, and local impact and are considered to be NOT SIGNIFICANT.
4.9.2.2 Operation
Operation of the proposed LNG facility encompasses two distinct phases:
1.
Liquefaction occurs over a maximum of up to 200 days (assuming a complete refill
of the tank is required) each year, during warmer spring, summer, and fall weather.
The main source of noise will be the approx. 5,000 horsepower electric driven
compressor(s) for the liquefaction cycle. This compressor and two or three small
boil-off compressors will be housed in an acoustically engineered building, limiting
sound transmission. The liquefaction system will have several fan-cooled heat
exchangers and a regeneration heater with a fan, all located outdoors. The fans will
create a low volume, low pitched noise.
2.
Gas send-out occurs up to 100 days per year, and involves electric driven pumps
and vapourizers to regasify the LNG for transport to the Terasen pipeline system.
Page 63
Acoustic enclosures will be incorporated in the facility design, and noise levels
associated with this equipment will be minimal.
During the periods when the plant is neither liquefying nor sending out, it will be in a holding
mode. During the holding mode, a boil off compressor will operate part time along with one air
cooled heat exchanger.
During operation of the plant, Terasen employees will work at the site and walk around the
facility carrying on conversations in normal talking level tones, without significant noise impact.
Operational noise impacts are of moderate magnitude during short intervals and low magnitude
most of the time. In both cases, the impact is considered to be NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Construction activities at the proposed LNG facility site will be remote from any local residents,
so that no noise impacts are expected.
Construction of the road improvements and pipeline and power connections will have short-term
localized impacts during daylight hours, and other than blasting in areas of bedrock outcrop, will
be minimal relative to local traffic noise, gravel pit operation, and logging activities.
Acoustic specifications will be incorporated into the operational performance specification for
the design and construction of the facility. Noise mitigation will also occur through attenuation
provided by the surrounding trees and topography.
4.10 DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY
An examination of the provincial database concludes that there are no licensed water intakes
within three km of the proposed site, and none on Haslam Creek to the north of the proposed
LNG facility. Drainage from the Mt. Hayes site is generally north and northwest into Haslam
Creek.
The proposed site is well removed from the Cassidy groundwater aquifer to the east and north.
The Cassidy aquifer lies north of Mt. Hayes and is more than two km from the LNG facility site.
Potable water required for the workers at the plant will be delivered to the site by truck. A water
well will not be drilled at the site for this purpose.
Page 64
There will be no effects on domestic water supply as a result of constructing or operating the
LNG facility. Impacts on domestic water are considered NOT SIGNIFICANT.
No mitigation measures are necessary to protect domestic water supply.
4.11 ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The economic base of the area near to the LNG facility is characterized by:
•
•
•
•
forestry and silviculture, particularly in Electoral Area “H,”
tourism and food services (nearby recreational vehicle parks, restaurants and pubs),
transportation (airport, highway-related commercial), and
residential development and personal services (primarily in Ladysmith).
Development is proceeding at a modest pace in Ladysmith. Rates of growth of economic
activity in other areas (CVRD Area “H,” RDN Areas “A” and “C”) are low.
Preliminary estimates indicate that construction of the LNG facility will create about 840 personyears of employment in British Columbia, of which approximately 290 person-years (direct and
indirect) will be in local communities.
Total construction expenditures on the LNG Project are estimated at approximately $165.3
million, (in 2007 dollars). Expenditures in British Columbia are estimated to total approximately
$73.0 million. Expenditures in the local area are estimated to total $50.3 million. Total
expenditures are summarized in Table 4.1.
Of the $50.3 million to be spent in the local area, approximately $10.1 million will be spent on
labour and $18.6 million will be spent on goods and services (including land acquisition). For
British Columbia as a whole, approximately $15.6 million will be spent on labour and $26.1
million will be spent on goods and services.
Page 65
Table 4.1 Expenditure Pattern by Construction Element (2007 $)
Element
Local Area
All BC
Canada
(ex – BC)
ex-Canada
TOTAL
Project Services
$1,800,000
$5,300,000
$900,000
$2,100,000
$8,200,000
Land Acquisition
$4,700,000
$4,700,000
$0
$0
$4,700,000
Materials
$10,500,000
$15,800,000
$6,100,000
$36,800,000
$58,700,000
Installation
$28,000,000
$41,100,000
$14,000,000
$26,300,000
$81,400,000
$5,300,00
$6,100,000
$1,800,000
$4,400,000
$12,300,000
$50, 300,000
$73,000,000
$22,800,000
$69,500,000
$165,300,000
Contingencies
TOTAL
This assessment presents the economic effects of the LNG Project in terms of the following
economic factors:
•
Direct effects: the change in domestic output in British Columbia required to satisfy
the initial change in demand caused by the LNG Project.
•
Indirect effects: the change in provincial domestic output generated by the activity
of industry sectors that supply goods and services to the LNG Project.
•
Induced effects: effects resulting from the spending and re-spending of household
income.
Table 4.2 summarizes the economic effects of construction of the LNG facility.
Table 4.2 Estimated Economic Effects of Terasen LNG
Project on BC Gross Domestic Product (2003 $)
Gross Domestic Product
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Induced Effect
Total
$30,030,000
$11,520,000
$15,640,000
$57,190,000
Household income
Local
$20,020,000
Total British Columbia
$30,030,000
$4,880,000
$8,720,000
$9,310,000
$24,900,000
$48,060,000
Employment (person years)
Local
100
140
240
Total British Columbia
150
550
700
The British Columbia Input-Output Model indicates that local municipal governments will
receive indirect tax revenues of approximately $510,000 during construction.
Page 66
The LNG Project construction expenditures are forecast to increase Province of British Columbia
revenues by approximately $4.0 million, comprising personal and corporate income taxes and
indirect taxes such as provincial sales tax. The effect is province-wide and positive. The
duration of this effect extends from pre-construction (site selection, planning and design) through
completion of construction.
Federal Government revenues of approximately $5.3 million are estimated to result from LNG
Project construction, comprising personal and corporate income taxes and indirect taxes such as
the goods and services tax. These revenues are based only on expenditure and income from
British Columbia; federal revenues generated in other provinces by the project are not included
in this estimate. This effect will be felt nationally and is positive. The impact is considered to be
BENEFICIAL and SIGNIFICANT.
4.11.2.2 Operation
Ongoing activities will include facility operation and maintenance. The economic effects are of
small magnitude, but nevertheless positive:
•
9 person-years of permanent employment annually, and
•
$150,000 annually of goods and services (excluding electricity and fuel).
Terasen has estimated that property taxes to be paid on the LNG facility could be in the range of
$300,000 annually.
These economic impacts are considered to be of moderate magnitude, and BENEFICIAL and
SIGNIFICANT.
Page 67
5.0
FACILITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Overview
This section of the report discusses the nature and level of risks to the LNG facility and the
general public from events such as forest fires and earthquakes. In addition, information is
provided on the specific codes that must be adhered to in the design, construction, and operation
of the LNG facility and the connecting utilities in order to meet specific safety requirements and
protect the public. Given these design standards and specifications, it is concluded that risks to
public safety are NOT SIGNIFICANT. In addition, risks to the LNG facility from natural
events such as a forest fire are also considered NOT SIGNIFICANT.
5.1 FOREST FIRE PROTECTION
5.1.1 Construction
Construction of the LNG facility, with the attendant process work areas and pipeline, powerline
and road construction, poses little risk of forest fire. Heavy equipment with firefighting
capability will be onsite in case a fire starts accidentally. A Fire Management plan will be
developed to guide construction and to minimize fire risk. Piling and burning of the slash will be
conducted under provincial regulations, and will result in a reduced fuel load at the site.
5.1.1.1 Mitigation Measures
The construction phase will include the development of an emergency response plan that will be
consistent with the laws and regulations governing industrial activity in a forested environment
in British Columbia. This plan will be consistent with the Island Timberlands emergency
response planning for forest fire prevention on their private forest lands in the area and registered
with the South Island Forest District, Ministry of Forests in Port Alberni. Construction workers
will be briefed on the need for fire safety and proper response in case of fire.
5.1.2 Operation – Facility Risk to the Forest
The risk to the surrounding forest area from a fire at the LNG facility is minimal.
The LNG facility is divided into numerous process segments that can be automatically isolated
from each other. In the unlikely event of a spill of LNG, the isolation protocols would be
implemented. The spilled liquid would be contained in the dyked areas. At ambient
temperatures, without a source of ignition, the LNG would rapidly evaporate and dissipate. In
the event of ignition, water and dry chemical fire fighting equipment is available on site to fight
potential plant fires and keep adjacent facilities cool.
Page 68
Terasen proposes to remove trees within a minimum of 100 m of the tank dyke. This ample
setback provides a margin of safety in case of an LNG fire.
The history of the operation of similar facilities in North America shows a remarkable safety
record. There has never been a failure of a 9 percent nickel steel LNG tank in 35 years of use in
North America.
Terasen’s facility is designed to be fail safe by isolating equipment, containing spills, and
accommodating fire without harm to surroundings. The facility design, combined with fire
warning and suppression systems that meet or exceed CSA requirements and industry standards,
provide a high level of protection against fire risk to the forest. Terasen will brief fire fighters in
Ladysmith about LNG’s characteristics. No additional mitigation measures are deemed
necessary.
5.1.3 Forest Fire Risk to the Facility
Protection of the LNG tank from forest fires is an important consideration in Terasen’s design,
construction, and operation of the LNG storage facility sited in the forest environment.
The Risk of Forest Fire
The British Columbia Ministry of Forests Protection Branch maintains provincial data as a part
of the Fire Behavior Prediction System. The system collects weather data to determine the threat
of fires. The Ministry of Forests Protection Branch uses these data to predict areas where the
danger of a forest fire may become significant. The Cedar, Nanaimo Center collects data closest
to the proposed LNG facility.
Table 5.1 presents the pattern of fire risk from 1989 to 2003, presented as the number of days
rated Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, and Extreme. As would be expected these data show the
greatest fire risk is in July, August and September. Only 14 percent of the year is in the High or
Extreme risk range.
Page 69
Table 5.1 Fire Risk Pattern – Cedar Station
Year
Danger Class Jan Feb Mar Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total days
Average
Extreme
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.07
1.53 6.87 3.27
0.20
0.00
0.00
11.93
Average
High
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.93
3.67
8.33 9.53 12.27 5.00
0.20
0.00
39.93
Average
Moderate
0.00 0.00 0.20 1.27
6.73 10.13 11.00 8.00 7.87
5.53
0.13
0.00
50.87
Average
Low
6.33
1.53
Average
Very Low
0.00 0.80 3.40 8.60 14.47 9.73
9.00 5.73 4.87
0.00
64.47
7.73 6.53 6.00 12.33 7.93
1.13 0.87 1.73 13.67 19.47 18.27
102.07
6.40
The Occurrence of Fires on South Eastern Vancouver Island
Forest fires are relatively common on southeastern Vancouver Island. Ministry of Forests fire
records for the period 1950 to 1990 show that 731 fires were caused by lightning, burning
8,378 ha, and 5,340 fires were “people caused,” burning 38,330 ha.
In the Coastal Western Hemlock very dry maritime biogeoclimatic zone, the zone in which the
LNG facility is being sited, lightning caused 335 fires that burned 4,351 ha (4,060 of which
occurred in one fire alone). Humans caused nearly 10 times as many fires, 3,461, burning a total
area of 22, 090 ha. The greater number of human-caused fires is related to the settlement pattern,
backcountry recreation, forestry activities, and the E&N railroad.
The fire potential on southeastern Vancouver Island is highly seasonal and protection services
are available. The development, implementation, and maintenance of an emergency response
plan coordinated with adjacent landowners, the local fire departments, and the Ministry of
Forests, South Island District in Port Alberni would improve the ability to respond to forest fires.
The following mitigation measures will minimize the risk to the LNG facility from forest fires.
•
Maintain an appropriate separation distance (minimum 100 m) between the tank
dyke and the forest.
•
Ensure that the Emergency Response Plan includes cooperation with the Island
Timberlands, the regulators, and local fire departments.
•
Use non-flammable materials for construction of all facilities on site.
•
Install a firewater storage and pumping system with underground piping, fire
hydrants, fire monitors and hose cabinets installed in critical areas to cool facilities
in the event of a forest fire.
