executive summary kitimat lng terminal project comprehensive study ...

Purpose of this Report 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

KITIMAT LNG TERMINAL PROJECT 

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT 

This Report is designed to describe the Kitimat Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 

Terminal Project, assess its potential environmental, social, economic, health, 

heritage and First Nations effects, and identify the measures required to mitigate 

any adverse environmental effects of the Project. 

The Report constitutes an Assessment Report to satisfy the requirements of the 

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA), and a 

Comprehensive Study Report to satisfy the requirements of the Canadian 

Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). 

This Report has been prepared jointly by the British Columbia Environmental 

Assessment Office (EAO) and by Transport Canada, Environment Canada, and 

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, who are the federal responsible authorities 

(RAs) for this assessment. This Report serves as a common basis for federal 

and provincial environmental assessment decisions on the Project. 

Nature of the Kitimat LNG Terminal Project 

This Project has been proposed by Kitimat LNG Inc. (Proponent) to construct and 

operate facilities for the import of LNG by marine tankers, its storage, regasification 

and send-out by pipelines connecting to the existing pipeline grid at 

Kitimat. 

The Project proposes an LNG terminal at a site approximately 14 km south of 

Kitimat. Information has been provided for the assessment of the Project at both 

Emsley Cove and Bish Cove, which are approximately 3 km apart along the north 

shore of Kitimat Arm. 

The Project Proponent 

The Proponent is a subsidiary of Galveston LNG Inc. of Calgary, Alberta. 

Galveston LNG is a private company established in 2004, and focused on the 

development of LNG and related facilities within North America. 

The Proponent is dedicated to the development and operation of the proposed 

Project. Galveston’s other subsidiary company, LNG Impel, is an LNG marketing 

and trading company with key responsibility to secure supply and markets for the 

Project. 

Executive Summary-KLNG Terminal Project 1

Project Components 

The major components of the Project are: 

1. Construction and operation of marine terminal facilities which consist of: 

o An LNG tanker berthing and uploading jetty and related LNG tanker 

operations in the vicinity of the terminal and at berth, 

o A combined tug boat berth and construction barge jetty, and 

o Potential dredging activities and potential disposal of dredged 

materials at sea if required; 

2. The LNG terminal and facilities on the upland, including three LNG storage 

tanks, power transformer, submerged combustion vapourizers, and natural 

gas liquids (NGL) separation unit; 

3. Pipelines, roads and transmission lines, consisting of: 

o A new terminal access road, 

o An upgrade to portions of the existing Bish Forest Service Road, 

o A 287 kv aerial hydroelectric power transmission line to the terminal, 

and 

o Four send-out pipelines (one natural gas and three natural gas liquids 

lines), all in a single corridor adjacent to the Forest Service Road and 

connecting to the Pacific Northern Gas (PNG) pipeline at Kitimat; 

4. On-site infrastructure, including: 

o Internal roads and parking areas, 

o Buildings for maintenance, compressors, vapourizers, generators, 

pumps, motors, and other purposes, 

o Emergency power generation facilities, and 

o Hazard detection and control systems. 

The marine and land-based facilities have been designed for a Project lifespan of 

approximately 25 years. There are no provisions for bunkering fuel for LNG 

tankers. 

All Project components are located within the traditional territory of the Haisla 

First Nation and within the District Municipality of Kitimat. If located at Emsley 

Cove, all Project components would be on provincial Crown land. If located at 

Bish Cove, the upland LNG terminal would be sited on the 74 ha Bees Indian 

Reserve (IR) No. 6 (administered by the federal government), and all other 

Project components would be located on Provincial Crown land. 


Both Emsley Cove and Bish Cove are designated for industrial use in the Kalum 

Land and Resource Management Plan (May 2002). The Haisla have approved 

use of Bees IR No. 6 for heavy commercial industrial use as set out in Privy 

Council Order 1997- 1052, and use for an LNG facility is consistent with the 

designated uses. 

Project Footprint 

The land-based portion of the LNG terminal would have a larger overall footprint 

if located at Bish Cove due to soils and terrain (approximately 47 ha at Bish Cove 

and 30 ha at Emsley Cove). 

The marine terminal has been designed to handle LNG carriers up to 250,000 m 3 

capacity. The marine terminal facilities would cover an area of approximately 

0.75 ha of water and foreshore area at Emsley Cove and 2 ha at Bish Cove. At 

Emsley Cove, the marine facilities would require an estimated 9,000 m 3 of 

dredging and excavation (mostly rock) to provide a bedrock foundation for marine 

pilings. Instead of dredging at Bish Cove, marine sediments would be 

strengthened and stabilized by a vibro-densification process over approximately 

2 ha of seabed. 

For a Bish Cove terminal, the total distance of pipelines would be approximately 

14 km. For an Emsley Cove terminal, the pipelines will be approximately 18 km 

in length and routed northeast from the LNG terminal, following the natural terrain 

and the existing Forest Service Road. 

The proposed access road from a terminal at Bish Cove to the existing Forest 

Service Road is 2.3 km in length. If the terminal is located at Emsley Cove, the 

length of this access road is anticipated to be approximately 800 m. 

Provincial and Federal Environmental Assessments 

The Project triggers a provincial environmental assessment under BCEAA. At 

Emsley Cove, the BCEAA triggers are the storage tanks and gas processing 

plant, all on provincial Crown land. At Bish Cove, the proposed location of the 

storage tanks and gas processing plant precludes these provincial review 

triggers, and the assessment trigger under BCEAA is the proposed 2 ha of 

shoreline modification associated with the Bish Cove marine facilities. 

The Project also triggers a federal environmental assessment under CEAA 

because Transport Canada (TC) and Environment Canada (EC) will be required 

to issue statutory or