Given the specifics of project design, impacts resulting from a forest fire are considered to be of
low magnitude and NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Page 70
5.2 SEISMICITY
5.2.1 Seismic Conditions
Southwestern British Columbia, including Vancouver Island, is located within a seismically
active area. One of the mechanisms that result in earthquakes is continental drift, which involves
the slow movement of various continental and oceanic plates relative to one another. Movement
along a subduction zone involving the oceanic Juan de Fuca plate tending to slide down under
the edge of the continental plate, which includes Vancouver Island, is an important factor in the
seismicity of southern Vancouver Island and nearby parts of the coast.
Recent work has shown that very large earthquakes can occur along the subduction zone
typically at intervals of several hundred years. The last great earthquake on the subduction zone
near Vancouver Island appears to have occurred in 1700 and would have been felt over a wide
area. Compressive loading of the continental plate by the subducting oceanic plate has also
resulted in compression of Vancouver Island and is in part responsible for earthquakes on faults
above the continental crust’s subducting zone.
The Cowichan Fold and Thrust System is an ancient series of thrust faults and folds along the
east side of Vancouver Island that was mainly active 50 to 40 million years ago. The Cameron
River Fault, a major regional fault, is located approximately 3 km east of the Mt. Hayes site.
Other northeast trending ancient faults that cut across the general trend of the belt may be located
a few kilometres to the south. Although these ancient fault systems are not known to be
presently active, it is possible that an earthquake could occur on one of these old faults.
5.2.2 Seismic Design and Mitigation
Earthquakes near the study area could potentially result in relatively high seismic motions. Such
earthquakes could occur as a result of fault movements along or close to the subduction zone, or
along faults in the continental plate overlying the subduction zone, such as the Cowichan
System.
The current edition of the Canadian standard CSA Z276, which applies to LNG production,
storage, and handling, specifies two levels of earthquake motions that need to be considered
during facility design.
1.
Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE), based on a 10 percent probability of exceedence
during a 50-year period (corresponding to a 1:475 year event or approximately
1:500 years). This design basis earthquake is the same as the standard used in the
present National Building Code as discussed below. The LNG structures and
systems will be designed to remain operable during and after the OBE.
Page 71
2.
Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) based on a 5 percent probability of exceedence
within a 50-year period (approximately 1:1,000 years return period). There will be
no loss of containment capability of the tank and it will be possible to isolate and
maintain the LNG container during and after the SSE.
Design codes that govern design standards for the LNG facility have the following the seismic
requirements, as follows
•
The CSA Z276 code has a return periods for an SSE of 1:2,500 years.
•
The proposed 2006 Canadian National Building Code (NBC) increases building
design requirements from the previous edition to 1:2,500 from 1:475 years. The
model used for calculation of the seismic motions under the current code is
understood to have been revised to better account for geologic knowledge of
features such as the subduction zone near Vancouver Island.
The LNG facility will be designed to the higher standards encompassed in the proposed revisions
of the various codes, incorporating the most recent knowledge and predictions of the potential
seismic motions. The proposed CSA Z276 requirements for the OBE and SSE seismic events
will be used as a minimum standard. Further site specific seismic studies will be carried out to
define local seismic design parameters. Such studies will include consideration of both regional
and local conditions, such as nearby faults in the Cowichan Fold and Thrust Zone.
The shaking that would be experienced during a very large subduction earthquake could last
much longer than the shaking from a smaller event, although the local ground motions might be
similar, depending on the distance and attenuation characteristics. The longer period of shaking
will be considered in the design of the facilities.
There are about three hundred LNG storage tanks in the world of size and type proposed by
Terasen. Many of these tanks are located in parts of the world that are more seismically active
than the Mt. Hayes location, such as Japan, Korea, Turkey, and Greece. Because of the
significant industry experience, the methods for seismic design are well known and well
accepted in the international engineering community. The LNG storage tank, buildings,
equipment and piping proposed for the Mt. Hayes location are all well within the industry’s
seismic design and construction experience, practice, and capabilities.
5.3 LNG FACILITY INTEGRITY
The proposed Project is designed to provide an important natural gas peaking supply to the
Vancouver Island region, which requires a high level of reliability. The purpose of this section is
to describe the potential hazards to the proposed LNG facility, and the safeguards that Terasen
Page 72
will adopt to protect the public, employees, and property in the unlikely event of a failure of a
component, an accident, a natural catastrophe, or other problems that might be encountered.
LNG has been safely handled for many years throughout the world and has an excellent safety
record. During the past 50 years, there have been no impacts to any member of the public as a
result of any incidents arising from LNG operations of the kind proposed by Terasen.
Worldwide, there are currently about 240 peak shaving LNG storage facilities4 (3 in Canada),
some operating since the mid-1960s. The United States has the largest number of LNG facilities
in the world with 113 active plants, with a higher concentration of the facilities in the
northeastern region.
5.3.1 LNG Facility Regulation
In British Columbia LNG facilities are regulated by the B C. Oil and Gas Commission (B.C.
Ministry of Energy and Mines) under the B.C. Pipeline Act and Regulations. These legal
requirements incorporate the national standard Canadian Standards Association CSA Z276-01,
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – Production Storage, and Handling. This standard establishes
essential requirements and standards for the design, installation, and safe operation of LNG
facilities to protect the public, employees, and property.
5.3.2 LNG Facility Integrity and Safety
Facility integrity is addressed through a combination of regulatory compliance and industry
standards, resulting in multiple layers of safety in design and operation of the proposed LNG
facility.
The first layer is provided through LNG specific design of the storage and piping systems,
employing suitable materials and proven design throughout the facility. The inner storage tank
holding the LNG will be constructed of 9 percent nickel steel. No LNG tank constructed of
9 percent nickel steel has ever failed.
The second layer is isolation and impoundment systems in the unlikely event a leak or spill of
LNG should occur. The facility is divided into numerous process segments that can be
automatically isolated from each other. The storage tank and facility LNG piping will be
surrounded by earthen dikes that can contain the entire contents of any spill or leak, including a
volume greater than the entire contents of the tank.
The third layer is the use of safety systems to detect abnormal conditions and shut off the flow of
LNG to any leak or spill, to isolate the affected section, and minimize the lost volumes. The
4
University of Houston Law Center Institute for Energy, Law & Enterprise, Introduction to LNG, An Overview of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Its Properties, the LNG Industry, Safety consideration, January 2003.
Page 73
facility will employ gas, liquid, and fire detection systems that activate automatically and
remotely-activated shut-off, shut-down, fire-fighting systems in the event of any emergency.
These systems are also continuously monitored by on-site personnel who can also activate the
safety systems. In addition, the LNG plant will be monitored continuously at Terasen’s gas
control center located in Surrey, British Columbia.
The fourth layer is the establishment of safe separation distances as required in the regulatory
codes and standards. Terasen will maintain control over land around the facility so that the
required buffer zone is maintained for the life of the facility.
The fifth layer is the employment of proven and well-established operating and maintenance
procedures, standards, and practices. These documents, in use at the existing Terasen LNG
facility, will be adapted to the specific requirements of the proposed facility at Mt. Hayes.
Participation in industry organizations and ongoing review of these documents allows Terasen to
keep up with developments in technology and the industry practices. Incorporated in these
documents are clear requirements for training of personnel, emergency preparation, and safety
procedures.
5.3.3 LNG Facility Hazards
The hazard most recognized in connection with the siting of an LNG facility is the potential for a
large-scale spill of LNG and the potential of a subsequent fire, which could threaten the public
and employees or damage adjacent properties and the facility. The design of the LNG plant, as
described in Section 5.3.2, minimizes this hazard. The safety systems are designed to minimize
any spill or leak, and isolate the entire facility and make it safe.
Design of the LNG facility, per the codes, addresses a sustained pool fire that could result if the
LNG in the storage tank were to leak, empty into the earthen dike, and catch on fire. Such an
event would create a large steady state pool fire for a sustained period of time. The maximum
thermal radiation hazard from such an event at any point around the facility is determined
through computer modeling5 and is a function of the size of LNG pool, wind direction and speed,
relative humidity, ambient temperature, and distance. The heat radiation effect drops rapidly as
the distance from the fire increases. The radiation zone for the proposed 1.5 Bcf LNG facility
extends to a maximum of approximately 400 m from the centre of the impoundment dyke.
Terasen will control use of the land and the activity of public and personnel in all radiation areas
specified in the codes. Since 1960, the world’s LNG facilities (approx. 240) have recorded about
7,500 facility-years of experience. During this time there has been no large spill of LNG. Even
though the risk of a full LNG dike fire is extremely remote, the Mt. Hayes LNG facility will be
sited and designed for such an event.
5
Determined by computer simulation program “LNG FIRE 3”, developed by Risk & Industrial Safety Consultants
for Gas Research Institute, 1996.
Page 74
The proposed LNG storage tank contains the greatest volume of product in the facility. The
inner tank (the LNG primary containment) will be constructed of 9 percent nickel steel, which
has been proven to withstand the low temperature (-162 C) of the cryogenic liquid. An earthen
dike will provide secondary impoundment, and will be designed to hold 110% of the entire
contents of the inner tank in the extremely unlikely event of a leak in the LNG tank.
LNG that is spilled or leaks will act much like water, and flow to the low spots in the
surrounding area, where it will gradually evaporate. Along with a multitude of systems and
equipment designed to prevent any such spills or leaks from occurring, the proposed LNG
facility design also will utilize the natural properties of LNG and rely on “passive” safety
systems (e.g., channeling to specifically sited sumps inside the dike) that do not require the
operation of equipment or human intervention to function. In addition, the facility will
incorporate many hazard detection systems that will detect any spill, leak, or fire and allow
equipment to be shut down and isolated, to minimize the scale of such an event.
The LNG liquid (essentially pure methane) does not burn, but as it vapourizes it can be ignited
and a fire could occur. A methane-air mixture is flammable when methane is present at
concentrations of between 5 and 15 percent in air. The rate at which LNG will vapourize
following a spill depends on factors such as the ambient wind, humidity, and temperature
conditions, the quantity and rate of the LNG leak, and the type and contour of the substances
onto which the LNG is spilled. Once a flammable vapor-air mixture from an LNG spill has been
ignited, the flame front would propagate through the flammable mixture back to the spill site if
the vapor concentration along this path is within the range required to support the combustion
process. The flame front in a methane-air mixture moves quite slowly compared to many other
fuels and as a result, unconfined, flammable mixtures of natural gas in air will not detonate an
explosion.6
Impoundment systems will be provided to accommodate the spill scenarios throughout the
facility as required by CSA Z276. Design spills scenarios, which allow for a 10 minute delay in
the activation of any control or shut-off systems, include:
•
The largest flow from a total rupture of any single line that can be fed by the tank
withdrawal pumps,
•
The flow from any single accidental leakage source, and
•
The maximum flow from any equipment and piping containing LNG resulting from
a completely severed pipe.
The spill impoundments will be comprised of curbing located around all equipment containing
LNG. Sloped trenches will be used to channel LNG away from equipment and piping, and
6
Kees van Wingerden, Dag Bjerketvedt & Jan Roar Bakke; Detonations in Pipes and In the Open, Christian
Michelsen Research, Bergen, Norway, November 1999, www.safetynet.de
Page 75
concrete and earthen sumps will be used to collect and contain any spilled LNG in safe locations,
remote from property lines, equipment, and buildings. Once collected, spilled LNG will
evaporate slowly and can be monitored by the operating staff at the facility to ensure no further
hazard arises as a result of the spill. Initially the gas is colder and heavier than the surrounding
air and can create a fog or vapour cloud above the release liquid. As the gas warms up it mixes
with the surrounding air and begins to disperse. If the vapour cloud encounters an ignition
source, it can ignite only if the methane/air mixture is in the 5 to 15 percent flammability range.
The CSA code sets out the design criteria for the control of the vapour to mitigate any impacts.
5.3.4 Other LNG Plant Safety Risks
LNG facilities present other safety issues than a large fire as previously discussed. These other
risks are of relatively lower significance and consequence as far as the protection of the public is
concerned. The facility design and specific operating procedures will address these other
hazards, which include:
•
Personnel exposed to direct contact with LNG (liquid at -162 °C) or very cold LNG
vapors could sustain severe frostbite (or freeze burns). The potential extent of this
cryogenic hazard is limited to the immediate area around equipment, piping, and
tanks containing LNG. Protective clothing and shields will be used to mitigate this
hazard.
•
Methane gas, the primary component of LNG, is colorless, odorless, and is
classified as an asphyxiate (when released and it displaces air). Separation distances
and gas detection systems will be used to mitigate this hazard.
•
The process of liquefying natural gas removes almost all of the components that
give LNG any detectable odour. All vapourized LNG leaving the LNG facility will
be odorized to meet government and pipeline standards. Fuel gas used in the LNG
facility will also be odorized. Additional hazard mitigation includes gas detection in
areas of possible leaks.
•
Distances between property lines, buildings, electrical equipment, process
equipment, impoundments, and the proposed LNG storage tank will meet or exceed
the spacing requirements of CSA standards.
•
The LNG facility will utilize continuous monitoring equipment to detect hazardous
conditions. Hazard detection will include evidence of combustible gas, cold
temperatures from LNG spills, fire, smoke, and high pressure in tanks and vessels.
•
Quantities of other compounds may be stored on site as part of the liquefaction or
back-up systems (e.g. diesel, propane, etc.) depending on the final specific design
that is approved. Terasen will ensure all appropriate and required safety systems are
in place for these compounds.
Page 76
5.3.5 LNG Facility Fire Protection Systems
To reduce the effects of a fire, the proposed LNG facility will have a fire water system. An
underground firewater pipe will encircle the facility. Branches will feed various fire fighting
locations with multiple hydrants to keep any equipment cool in the event of fire at an adjacent
location. Water is not used to fight a LNG fire, as the warm water will increase the rate of
vapourization of the cold liquid. Water is also not typically used to fight or extinguish a natural
gas vapour fire but is generally used to cool and protect facilities adjacent to a fire and to fight
non-gas related fires.
Dry chemical fire extinguishing equipment will be located throughout the facility to directly
fight any natural gas (or other compound) fire. Dry chemical skidded, wheeled, and hand held
units will be incorporated in the fire protection plan for the LNG facility.
5.3.6 LNG Facility Security
The security strategy for the facility will include controlling all access by individuals and
vehicles onto the site. The entire boundary of the facility site, including the LNG storage and
vapourization facilities, will be fenced with chain link and a top guard that meet or exceed
recognized industry standards as to gauge and height. The number of access points to the LNG
related facilities will be limited to an absolute minimum, but will include at least one emergency
gate. The access points will have video monitoring, with feeds into the facility control room. An
employee will be required to manually or remotely unlock gates to allow access by any persons
or vehicles.
The monitoring and detection systems at the proposed facility will function on a “24/7” basis and
consist of intrusion detection alarms, closed circuit television (CCTV), regular (but random)
patrols, and lighting. These systems, as well as the security communication system, will be
operated and monitored at the control room.
Terasen facility management will establish liaison with all appropriate government security and
emergency response agencies. These contacts will enable personnel to:
•
learn of new approaches to physical security including advances in technology,
•
ensure prompt response and assistance relating to emergency security or safety
situations, and
•
ensure continuing access to advice and counsel on all security-related matters.
Terasen is prepared to protect the public, employees, and the LNG facility from all threats or
potential damage that can be defined as reasonable, credible, and defensible. The design of the
facility, including the Terasen controlled separation zone around the facility and the earthen
Page 77
dikes will minimize potential impacts to the public. Terasen will ensure that training is provided
to LNG facility personnel and that the LNG plant is operating in continuous compliance with
Canadian regulations.
5.4 PIPELINE INTEGRITY
5.4.1 Nature and Level of Risk
The LNG facility will be connected to the Terasen transmission system by two laterals 219 mm
(8”) diameter pipelines of approximately 5 km length.
The pipeline laterals to the LNG facility will be designed in accordance with the code
requirements of the Canadian standard “CSA Z662 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems”. The design,
construction, and operation of Terasen’s pipeline systems are reviewed and approved by the B.C.
Oil and Gas Commission, which is the responsible for regulations related to construction,
operation, and maintenance of natural gas pipelines that operate at more than 100 psig.
The laterals to the proposed LNG facility will be buried a minimum of 0.7 m in a proposed 18 m
wide right-of-way. The pipeline right-of-way is patrolled periodically via helicopter, in addition
to ground patrols of varying frequency. Terasen is a member of BC One Call, a notification
service for anyone wishing to dig in the vicinity of the pipeline. Terasen also maintains a
complete list of all land owners along the pipeline right-of-way, and has a yearly pipeline
awareness program.
The pipeline valves and pipeline conditions of all of Terasen’s transmission pipeline systems are
monitored centrally by a SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system that is
staffed 24/7. Emergency actions may be initiated remotely by the SCADA operator in the event
of a pipeline incident.
Terasen pipelines and laterals are capable of being internally inspected. Once placed into
operation the pipelines and laterals become part of Terasen’s systematic integrity inspection
program.
5.5 LNG TRANSPORT
5.5.1 LNG Truck Loading Station
The Mt. Hayes LNG facility will incorporate an LNG truck filling station for loading LNG
trucks. Trucking LNG may be required to provide local natural gas system reinforcement for
Page 78
maintenance or emergency repair of the supply pipeline system on Vancouver Island or to serve
potential customers isolated from the gas transmission system who may desire gas service.
Terasen owns an LNG truck, based at the Tilbury facility in Delta, to provide such support
throughout the Terasen service area of British Columbia. Initially, no transportation service is
anticipated other than for emergencies or support for planned maintenance outages. In the
future, if customers on Vancouver Island request delivery of LNG to their sites, Terasen does not
anticipate that more than two trucks per day would ever be loaded at the facility, due to the
limitations of the facility to liquefy natural gas and the requirements for the facility to provide
supply to the pipeline system.
The loading station will be equipped with multiple safety features, both passive and active.
Passive features include trenches to carry any potential spill away from the immediate area to a
remote impoundment sump. Active systems include gas and fire detection systems, fire water,
and dry chemical extinguishers.
5.5.2 LNG Truck Safety
Trucking has been used for the transportation of LNG in North America since 1970. LNG
trucking is now a mature industry, with 10,000 to 20,000 truckloads delivered every year, and
well over 100 million LNG truck miles traveled to date. The industry has a good safety record,
with less than 20 LNG truck accidents involving rollovers or significant trailer damage in the last
25 years. Only one LNG truck accident resulted in loss of LNG, and there have been no LNG
fires.
5.5.3 LNG Trailer Construction
The lack of product loss and fires can be attributed to the rugged construction of LNG trailers.
LNG trailers meet rigorous design, construction, and safety standards. A modern LNG tanker
truck has a maximum LNG cargo capacity of approximately 1 mmcfd natural gas equivalent.
The technology and equipment for trucking LNG is derived from the same technology and
materials used in the truck transport of cryogenic industrial gases such as liquid nitrogen and
oxygen. The inner tank is constructed of a cryogenic material such as stainless steel or
aluminum. The annular space between the inner and outer tank is filled with a multi layered
“super” insulation, and a vacuum of 50 microns is established to provide high insulating
properties. The outer tank, which is integral to the LNG trailer, is constructed of carbon steel
designed for vacuum service and is the primary structural element of the LNG highway trailer.
Stiffening rings are incorporated in the outer shell to improve its structural strength and prevent
its collapse. This rugged outside shell has protected the cargo container in all accidents.
Page 79
5.6 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS
Terasen has an existing LNG facility in Delta, British Columbia, which has operated successfully
for more than 30 years, as well as thousands of kilometers of transmission pressure pipelines.
Terasen considers safety and emergency response to be of prime importance. The company
remains proactive in improving the safe operation of its facilities and Emergency Response Plan
(ERP). Terasen is committed to:
•
Developing a site and location specific ERP for the proposed Mt. Hayes LNG
facility
•
Operating the connecting pipelines in accordance with Terasen’s existing well
proven procedures
•
Meeting or exceeding relevant laws and regulations and cooperating with local
authorities
•
Regularly testing and improving emergency response plans
•
Ensuring appropriate resources and training to implement the plans
•
Monitoring industry development of improvements to emergency response issues.
5.6.1 LNG ERP Plan Contents
The ERP will clearly describe the methods to be used by Terasen employees to effectively
manage any emergency at the LNG facility. The ERP is developed to minimize injury to the
public and employees, to minimize damage to property and the environment, and to promote
rapid return to normal operation.
The ERP lays out the organization, duties, and responsibilities of all facility and off-site support
Terasen personnel, including corporate emergency response centers. Chains of command are
clarified, including appropriate contact and communication with local and provincial emergency
response agencies.
As in most LNG facilities in North America, emergencies are categorized into three levels by onsite personnel, which in turn result in the implementation of the appropriate immediate actions.
Each level triggers a different specific set of actions for emergency response and communication,
appropriate to the type of emergency. Procedures are developed for each specific potential
hazard that is identified, including identifying the level of response and actions required.
The ERP documents provide communication information for all possible contacts, and identify
resources available at the plant and contacts for off-site resources. Post incident recovery
procedures are also clearly laid out in the ERP.
Page 80
The ERP documents Terasen’s activities for emergency preparedness, including:
•
The commitment to ongoing improvement and updating of the ERP
•
The provisions of the ERP concur with those of all outside agencies
•
Publishing information as necessary for all affected parties
•
The provision of training for personnel
•
Planning and executing exercises (table top and full simulation) to validate the ERP
and familiarize personnel and support agencies (e.g. local Fire Department)
•
Conducting reviews of all exercises and actual incidents
•
Ensuring appropriate emergency procedures are identified and in place.
5.6.2 Local Notification and Involvement
Terasen is committed to working with local and provincial authorities on all aspects of the
proposed LNG facility. Specific to the ERP, Terasen will work with the local Fire Department,
emergency response, and regulatory authorities to achieve a high level of knowledge and
communication, including ongoing dialogue on emergency preparedness and responsibilities for
response and cooperation, and involvement in facility emergency exercises on a regular basis.
Page 81
6.0
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Overview
Cumulative effects assessments are typically conducted to determine whether the impacts of a
project, in combination with impacts of other existing or planned projects in an area, are greater
than the individual projects impacts. For this ESR, efforts have been made to identify existing
and planned projects within five kilometres of the LNG site and access road, pipeline and
powerline that could be considered to contribute to cumulative effects. The planning
departments in the Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Regional District of Nanaimo, and the
Town of Ladysmith were contacted to identify candidate projects.
6.1 OTHER PROJECTS IN SPECIFIED PROJECT AREA
The following projects were identified as potentially contributing to cumulative effects of the
LNG project.
•
Existing Projects. Forestry activity is the primary environmental disturbance that
has occurred within five kilometres of the LNG and ancillary facilities. The
evidence of logging activity includes roads, drainage facilities, cutblocks, and log
sorting and storage areas. No forestry activity is planned by Island Timberlands in
the next two years. However, Island Timberlands has laid out one 60 ha cut block,
with another being planned. One of these two blocks includes the eastern treed
portion of the buffer area around the LNG tank facility. Representatives suggest
that road construction to access these blocks would occur in 2009 at the earliest,
followed by forest harvesting in 2010.
To the northeast of the LNG facility site, a gravel pit, Rondalyn Resort, and
scattered rural homesteads constitute the full extent of development. Gravel
extraction occurs north of the ancillary facilities from KP 0.5 to KP 2.3
Major linear features within 5 km of the pipeline, powerline, and access road,
include the Island Highway, the Terasen Vancouver Island mainline, the E&N
Railway, and B.C. Hydro transmission lines.
Rural and suburban housing has been built within 5 km of the pipeline,
powerline, and road, primarily in Cassidy, the northern extent of Ladysmith, and
the western part of Cedar. The Cassidy Airport and its associated commercial
and light industrial activities are also within 5 km of the pipeline lateral.
Page 82
•
Planned Future Projects. Only projects that are likely to proceed (i.e., those that
have completed a planning process and are near to the approvals stage) are typically
included in cumulative effects assessments.
CVRD planners identified no planned developments in Area H that should be
included in a cumulative effects assessment (Tompkins, pers. comm.). No
major infrastructure development is planned. The area is well developed as a
resource as evidenced through existing roads and disturbance (Tompkins, pers.
comm.)
The Town of Ladysmith planner suggested that residential development is
occurring rapidly in the Town of Ladysmith (Brinkman, pers. comm.). Twenty
and ninety lot subdivisions are planned in Ladysmith. New homes are being
developed, and infill projects completed, primarily in the town centre and to the
west. She identified that development is proposed at the Nanaimo airport. All
of these developments are 6 km or more from the LNG facility.
In the Regional District of Nanaimo, Electoral Area C limited development is
expected in the near future. RDN planners identified a proposed rezoning at the
Timberlands Pub for increased accommodation units (Cormie, pers. comm.).
They also noted an OCP review planned for Cassidy. No issues related to the
LNG project were raised.
The Trans-Canada Trail has been sited in the CVRD and RDN plan areas. The
trail travels in a north-south direction along resource roads in the LNG project
area. Project ancillary facilities, including the access road, pipeline, and
transmission line will cross the Trans-Canada trail at KP 1.9.
Rural residential, gravel extraction, and forestry activities are anticipated to be the predominant
land use for the foreseeable future in Area H in the CVRD and Areas A and C in the Regional
District of Nanaimo. Development in Ladysmith will be more urban in character, but is distant
from the proposed LNG facility.
6.2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE LNG PROJECT AND OTHER
PROJECTS
No additional major construction projects have been identified in the study area in the
foreseeable future. Residential development in Ladysmith will proceed at a modest pace over
the next five years, and will be guided by the Official Community Plan. Hence, construction of
the Terasen LNG Project is not anticipated to contribute to cumulative effects, and the impact is
considered NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Page 83
6.3 OPERATION-RELATED CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE LNG PROJECT AND OTHER
PROJECTS
The LNG facility will contribute modestly to the area cleared of forest west of Mt. Hayes.
Logging operations are expected to continue throughout this area well into the future. The area
affected by the LNG facility is small, compared to the area affected by forestry activities. The
additional right-of-way required for the pipeline lateral and electric transmission line (adjacent to
existing roads for approximately two-thirds of the distance) will not contribute materially to the
area used for linear rights-of-way in the study area, given Ministry of Transport plans to expand
their existing gravel pit southwards from KP 1.2 to KP 2.0. The rights-of-way are narrow, the
pipeline is underground, and the transmission line will disturb little land. While recognizing that
the cumulative effects of human activity on the landscape are significant, the contribution of the
LNG facility, its access road, and pipeline and powerline laterals are of low magnitude, and are
considered to be NOT SIGNIFICANT. As a result, no mitigation is considered feasible or
necessary for the low magnitude cumulative effects of the LNG project.
Page 84
7.0
REFERENCES
Anderson, Bruce, Planner, Town of Ladysmith, British Columbia. Fax and telephone
conversations, February 6, 2004.
BC Conservation Data Centre. 2004. Rare natural plant community Red- and Blue -list for the
South Island Forest District. 2002.
http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cdc/trackinglists/plantcommunities/ctrack16.doc
Brinkman, L. Planner, Town of Ladysmith. Telephone conversation. November, 2007.
Butler and Cohen, n.d. Field verification of a Firefighter Safety Zone Model. United States
Forest Service.
Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E.
McNall. 2001. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 4, Passerines, Warblers through
finches, UBC Press, Vancouver. 739 pp.
McNall. 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 3, Passerines, Flycatchers
through Vireos, UBC Press, Vancouver. 693 pp.
McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 1, Nonpasserines, Introduction,
Loons through Waterfowl. Royal British Columbia Museum and Canadian Wildlife
Service. 514 pp.
McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 2, Nonpasserines, Diurnal Birds
of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum and Canadian Wildlife
Service. 662 pp.
CDC (Conservation Data Centre). 2004. Red and Blue listed birds and Identified Wildlife
known to occur in the South Island Forest District. http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cdc/
Clare, J.J. and M.L. Bothwell. 2002. Effects of clear-cut logging and solar ultraviolet radiation
on benthic communities in small streams. Symposium on small stream channels and their
riparian zone: Their form, function, and ecological importance in a watershed context.
Vancouver, British Columbia. February 19 – 20, 2002.
Page 85
Cormie. S. Planner. Regional District of Nanaimo. Telephone conversation. November, 2007.
Cowan, I. McT. and C.J. Guiguet. 1956. The mammals of British Columbia. British Columbia
Provincial Museum Handbook No. 11, Victoria, British Columbia.
Cowichan Valley Regional District Planning Department. Area “H” Zoning Bylaw No. 1020.
Cowichan Valley Regional District, Duncan, British Columbia. 2001.
Development Services Department. North Oyster-Diamond Official Community Plan, Bylaw
1497. Cowichan Valley Regional District, Duncan, British Columbia. 2001.
Dodd, Ken. Island Timberlands. Telephone conversation, November, 2007.
Farquhar, Brian. CVRD Parks Department. Telephone Conversation, February, 2004.
Green, R.N. and K. Klinka. 1994. A field guide to site identification and interpretation for the
Vancouver Forest Region. Ministry of Forests Research Program: British Columbia.
Jim, John. Chemainus First Nation. Personal communication. March, 2004.
Kolodziejczyk, R.I. and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Influence of riparian tree species on stream
community dynamics: Effects on fungal biomass and invertebrate diversity, abundance
and biomass. Symposium on small stream channels and their riparian zone: Their form,
function, and ecological importance in a watershed context. Vancouver, British
Columbia. February 19 – 20, 2002.
MacDonald, J.S., E.A. Maclsaac, H. Herunter, and P.G. Beaudry. 2002. The effects of variable
retention riparian buffers on discharge, temperature, and suspended sediment in small
headwater streams in the northern interior of British Columbia. Symposium on small
stream channels and their riparian zone: Their form, function, and ecological importance
in a watershed context. Vancouver, British Columbia. February 19 – 20, 2002.
Marsh, James. Cowichan Valley Regional District Parks Department. Telephone conversation.
February 9, 2004.
Reynolds, Brigid, Planner, Regional District of Nanaimo, Nanaimo, British Columbia. Fax and
telephone conversations, February 5, 2004.
Reynolds, Brigid, Planner, Regional District of Nanaimo, Nanaimo, British Columbia. Faxed
letter and telephone conversations, February 5 and 6, 2004.
Page 86
Stevens, V. 1995. Wildlife diversity in British Columbia: distribution and habitat use of
amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals in biogeoclimatic zones. Working Paper
04/1995. Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria,
British Columbia.
Taylor, Steve. n.d. Fire Occurrence in Vancouver Island Ecological Zones. Canadian Forest
Service, Pacific Forestry Center, Victoria, British Columbia.
Tippett, Michael, Senior Planner, Cowichan Valley Regional District, Duncan, British Columbia.
Email and telephone conversations, January, 2004.
Tompkins, Catherine, Planner, Cowichan Valley Regional District, Duncan, British Columbia.
Telephone conversations, November, 2004.
Page 87
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Site Photographs
Photo 2.1
Looking east from near the west property boundary at the broad ridge (center of
photo) on which the proposed process area and LNG tank would be located.
Photo 2.2
Looking north along the existing logging access road at the ridge on which the main
facilities would be located.
Terasen LNG Facility Environmental and Social Review
Page 1-1
Photo 2.3
Standing vegetation in the forested wet area.
Photo 2.4
Thin vegetation buffer on the west side of the site along Drainage #2.
Page 1-2
Photo 2.5
Slough sedge filled pools of standing water.
Photo 2.6
Conifers and snags near the
centre of the wet area.
Photo 2.7
Sphagnum bog with salal
and Labrador tea.
Page 1-3
Photo 2.8 Hardhack (red) and pacific
crabapple (grey) in Drainage #2.
Photo 2.10
Photo 2.9 Location of Drainage #4, an
unlogged area at the northern
edge of the project site.
Windthrow in vicinity of
Drainage #4.
Page 1-4
Photo 3.1
Woody debris left on-site after logging.
Photo 3.2
Windthrow in the tree buffer
around Drainage #2. Note
Scotch broom (noxious weed) in
right front of photo.
Photo 3.3
Canada thistle and Oxeye daisy
at the road crossing of
Drainage #4.
Page 1-5
Photo 3.4
Forested vegetation that will be removed for
the Drainage #3 diversion.
Photo 3.5
Scattered veteran conifers that may provide perching habitat for large
raptors such as bald eagles and red-tailed hawks.
Page 1-6
Photo 3.6 Swampy area to be used for a retention pond.
Photo 3.7 Black-tailed deer bed in salal patches within the swampy area slated for the retention
pond.
Page 1-7
Photo 3.8
Photo 3.11
Game trail on drier slope area above
the existing access road.
Photo 3.9
Old foraging excavations by
Pileated Woodpecker were noted
on several snags in the project
area.
Enhancement of riparian
vegetation along several small
creeks may provide increased
forage for ungulates and nesting
habitat for songbirds.
Page 1-8
Photo 4.1 Trans Canada Trail marker
Page 1-9
APPENDIX 2 Plant Species Recorded on the Proposed Terasen
LNG Site in January 2004
APPENDIX 2 Plant Species Recorded on the Proposed Terasen LNG Site in January 2004
COMMON NAME
Trees
Western hemlock
Western redcedar
Coastal Douglas fir
Lodgepole pine
Western white pine
Red Alder
Shrubs
Salal
Dull Oregon grape
Red huckleberry
Ocean spray
Labrador tea
Pacific crab apple
Salmonberry
Trailing blackberry
Scotch broom
Herbs
Bracken
Swordfern
Deer fern
Bull thistle
Canada thistle
Round-leaved yellow violet
Fireweed
Bearded fescue
Blue wildrye
Oxeye daisy
Mosses
Sphagnum
Oregon beaked moss
Slender beaked moss
Tree moss
Pipecleaner moss
Menzies Neckera
Douglas’ Neckera
Fan moss
Awned haircap moss
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Tsuga heterophylla
Thuja plicata
Pseudotsuga menziesii ssp. menziesii
Pinus contorta
Pinus monticola
Alnus rubra
Gaultheria shallon
Mahonia nervosa
Vaccinium parvifolium
Holodiscus discolor
Ledum groenlandicum
Malus fusca
Rubus spectabilis
Rubus ursinus
Cytisus scoparius
Pteridium aquilinum
Polystichum munitum
Blechnum spicant
Cirsium vulgare
Cirsium arvense
Viola orbiculata
Epilobium augustifolium
Festuca subulata
Elymus glaucus
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Sphagnum spp
Kindbergia oregana
Kindbergia praelonga
Climacium dendroides
Rhytidiopsis robusta
Metaneckera menziesii
Neckera douglasii
Rhizomnium glabrescens
Polytrichum piliferum
Page 2-1
APPENDIX 3 Provincially and Federally Listed Fish and Wildlife
Species at Risk Known to Occur in the South Island Forest
District
Appendix 3 Fish and Wildlife Species at Risk
Class
Amphibians
BC
Status
Blue
Red
Identified
SARA
Wildlife
COSEWIC
Schedule
Y (May 2004) SC (Nov 2004)
1
Y (May 2004) E (May 2000)
1
Scientific Name
Rana aurora
Rana pipiens
English Name
Red-legged Frog
Northern Leopard Frog
Accipiter gentilis laingi
Aechmophorus occidentalis
Northern Goshawk, laingi subspecies Red
Western Grebe
Red
Y (May 2004) T (Nov 2000)
1
Ardea herodias fannini
Great Blue Heron, fannini subspecies Blue
Y (May 2004) SC (May 1997)
3
Asio flammeus
Botaurus lentiginosus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Y (May 2004) SC (May 1994)
3
Y (May 2004) T (Nov 2000)
1
Branta canadensis occidentalis
Butorides virescens
Coccyzus americanus
Eremophila alpestris strigata
Short-eared Owl
American Bittern
Marbled Murrelet
Canada Goose, occidentalis
subspecies
Green Heron
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Horned Lark, strigata subspecies
E (Nov 2003)
1
Falco peregrinus anatum
Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies Red
SC (Apr 2007)
1
Falco peregrinus pealei
Fratercula cirrhata
Blue
Blue
SC (Apr 2007)
1
SC (May 2002)
1
Melanerpes lewis pop. 1
Patagioenas fasciata
Peregrine Falcon, pealei subspecies
Tufted Puffin
Northern Pygmy-Owl, swarthi
subspecies
Barn Swallow
White-tailed Ptarmigan, saxatilis
subspecies
Western Screech-Owl, kennicotii
subspecies
Lewis's Woodpecker (Georgia
Depression population)
Band-tailed Pigeon
Red
Blue
Phalacrocorax auritus
Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Double-crested Cormorant
Brandt's Cormorant
Blue
Red
Birds
Glaucidium gnoma swarthi
Hirundo rustica
Lagopus leucura saxatilis
Megascops kennicottii kennicottii
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Y (Jun 2006)
Blue
Y (Jun 2006)
Blue
Y (May 2004)
NAR (May
1978)
Page 3-1
Class
Scientific Name
English Name
Pinicola enucleator carlottae
Pooecetes gramineus affinis
Progne subis
Ptychoramphus aleuticus
Pine Grosbeak, carlottae subspecies
Vesper Sparrow, affinis subspecies
Purple Martin
Cassin's Auklet
Western Bluebird (Georgia Depression
population)
Western Meadowlark (Georgia
Depression population)
Barn Owl
Common Murre
Roosevelt Elk
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
Sea Otter
Sialia mexicana pop. 1
Mammals
Sturnella neglecta pop. 1
Tyto alba
Uria aalge
Cervus canadensis roosevelti
Corynorhinus townsendii
Enhydra lutris
Eschrichtius robustus
Eumetopias jubatus
Gulo gulo vancouverensis
Marmota vancouverensis
Megaptera novaeangliae
Mustela erminea anguinae
Sorex palustris brooksi
Contia tenuis
Keen's Myotis
Killer Whale (Northeast Pacific
offshore population)
Killer Whale (West Coast transient
population)
Killer Whale (Northeast Pacific
Northern resident population)
American Water Shrew, brooksi
subspecies
Sharp-tailed Snake
Pituophis catenifer catenifer
Gopher Snake, catenifer subspecies
Myotis keenii
Orcinus orca pop. 2
Orcinus orca pop. 3
Orcinus orca pop. 6
Reptiles
Grey Whale
Steller Sea Lion
Wolverine, vancouverensis
subspecies
Vancouver Island Marmot
Humpback Whale
Ermine, anguinae subspecies
BC
Identified
Status Wildlife
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
COSEWIC
SARA
Schedule
E (Apr 2006)
Y (Jun 2006)
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
SC (Nov 2001)
1
SC (Apr 2007)
1
Blue
Blue
SC (May 2004)
SC (Nov 2003)
1
1
Red
Y (May 2004)
Red
Y (May 2004)
Blue
Blue
Unknow
n
Y (May 2004)
SC (May 1989)
E (May 2000)
T (May 2003)
1
1
DD (Nov 2003)
3
Blue
SC (Nov 2001)
1
Red
T (Nov 2001)
1
Blue
E/T (Nov 2001)
1
E (May 1999)
1
XT (May 2002)
1
Red
Red
Red
Y (Jun 2006)
Page 3-2
Class
Turtles
Gastropods
Scientific Name
Chrysemys picta pop. 1
Dermochelys coriacea
Allogona townsendiana
Carychium occidentale
Deroceras hesperium
Fossaria vancouverensis
Hemphillia dromedarius
Hemphillia glandulosa
Monadenia fidelis
Nearctula sp. 1
Physella heterostropha
Physella integra
Pristiloma johnsoni
Promenetus umbilicatellus
Prophysaon coeruleum
Prophysaon vanattae
Vertigo andrusiana
Zonitoides nitidus
Insects
Callophrys eryphon sheltonensis
Callophrys johnsoni
Callophrys mossii mossii
Cercyonis pegala incana
Coenonympha tullia insulana
Copablepharon fuscum
Epitheca canis
Erynnis propertius
Erythemis collocata
Euchloe ausonides insulanus
Euphydryas editha taylori
English Name
Western Painted Turtle - Pacific Coast
Population
Leatherback
Oregon Forestsnail
Western Thorn
Evening Fieldslug
BC
Identified
Status Wildlife
COSEWIC
SARA
Schedule
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Red
E (Apr 2006)
E (May 2001)
E (Nov 2002)
1
1
T (May 2003)
1
Warty Jumping-slug
Pacific Sideband
Threaded Vertigo
Pewter Physa
Ashy Physa
Broadwhorl Tightcoil
Umbilicate Sprite
Blue-grey Taildropper
Scarletback Taildropper
Pacific Vertigo
Black Gloss
Western Pine Elfin, sheltonensis
subspecies
Johnson's Hairstreak
Moss' Elfin, mossii subspecies
Common Wood-nymph, incana
subspecies
Blue
Blue
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
SC (May 2003)
1
Common Ringlet, insulana subspecies
Sand-verbena Moth
Beaverpond Baskettail
Propertius Duskywing
Western Pondhawk
Large Marble, insulanus subspecies
Edith's Checkerspot, taylori
subspecies
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Dromedary Jumping-slug
Blue
Red
Blue
E (Apr 2006)
Y (Jun 2006)
Red
Red
E (Nov 2003)
1
XT (May 2000)
1
E (Nov 2000)
1
Page 3-3
Class
Scientific Name
Euphyes vestris
Heterodermia sitchensis
Pachydiplax longipennis
Plebejus icarioides blackmorei
Plebejus saepiolus insulanus
Greenish Blue, insulanus subspecies
Speyeria zerene bremnerii
Sympetrum vicinum
Tramea lacerata
Stygobromus quatsinensis
Zerene Fritillary, bremnerii subspecies Red
Autumn Meadowhawk
Blue
Black Saddlebags
Red
Quatsino Cave Amphipod
Blue
Parnassius smintheus olympianus
Malacostracans
BC
Identified
Status Wildlife
Blue
Red
Blue
English Name
Dun Skipper
Seaside Centipede
Blue Dasher
Rocky Mountain Parnassian,
olympiannus subspecies
Boisduval's Blue, blackmorei
subspecies
COSEWIC
T (Nov 2000)
E (Apr 2006)
SARA
Schedule
1
1
Blue
Blue
Red
E (Nov 2000)
1
Y (Jun 2006)
Page 3-4
Class (English)
Lampreys
Scientific Name
Lampetra macrostoma
Gasterosteus sp. 2
Gasterosteus sp. 3
Ray-finned Fishes
Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii
Salvelinus malma
English Name
Cowichan Lake Lamprey
Enos Lake Limnetic Stickleback
Enos Lake Benthic Stickleback
Cutthroat Trout, clarkii subspecies
Dolly Varden
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
COSEWIC
T (Nov 2000)
E (Nov 2002)
E (Nov 2002)
SARA
1
1
1
Page 3-5
APPENDIX 4 Provincially and Federally Listed Plants and Plant
Communities at Risk Known to Occur in the South Island Forest
District
Appendix 4 Plants and Plant Communities at Risk
Class
Dicots
Scientific Name
Abronia latifolia
Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora
Anagallis minima
Anemone drummondii var.
drummondii
Aster curtus
Aster paucicapitatus
Aster radulinus
Balsamorhiza deltoidea
Bidens amplissima
Callitriche heterophylla ssp.
heterophylla
Camissonia contorta
Cardamine angulata
Cardamine parviflora var. arenicola
Castilleja ambigua ssp. ambigua
Castilleja levisecta
Castilleja sp. 1
Centaurium muehlenbergii
Ceratophyllum echinatum
Chamaesyce serpyllifolia ssp.
serpyllifolia
Clarkia amoena var. caurina
Clarkia amoena var. lindleyi
Clarkia purpurea ssp. quadrivulnera
Claytonia washingtoniana
Convolvulus soldanella
Corydalis scouleri
Crassula aquatica
Crassula connata var. connata
Cuscuta campestris
Draba lonchocarpa var. vestita
Elatine brachysperma
Elatine rubella
Plant Species at Risk
English Name
yellow sand-verbena
pink sand-verbena
chaffweed
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
Blue
Red
Blue
alpine anemone
white-top aster
Olympic mountain aster
rough-leaved aster
deltoid balsamroot
Vancouver Island beggarticks
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Blue
two-edged water-starwort
contorted-pod evening-primrose
angled bitter-cress
small-flowered bitter-cress
paintbrush owl-clover
golden paintbrush
Victoria owl-clover
Muhlenberg's centaury
spring hornwort
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Red
Red
Red
Blue
thyme-leaved spurge
farewell-to-spring
farewell-to-spring
Blue
Blue
Blue
small-flowered godetia
Washington springbeauty
beach bindweed
Scouler's corydalis
pigmyweed
erect pygmyweed
field dodder
lance-fruited draba
short-seeded waterwort
three-flowered waterwort
Red
Red
Blue
Yellow
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
COSEWIC
SARA
Schedule
E (May 2004)
1
T (May 2000)
1
E (May 2000)
SC (Nov 2001)
1
1
E (Apr 2006)
Y (May 2004)
E (May 2000)
1
NAR (Nov 2006)
1
Page 4-1
Terasen LNG Storage Facility
Class
Scientific Name
Epilobium ciliatum ssp. watsonii
Epilobium densiflorum
Epilobium glaberrimum ssp.
fastigiatum
Epilobium halleanum
Epilobium leptocarpum
Epilobium oregonense
Epilobium torreyi
Erysimum arenicola var. torulosum
Fraxinus latifolia
Githopsis specularioides
Glehnia littoralis ssp. leiocarpa
Hedysarum occidentale
Helenium autumnale var.
grandiflorum
Heterocodon rariflorum
Hippuris tetraphylla
Hutchinsia procumbens
Hydrophyllum tenuipes
Hypericum majus
Hypericum scouleri ssp. nortoniae
Idahoa scapigera
Jaumea carnosa
Lasthenia glaberrima
Lasthenia maritima
Lathyrus littoralis
Lepidium oxycarpum
Limnanthes macounii
Linaria canadensis var. texana
Lomatium dissectum var. dissectum
Lomatium grayi
Lotus formosissimus
Lotus pinnatus
English Name
purple-leaved willowherb
dense spike-primrose
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
Blue
Red
smooth willowherb
Hall's willowherb
small-fruited willowherb
Oregon willowherb
brook spike-primrose
sand-dwelling wallflower
Oregon ash
common bluecup
American glehnia
western hedysarum
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Blue
mountain sneezeweed
heterocodon
four-leaved mare's-tail
hutchinsia
Pacific waterleaf
large Canadian St. John's-wort
western St. John's-wort
scalepod
fleshy jaumea
smooth goldfields
hairy goldfields
grey beach peavine
sharp-pod peppergrass
Macoun's meadow-foam
blue toadflax
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Red
Blue
fern-leaved desert-parsley
Gray's desert-parsley
seaside birds-foot trefoil
bog birds-foot trefoil
Red
Red
Red
Red
COSEWIC
E (May 2005)
SARA
Schedule
1
E (Apr 2006)
T (Nov 2004)
1
E (May 2000)
E (May 2004)
1
1
Page 4-2
Class
Scientific Name
English Name
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
Lotus unifoliolatus var. unifoliolatus
Spanish-clover
Blue
Lupinus densiflorus var. densiflorus
Lupinus lepidus
Lupinus oreganus var. kincaidii
Lupinus rivularis
Madia minima
Marah oreganus
Meconella oregana
Megalodonta beckii var. beckii
Microseris bigelovii
Microseris lindleyi
Mimulus dentatus
Minuartia pusilla
Mitella caulescens
Montia chamissoi
Montia diffusa
Myrica californica
Myriophyllum quitense
Myriophyllum ussuriense
Navarretia intertexta
Nothochelone nemorosa
Orobanche pinorum
Orthocarpus bracteosus
Orthocarpus imbricatus
Oxalis oregana
Plagiobothrys tenellus
Pleuricospora fimbriolata
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polygonum paronychia
Psilocarphus elatior
Psilocarphus tenellus var. tenellus
Pyrola elliptica
dense-flowered lupine
prairie lupine
Kincaid's lupine
streambank lupine
small-headed tarweed
manroot
white meconella
water marigold
coast microseris
Lindley's microseris
tooth-leaved monkey-flower
dwarf sandwort
leafy mitrewort
Chamisso's montia
branching montia
California wax-myrtle
waterwort water-milfoil
Ussurian water-milfoil
needle-leaved navarretia
woodland penstemon
pine broomrape
rosy owl-clover
mountain owl-clover
redwood sorrel
slender popcornflower
fringed pinesap
water-pepper
black knotweed
tall woolly-heads
slender woolly-heads
white wintergreen
Red
Red
Red
Red
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
COSEWIC
SARA
Schedule
E (May 2005)
E (May 2000)
1
1
E (Nov 2002)
1
E (May 2005)
1
E (Apr 2006)
E (May 2004)
1
E (May 2004)
1
E (May 2001)
NAR (May 1996)
1
Page 4-3
Class
Ferns
English Name
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
water-plantain buttercup
California buttercup
Lobb's water-buttercup
dwarf bramble
snow bramble
California-tea
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Sagina decumbens ssp. occidentalis
Salix lemmonii
Salix sessilifolia
Sanguisorba menziesii
Sanicula arctopoides
Sanicula bipinnatifida
Senecio macounii
Sidalcea hendersonii
Silene scouleri ssp. grandis
Tonella tenella
Toxicodendron diversilobum
Trifolium cyathiferum
Trifolium depauperatum var.
depauperatum
Trifolium dichotomum
western pearlwort
Lemmon's willow
soft-leaved willow
Menzies' burnet
snake-root sanicle
purple sanicle
Macoun's groundsel
Henderson's checker-mallow
Scouler's catchfly
small-flowered tonella
poison oak
cup clover
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Red
Blue
Red
poverty clover
Macrae's clover
Blue
Blue
Triphysaria versicolor ssp. versicolor
Utricularia ochroleuca
Verbena hastata var. scabra
Viola howellii
Viola praemorsa ssp. praemorsa
Yabea microcarpa
Asplenium adulterinum
Cheilanthes gracillima
Dryopteris arguta
Thelypteris nevadensis
Woodwardia fimbriata
bearded owl-clover
ochroleucous bladderwort
blue vervain
Howell's violet
yellow montane violet
California hedge-parsley
corrupt spleenwort
lace fern
coastal wood fern
Nevada marsh fern
giant chain fern
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Scientific Name
Ranunculus alismifolius var.
alismifolius
Ranunculus californicus
Ranunculus lobbii
Rubus lasiococcus
Rubus nivalis
Rupertia physodes
COSEWIC
SARA
Schedule
E (May 2000)
1
E (May 2001)
T (May 2001)
1
1
E (May 2003)
E (Nov 2003)
1
1
E (May 2000)
1
T (May 2000)
1
SC (Nov 2001)
1
Page 4-4
Class
Scientific Name
Monocots Agrostis pallens
Allium amplectens
Allium crenulatum
Allium geyeri var. tenerum
Alopecurus carolinianus
Bolboschoenus fluviatilis
Bulbostylis capillaris
Carex feta
Carex gmelinii
Carex interrupta
Carex pansa
Carex scoparia
Carex tumulicola
Cephalanthera austiniae
Cyperus squarrosus
Eleocharis parvula
Eleocharis rostellata
Erythronium montanum
Glyceria leptostachya
Juncus kelloggii
Juncus occidentalis
Juncus oxymeris
Leymus triticoides
Lilaea scilloides
Malaxis brachypoda
Melica harfordii
Melica smithii
Piperia candida
Piperia elegans
Pleuropogon refractus
Potamogeton oakesianus
Prosartes smithii
Schoenoplectus americanus
Sparganium fluctuans
Triglochin concinna
English Name
dune bentgrass
slimleaf onion
Olympic onion
Geyer's onion
Carolina meadow-foxtail
river bulrush
densetuft hairsedge
green-sheathed sedge
Gmelin's sedge
green-fruited sedge
sand-dune sedge
pointed broom sedge
foothill sedge
phantom orchid
awned cyperus
small spike-rush
beaked spike-rush
white glacier lily
slender-spiked mannagrass
Kellogg's rush
western rush
pointed rush
creeping wildrye
flowering quillwort
white adder's-mouth orchid
Harford's melic
Smith's melic
white-lip rein orchid
elegant rein orchid
nodding semaphoregrass
Oakes' pondweed
Smith's fairybells
Olney's bulrush
water bur-reed
graceful arrow-grass
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
COSEWIC
SARA
Schedule
T (May 2000)
1
E (May 2003)
1
Page 4-5
Class
Scientific Name
Trillium ovatum var. hibbersonii
Triteleia howellii
Wolffia columbiana
Quillworts Isoetes nuttallii
Selaginella oregana
Acaulon muticum var. rufescens
Other
Botrychium simplex
Hypogymnia heterophylla
Ophioglossum pusillum
Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis
English Name
dwarf trillium
Howell's triteleia
Columbian water-meal
Nuttall's quillwort
Oregon selaginella
least moonwort
Seaside Bone
northern adder's-tongue
Oldgrowth Specklebelly
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
Red
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Red
COSEWIC
SARA
Schedule
E (May 2003)
1
SC (May 1996)
3
SC (May 1996)
3
Page 4-6
BEC
Zone Scientific Name
CDF Abies grandis / Mahonia nervosa
CDF Abies grandis / Tiarella trifoliata
CDF
CDF
CDF
CDF
Alnus rubra / Carex obnupta [ Populus
balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa ]
Alnus rubra / Lysichiton americanus
Arbutus menziesii / Arctostaphylos
columbiana
Artemisia campestris / Grindelia
integrifolia
English Name
grand fir / dull Oregon-grape
grand fir / three-leaved foamflower
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
Red
Red
BGC
CDFmm/04
CDFmm/06
red alder / slough sedge [ black
cottonwood ]
red alder / skunk cabbage
Red
Blue
CDFmm/14
CDFmm/11
Red
CDFmm/00;CWHxm1/00
Red
Red
CDFmm/00
CDFmm/Wf53;CWHmm1/Wf53;CW
Hmm2/Wf53;CWHxm1/Wf53;CWHx
m2/Wf53
Lyngbye's sedge herbaceous vegetation
large-headed sedge Herbaceous
Vegetation
Blue
CDFmm/Em05
Red
CDFmm/00;CWHvh1/00
tufted hairgrass - Douglas' aster
Blue
CDFmm/Ed02;CWH/Ed02
tufted hairgrass - meadow barley
seashore saltgrass Herbaceous
Vegetation
Blue
CDFmm/Ed01
Red
three-way sedge
Red
CDFmm/Em03
CDFmm/Wm51;CWHmm1/Wm51;C
WHxm2/Wm51;ICHwk1/Wm51
common spike-rush
Blue
BGxw2/Wm04;CDFmm/Wm04;ESS
Fdv
d/Wm04;ESSFdv/Wm04;IDFxm/Wm
04;SBSdk/Wm04;SBSmk2/Wm04
Roemer's fescue - junegrass
Red
CDFmm/00;CWHxm1/00
Red
CDFmm/Ed03;CWH/Ed03
arbutus / hairy manzanita
northern wormwood / Puget Sound
gumweed
CDF Carex lasiocarpa - Rhynchospora alba slender sedge - white beak-rush
CDF Carex lyngbyei Herbaceous Vegetation
Carex macrocephala Herbaceous
CDF Vegetation
Deschampsia cespitosa ssp.
CDF beringensis - Aster subspicatus
Deschampsia cespitosa ssp.
beringensis - Hordeum
CDF brachyantherum
Distichlis spicata var. spicata
CDF Herbaceous Vegetation
Dulichium arundinaceum Herbaceous
CDF Vegetation
Eleocharis palustris Herbaceous
CDF Vegetation
Festuca idahoensis ssp. roemeri CDF Koeleria macrantha
CDF Juncus arcticus - Plantago macrocarpa arctic rush - Alaska plantain
Plant Communities at Risk
Page 4-7
BEC
English Name
Menyanthes trifoliata - Carex
CDF lasiocarpa
Myosurus minimus - Montia spp. CDF Limnanthes macounii
CDF Myrica gale / Carex sitchensis
Pinus contorta / Sphagnum spp.
CDF CDFmm
Populus tremuloides / Malus fusca /
CDF Carex obnupta
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Arbutus
CDF menziesii
Pseudotsuga menziesii / Mahonia
CDF nervosa
Pseudotsuga menziesii / Melica
CDF subulata
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
BGC
buckbean - slender sedge
tiny mousetail - montias - Macoun's
meadow-foam
Blue
CDFmm/Wf06;CWHws1/Wf06;ICHw
k1/Wf06;IDFdk2/Wf06;SBSdk/Wf06
sweet gale / Sitka sedge
Red
CDFmm/00
Hmm2/Wf52;CWHvh2/Wf52;CWHw
m/Wf52;CWHxm1/Wf52;CWHxm2/
Wf52
lodgepole pine / peat-mosses CDFmm
trembling aspen / Pacific crab apple /
slough sedge
Red
CDFmm/10
Red
CDFmm/00
Douglas-fir - arbutus
Red
Red
CDFmm/02
Y (Jun
2006)
Y (Jun
2006)
Douglas-fir / dull Oregon-grape
Red
Douglas-fir / Alaska oniongrass
Red
CDF Quercus garryana - Arbutus menziesii
Garry oak - arbutus
Red
CDFmm/00
CDF Quercus garryana / Bromus carinatus
Garry oak / California brome
Red
CDFmm/00
Red
CDFmm/00
Red
CDFmm/Em01;CWH/Em01
Red
Red
Red
Red
CDFmm/Em02;CWH/Em02
CDFmm/Ws51;CWH/Ws51;ICH/Ws
51
CDFmm/12
CDFmm/13
Red
CDFmm/05
CDF Quercus garryana / Holodiscus discolor Garry oak / oceanspray
Ruppia maritima Herbaceous
beaked ditch-grass Herbaceous
Vegetation
Vegetation
CDF
CDF Salicornia virginiana - Glaux maritima
Salix sitchensis - Salix lucida ssp.
CDF lasiandra / Lysichiton americanus
CDF Thuja plicata / Achlys triphylla
CDF Thuja plicata / Oemleria cerasiformis
Thuja plicata - Pseudotsuga menziesii /
CDF Eurhynchium oreganum
American glasswort - sea-milkwort
Sitka willow - Pacific willow / skunk
cabbage
western redcedar / vanilla leaf
western redcedar / Indian-plum
western redcedar - Douglas-fir / Oregon
beaked-moss
CDFmm/01
CDFmm/03
Page 4-8
BEC
English Name
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
CDF Thuja plicata / Symphoricarpos albus
western redcedar / common snowberry
Red
CDF Typha latifolia Marsh
Arbutus menziesii / Arctostaphylos
CDF columbiana
common cattail Marsh
Blue
arbutus / hairy manzanita
Red
CDF Carex lasiocarpa - Rhynchospora alba
Carex sitchensis - Oenanthe
CWH sarmentosa
Deschampsia cespitosa - Sidalcea
hendersonii
CWH
Festuca idahoensis ssp. roemeri CWH Koeleria macrantha
Ledum groenlandicum / Kalmia
CWH microphylla / Sphagnum spp.
slender sedge - white beak-rush
Red
Sitka sedge - Pacific water-parsley
tufted hairgrass - Henderson's checkermallow
Blue
CDFmm/00;CWHxm1/00
Hmm2/Wf53;CWHxm1/Wf53;CWHx
m2/Wf53
CWHvh2/Wm50;CWHwm/Wm50;C
WHxm1/Wm50
Red
CWHxm1/00
Roemer's fescue - junegrass
Labrador tea / western bog-laurel / peatmosses
Red
CWH Myrica gale / Carex sitchensis
Picea sitchensis / Rubus spectabilis
CWH Very Dry Maritime
Pinus contorta / Sphagnum spp. Very
CWH Dry Maritime
Pinus contorta var. contorta /
Juniperus communis - Arctostaphylos
CWH columbiana
sweet gale / Sitka sedge
Sitka spruce / salmonberry Very Dry
Maritime
lodgepole pine / peat-mosses Very Dry
Maritime
Red
CDFmm/00;CWHxm1/00
CWHvm1/Wb50;CWHxm1/Wb50;C
WHxm2/Wb50
Hmm2/Wf52;CWHvh2/Wf52;CWHw
m/Wf52;CWHxm1/Wf52;CWHxm2/
Wf52
Red
CWHxm1/08;CWHxm2/08
Blue
CWHxm1/11;CWHxm2/11
Red
CWHxm1/00
shore pine / common juniper - hairy
manzanita
Blue
BGC
CDFmm/07
BGxh1/Wm05;BGxh2/Wm05;BGxw1
/Wm05;CDFmm/Wm05;CWHdm/W
m05;CWHxm1/Wm05;CWHxm2/W
m05;IDFdk3/Wm05;IDFdm2/Wm05;
PPxh1/Wm05
Page 4-9
BEC
CWH
CWH
CWH
CWH
CWH
Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa Alnus rubra / Rubus spectabilis
Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa /
Salix sitchensis
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Pinus
contorta / Racomitrium canescens
Pseudotsuga menziesii / Polystichum
munitum
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Tsuga
heterophylla / Gaultheria shallon Dry
Maritime
English Name
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
black cottonwood - red alder / salmonberry Blue
black cottonwood / Sitka willow
Douglas-fir - lodgepole pine / grey rockmoss
Blue
Douglas-fir / sword fern
Red
CWHxm1/02
CWHdm/04;CWHxm1/04;CWHxm2/
04
Douglas-fir - western hemlock / salal Dry
Maritime
Blue
03
Red
CWH Sidalcea hendersonii Tidal Marsh
Henderson's checker-mallow Tidal Marsh Red
CWH Thuja plicata / Carex obnupta
western redcedar / slough sedge
Blue
CWH Thuja plicata / Lonicera involucrata
western redcedar / black twinberry
Red
Thuja plicata - Picea sitchensis /
CWH Lysichiton americanus
Thuja plicata / Polystichum munitum
CWH Very Dry Maritime
western redcedar - Sitka spruce / skunk
cabbage
western redcedar / sword fern Very Dry
Maritime
CWH Thuja plicata / Rubus spectabilis
Thuja plicata / Tiarella trifoliata Very
CWH Dry Maritime
Trichophorum alpinum / Scorpidium
CWH revolvens
western redcedar / salmonberry
western redcedar / three-leaved
foamflower Very Dry Maritime
Red
Hudson Bay clubrush / rusty hook-moss
Red
BGC
CWHdm/09;CWHds1/09;CWHds2/0
9;CWHmm1/09;CWHms1/08;CWH
ms2/08;CWHvm1/10;CWHwm/06;C
WHws1/08;CWHws2/08;CWHxm1/0
9;CWHxm2/09
10
Blue
Blue
Red
CWHxm1/00
15
14
CWHdm/12;CWHds1/12;CWHds2/1
2;CWHmm1/12;CWHms1/11;CWH
ms2/11;CWHvh1/13;CWHvh2/13;C
WHvm1/14;CWHwh1/12;CWHwh2/0
6;CWHws1/11;CWHxm1/12;CWHx
m2/12
CWHxm1/05;CWHxm2/05
13
CWHxm1/07;CWHxm2/07
CWHxm1/Wf10;SBSmc2/Wf10;SBS
mk2/Wf10
Page 4-10
BEC
Tsuga heterophylla - Pseudotsuga
CWH menziesii / Eurhynchium oreganum
Tsuga heterophylla - Thuja plicata /
CWH Blechnum spicant
English Name
western hemlock - Douglas-fir / Oregon
beaked-moss
western hemlock - western redcedar /
deer fern
CWH Typha latifolia Marsh
common cattail Marsh
Identified
BC Status Wildlife
Red
Red
Blue
BGC
CWHxm1/01;CWHxm2/01
06
BGxh1/Wm05;BGxh2/Wm05;BGxw1
/Wm05;CDFmm/Wm05;CWHdm/W
m05;CWHxm1/Wm05;CWHxm2/W
m05;IDFdk3/Wm05;IDFdm2/Wm05;
PPxh1/Wm05
Page 4-11
APPENDIX 5 Open House Notifications, Correspondence, and
Press Clippings Concerning the Proposed Terasen LNG Facility
APPENDIX 6 LNG Tank Schematic
LNG TANK SCHEMATIC
Steel roof collects
evaporating gas vapour for
processing
All tank penetrations
are on top
Top insulation
suspended from
outer tank roof
Inlet and outlet
lines
Carbon steel
outer tank
4ft insulation
Inner tank,
9%Nickel steel
contains LNG at
-1620F
Earthen dykesecondary containment
Seismically
designed foundation
and floor
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6-1
APPENDIX 7 Red-legged Frog Habitat and Impact Assessment
E. W I N D C O N S U L T I N G
Red-legged Frog Habitat and Impact Assessment for Terasen Gas’
Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Facility on Vancouver Island
Prepared for
Mark Walmsley
Westland Resource Group
1863 Oak Bay Ave.
Victoria, BC V8R 1C6
By
Elke Wind
E. Wind Consulting
348 Machleary St.,
Nanaimo, BC V9R 2G9
October 29, 2004
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 Site Visit ...................................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Habitat Assessment and Recommendations .............................................................................. 5
3.1 Can the retention pond be effectively restored to a state that can be utilized by Red-legged
frogs? ............................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.1 Recommendations............................................................................................................ 7
3.2 What measures can be taken to avoid the introduction of Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), a
non-native amphibian species in BC? ........................................................................................... 8
3.3 Are the surrounding wetlands suitable for Red-legged frogs? ................................................ 9
4.0 Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 10
5.0 References ................................................................................................................................ 10
Appendix 1. Photos of ponds assessed for amphibian habitat suitability near Mt. Hayes, BC. ...... 11
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Terasen Gas has submitted a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facility on
Vancouver Island near Mt. Hayes south of Nanaimo, British Columbia (BC). The proposed project
involves utilizing a small, natural wetland for the construction of a large retention pond to contain
the water required for testing the soundness of the storage tank and for fire fighting purposes.
An impact assessment conducted in summer 2004 revealed that Red-legged frogs (Rana aurora),
a blue-listed species in BC, breed in this small wetland (Cooper 2004). In relation to this finding,
the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection requested that an amphibian expert be consulted to
address three main issues (M. Walmsley, pers. comm.):
1. Can the retention pond be effectively restored to a state that can be utilized by Red-legged
frogs?
2. What measures can be taken to avoid the introduction of Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) to
the site, a non-native species in BC?
3. Are the surrounding wetlands suitable for Red-legged frogs?
2.0 SITE VISIT
Mark Walmsley (Westland Resources Group), John Cooper (Manning, Cooper and Associates),
and I (E. Wind Consulting) visited the site on October 8, 2004 to look at five of the wetlands in the
area to discuss the aforementioned issues (Figure 1).
We walked through the wetlands and I assessed each in terms of its suitability for amphibian
breeding, specifically for Red-legged frogs. More specifically, I looked at the cover and composition
of various indicator vegetation zones (e.g., graminoids and shrubs), water depth (maximum;
hydroperiod), proportion of open water, presence and location of the in and outflow, surrounding
upland habitat type(s), and proximity to forest and vegetated cover.
Five ponds were investigated (see Appendix 1 for photos of each)—the proposed retention pond
where the Red-legged frogs were found is referred to as ‘Pond 3’:
Pond 1:
A large, shallow marsh / treed swamp with extensive areas of graminoids and shrubs (mainly
Spirea), and riparian forest cover. It was difficult to assess hydroperiod given the abnormally heavy
rains in the area in September. However, a few small pockets of open water were found that may
retain water for sufficient duration for most aquatic-breeding amphibian species (i.e., those who’s
young metamorphose in the first season such as Rough-skinned newts – Taricha granulosa, Redlegged frogs, Pacific Chorus frog – Pseudacris regilla, and Long-toed salamanders – Ambystoma
macrodactylum). The current maximum pool depth was estimated to be less than 50 cm. This pond
is believed to be downstream from Pond 3 (see Fig. 1).
3
Pond 1
Pond 5
Pond 2
Pond 3
Pond 4
Figure 1. Site of proposed Terasen Gas LNG storage facility (orange area) and retention pond (Pond 3). Five wetlands were
assessed for amphibian habitat suitability in October 2004. (Original digital image produced by Westland Resource Group Inc.)
4
Pond 2:
This large, likely permanent, wetland was bordered by numerous snags, suggesting that water
levels may have risen in the past perhaps due to the construction of the logging road and / or from
beaver activity. The wetland has a large, central open-water area with a floating layer of algae,
bordered by a band of shrubs (e.g., Salix sp.?) and snags. It is likely utilized by some amphibian
species for breeding, especially species requiring permanent water (e.g., Northwestern
salamanders - Ambystoma gracile). If permanent, the area may also contain fish. The current
maximum pool depth was not assessed. This pond is downstream from Pond 4, and it has riparian
forest cover.
Pond 3 (site of proposed retention pond):
This mid-sized, shallow wetland contains a central treed area (similar to a raised bog) surrounded
by a band of Spirea. Based on Cooper’s (2004) assessment, this pond is ephemeral, drying in mid
to late summer. Small pockets of shallow, open water (e.g., < 20 cm) were found under the
perimeter trees (one of which contained the newly metamorphosed Red-legged frogs in July).
Amphibian species who’s young metamorphose in the first year may breed here (see Pond 1). The
estimated current maximum pool depth was less than 50 cm. This pond may drain into Pond 1, and
is isolated within a recent clearcut with a riparian buffer.
Pond 4:
A mid- to large-sized wetland with extensive graminoid and Spirea shrub cover. Hydroperiod was
difficult to assess, but pockets of open water and areas with less dense Spirea cover appear
suitable for amphibian breeding by species who’s young metamorphose within the first year.
Current maximum pool depth was less than 50 cm. This pond may drain into Pond 2, is located
within a clearcut with riparian cover, and is connected to a nearby forest stand.
Pond 5:
A small depression that likely collects water during periods of high precipitation. The bottom
contained extensive moss cover, as well as graminoids and woody debris. Hydroperiod was
difficult to assess, but there was no water in the area after the abnormally heavy September rains
suggesting that it may not be suitable for breeding (e.g., does not retain water for long periods).
The area is likely used by amphibians for foraging, cover, and rehydration. This pond is located
near the pipeline right-of-way, and is isolated within a recent clearcut with riparian forest cover.
3.0 HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the assessment have been presented in the context of the three issues raised by the
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, followed by recommendations for each.
3.1 Can the retention pond be effectively restored to a state that can be utilized by Redlegged frogs?
Amphibians are patchily distributed in relation to habitat features (e.g., wetlands). Little is known of
the exact habitat requirements of amphibian species for breeding, summer foraging or
overwintering, so it is difficult to predict why some sites are selected over others.
Few studies have assessed the habitat requirements of Red-legged frogs, especially in British
Columbia. On Vancouver Island, Red-legged frog breeding sites were encountered less frequently
compared to other amphibian species during surveys of wetlands less than 1 ha in size, suggesting
5
that this anuran may be more of a habitat specialist than a generalist, like the Pacific Chorus frog
(Pseudacris regilla; Table 1; Wind 2003).
Table 1. Occurrence of breeding amphibians at 167 small wetlands (< 1 ha) surveyed on Vancouver Island in
2002 (Wind, unpublished data).
Northwestern
salamander
Long-toed salamander
Pacific Chorus frog
Red-legged frog
(Ambystoma gracile)
(A. macrodactylum)
(Pseudacris regilla)
(Rana aurora)
# of sites
34
17
29
6
% of sites
20%
10%
17%
4%
Of the seven broad vegetation classes described for each of the 167 wetlands, the average
percent cover of wetland shrubs and graminoids was greater at sites with Red-legged frog
breeding than at sites without (Fig.2; Wind, unpublished data). Sites without Red-legged frogs
contained a high percentage of moss cover. Studies from the Puget Sound area also identified
emergent vegetation, especially thin-stemmed graminoids, as an important habitat feature for Redlegged frogs (Richter and Azous 1995, Richter 1997). In terms of the vegetative cover at the five
ponds near Mt. Hayes, Ponds 1, 3 and 4 contained high proportions of shrubs and graminoids—
Ponds 1 and 4 had areas with less dense shrub cover than Pond 3, as well as areas predominately
covered by graminoids. Pond 5 contained high moss cover and is likely not suitable for Red-legged
frogs for breeding purposes. Pond 2 did not appear to contain any areas dominated by graminoids
but the area was not investigated thoroughly1.
60
No Breeding
Breeding
Average percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
wetland
shrub
graminoid
herbs
moss
trees
aquatics
nonwetland
Vegetative cover
Figure 2. Average percent cover of different vegetation classes described at
wetland sites with and without Red-legged frog breeding on Vancouver Island
(Wind, unpublished data).
1
This pond contained deep water and was only observed from the road.
6
In addition to vegetation, other studies and observations from the Pacific Northwest suggest that
Red-legged frogs also select sites based on:
• water depth (0.5-2m; Corkran and Thoms 1996)
• hydroperiod (standing water from Jan.-Sept.), and
• canopy cover (e.g., riparian)
These factors are all inter-related, and play a significant role in water temperature, an important
factor in the development rate of amphibian larvae (Ultsch et al. 1999). Many amphibians select
ponds with mid-range hydroperiods and canopy cover (Skelly et al. 1999). Amphibians select
ephemeral ponds because they contain fewer predators (Snodgrass et al. 2000), and they are
usually relatively shallow and warm. The main concerns associated with the proposed retention
pond are changes to vegetation, water levels, and temperature. The pond will have most, if not all,
of the vegetation removed, and it will be changed from a shallow, ephemeral wetland to a deep,
permanent retention pond. Predator-prey dynamics, and water temperature, will likely change after
pond dredging—predators that require permanent water (e.g., who’s larvae overwinter in standing
water) will likely increase, while water temperature will likely go down due to increased water
depths (although increased exposure to solar radiation from vegetation removal may alleviate this
effect to some degree). Water levels may be controlled by the proposed weir, but the pond is not
expected to return to an ephemeral state due to the need for water on site.
Aquatic-breeding amphibians species whose larvae metamorphose within the first year, such as
the Red-legged frog, utilize a variety of wetland habitats. As a result, they may be able to adjust to
changes in water levels and vegetative cover that may occur at the site, but this has not been
investigated.
3.1.1 Recommendations
1. Consult with a herpetologist to determine the active season of Red-legged frogs at this site
and the surrounding ponds (i.e., from egg laying to metamorphosis)—see Section 3.3.1
below.
2. Consult with a herpetologist to determine whether newly emerged larvae use the existing
riparian vegetation as cover (juveniles emerge in mid-summer and may remain at the site
until cool, moist conditions prevail, especially at a wetland such as this that is situated
within a cutover area). It may be desirable to relocate the metamorphs to Pond 4 before
pond dredging to avoid direct mortality from machinery.
3. Measure the water depth, and other habitat features (e.g., vegetative cover and species), at
egg mass locations before construction begins (e.g., January to April 2005) to gauge
desirable conditions for pond restoration.
4. Ensure that pond dredging and water draw downs (e.g., LNG tank soundness testing and
the refilling of the fire fighting tank) occur outside of the Red-legged frog active season,
especially the breeding and larval period, which may occur anytime between January and
August (see #1 to determine when that may be). Also, ensure that out-take hoses are
screened (e.g., DFO recommended screening for fry).
5. If possible, retain a section of riparian habitat—a candidate section to retain includes the
southeast boundary because the metamorphs were identified from the south end. Any
cover that can be provided, in terms of downed wood, graminoids, herbs, shrubs, trees, and
snags provides cover for amphibians.
6. Consult a hydrologist / hydrological engineer to assess whether Ponds 3 and 1 are
hydrologically connected, to ensure that the latter will not be significantly affected by the
project, especially if Red-legged frogs are also found at that site.
7
7. Facilitate access to the site by ensuring that the dykes have shallow slopes versus straight
walls. Plant as much native vegetation around the site as possible to provide cover (e.g.,
along the top of the dykes).
8. Ensure that as much of the riparian area as possible has shallow water (e.g., < 1 m), with
‘naturally’ sloping shorelines.
9. Consult a hydrologist / hydrological engineer to determine whether a small, shallow
restoration pond could be constructed near the proposed retention pond to speed / facilitate
the restoration of the site (e.g., along the south-east boundary). Vegetation could then be
transplanted from the retention pond to the alternate site during construction, and frogs
could be encouraged to ‘imprint’ on the new pond more quickly and effectively (e.g.,
through egg translocations). The proposed retention pond will be 10+ m deep, so providing
an alternate, shallow site may prove effective.
10. Replant the shoreline of the retention pond (and shallow pond—see #7) with native wetland
species that currently occur at the site (e.g., Spirea douglasii). If possible, retain plants dug
up during construction and replant them along the shoreline (consult with a wetland
botanist). During the interim, between pond dredging and tank testing (when water depths
will be somewhat unpredictable), plants could be placed into burlap sacks in the water to
move them deeper or shallower in response to fluctuating water levels. This will provide
cover for any frogs that may continue to use the site. Monitor and remove invasive plant
species (terrestrial and exotic).
11. Do not return water used in tank testing back into the pond—allow the site to naturally
regenerate (taking water from the site in Nov./Dec. would be ideal because it’s outside of
the active season for the frogs, and it should allow for sufficient water regeneration before
the breeding season).
12. No pollutants or chemicals may enter the retention pond, including those used on roads
(e.g., dust retardants, salts, etc.), silt, herbicides, fire retardants, oil or gasoline, etc.
3.2 What measures can be taken to avoid the introduction of Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), a
non-native amphibian species in BC?
Bullfrogs are a concern because they are known to prey on native amphibian species, and spread
disease (Wind 2004). Changing the wetland from ephemeral to permanent makes the pond more
suitable for Bullfrogs because their larvae require more than one year to metamorphose to a
terrestrial stage. However, the occurrence and spread of Bullfrogs appears to be more prevalent in
areas with human presence / development (Ovaska et al. 2003, Wind 2004). The proposed site is
located away from human habitation, which reduces the chance that Bullfrogs will be spread into
the area.
1. Monitor the site for Bullfrogs annually. Immediately remove any that are found using nets,
traps, and hand captures (i.e., in a manner that will not put other amphibian species at risk).
2. DO NOT stock the pond with fish. Studies have shown that fish are major predators of
native amphibians, they facilitate the survival of Bullfrogs, and they spread disease (Wind
2004).
3. Encourage people to stay out of, and away from, the retention pond to allow the Redlegged frogs (and other amphibians) to adapt to the changed site, to avoid trampling the
riparian vegetation, and to avoid the introduction of disease and non-native species.
8
3.3 Are the surrounding wetlands suitable for Red-legged frogs?
At least four ponds were identified and assessed in the area around Pond 3. From orthophotos,
more ponds are visible within 1 km of the pond2. This is important because it increases the
likelihood that Red-legged frogs may be breeding at other sites nearby (i.e., that this is an isolated
population), and that the population at the proposed retention pond may find alternate breeding
site(s) if the restored pond is not suitable. The density of ponds is an important factor for
amphibians, as is the degree of isolation. Generally, amphibians are believed to remain within 500
m of the breeding site with some dispersing up to 1 km from natal areas, which is believed to be
the genetic neighbourhood of a population (Gill 1978, Berven and Grudzien 1990).
Although Red-legged frog breeding could not be confirmed because of the time of year, there is a
high probability that Pond 4 could be utilized by this species given its physical similarities and
proximity to Pond 3, and based on what is known of the species. Pond 4 is within 50 m of Pond 3
and contains similar habitat and vegetation (i.e., it has a treed centre surrounded by a ring of
Spirea shrubs and graminoids with small pockets of open water). In addition, Pond 4 has a
relatively large proportion of its boundary connected to surrounding forest compared to Pond 3,
which has only a small strip of trees retained along the western outflow boundary (Fig. 1). Pond 4
may in fact be more suitable for amphibians than Pond 3 due to its size (longer hydroperiod?),
extent of open-water habitat, density of vegetation, water depth, and connectivity to surrounding
forest. Ponds 1 and 2 may also be used by Red-legged frogs, with the former appearing to be
more suitable than the latter. Pond 5 does not appear suitable for amphibians.
1. Map and survey all wetlands within 1 km of Pond 3 in spring / summer 2005 to determine
where Red-legged frogs are breeding. This will provide valuable information on the role that
Pond 3 plays within the local population and it’s ‘sensitivity’ to the potential loss of Pond 3
as suitable breeding habitat.
2. Under the guidance of an experienced herpetologist, relocate a portion of the larvae from
Pond 3 to Pond 4 (and the alternate restoration pond—see Section 3.1.1) in order to: 1)
increase the survival rate of the population, and 2) to observe the ability of the species to
adapt to a new site (i.e., measure the success of the relocation). This is especially
important if no other natural breeding population/pond exists in the near vicinity.
3. Utilize this project as an opportunity to monitor and research the effects of such
development projects on amphibians under an adaptive management scenario (i.e., monitor
the results and make changes as necessary). For example, assess the success of using
the strategies recommended here in terms of amphibian survival rates and plasticity (i.e.,
ability to ‘switch’ ponds) to improve the suitability of the retention pond itself and to provide
valuable information to managers of future development projects.
2
There may be more suitable ponds in the area that are not visible under the forest canopy (Wind 2003).
9
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
In my professional opinion, with the implementation of the aforementioned recommendations, Redlegged frogs and other amphibian species should not be significantly impacted by the construction
and restoration of the retention pond at Mt. Hayes. The area has been impacted by forestry
operations for decades, and the proposed activity within the retention pond itself (i.e., dredging and
testing) is expected to take place over a relatively short period (M. Walmsley, pers. comm.),
outside of the active season for the frogs. There are numerous wetlands in the area, some of which
appear suitable for Red-legged frogs. This species utilizes a wide variety of habitat types for
breeding. As a result, it is expected that individuals may be able to adapt to the changes at the site.
5.0 REFERENCES
Berven, K.A., and T.A. Grudzien. 1990. Dispersal in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica): implications for
genetic population structure. Evolution 44:2047-2056.
Cooper, John M. 2004. Letter report to Westland Resource Group Inc. Re: Terasen LNG Storage
Facility at Mount Hayes from Manning, Cooper and Associates.
Corkran, C.C., and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.
Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta. 175 pp.
Gill, D. E. 1978. The metapopulation ecology of the red-spotted newt, Notophthalmus viridescens
(Rafinesque). Ecological Monographs 48:145-166.
Ovaska, K., Sopuck, L., Engelstoft, C., Matthias, L., Wind, E., and J. McGarvie. 2003. Best
Management Practices for Amphibians and Reptiles in Urban and Rural Environments in
British Columbia. Report produced for the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
Nanaimo, BC.
Richter, K.O. 1997. Criteria for the restoration and creation of wetland habitats of lentic-breeding
amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Pp. 72-94. In, Macdonald, K.B., and F. Weinmann
(eds). Wetland and Riparian Restoration: Taking a Broader View. Contributed Papers and
Selected Abstracts, Society for Ecological Restoration, 1995 International Conference,
Sept. 14-16, 1995, University of Washington. Publication EPA 910-R-97-007, USEPA,
Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Richter, K.O., and A.L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the
Puget Sound Basin. Wetlands 15(3):305-312.
Skelly, D.K., E.E. Werner, and S.A. Cortwright. 1999. Long-term distributional dynamics of a
Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80:2326-2337.
Snodgrass, J.W., M.J. Komoroski, and A.L. Bryan, Jr. 2000. Relationships among isolated wetland
size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations.
Conservation Biology 14:414–419.
Ultsch, G.R., D.F. Bradford, and J. Freda. 1999. Physiology: coping with the environment. Pp. 189214. In, McDiarmid, R. W., and R. Altig (eds.). Tadpoles: The Biology of Anuran Larvae.
University of Chicago Press, London.
Wind, E. 2003. Aquatic-breeding amphibian monitoring program: Analysis of Small Wetland
Habitats on Vancouver Island. Annual Progress Report 2002. Unpublished report prepared
for Weyerhaeuser Company, Nanaimo, BC.
Wind, E. 2004. Effects of nonnative predators on aquatic ecosystems. Unpublished report
prepared for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.
10
APPENDIX 1. PHOTOS OF PONDS ASSESSED FOR AMPHIBIAN HABITAT
SUITABILITY NEAR MT. HAYES, BC.
Pond 1. This wetland contained extensive graminoids and shrub vegetation, with a few small
pockets of open water (e.g., bottom right of photo).
Pond 2. A large, likely permanent, wetland with open water and shrub growth.
11
Pond 3. This wetland contains dense Spirea shrubs and small pockets of water as shown here.
Pond 4. Large wetland similar to Pond 3 with a central treed area surrounded by a ring of Spirea
and graminoids.
Pond 5. Small depression containing extensive moss and graminoids, likely not used by
amphibians for breeding.
12

Terasen Gas (Vancouver Island) Inc. (“TGVI”) Certificate of Public

Transcription

Similar documents

lng vessels/buques gnl

Buks6r 0g Berging to build world`s first LNG tugs

Aprobación de proyectos de gas natural en buques

Terasen Gas - Service Line

CENLA Forestry Forum - Gas Technology Institute

The prospects for liquid air cold chains in India

holsteins - Harriston

Blair Goertzen - Toromont Industries Ltd.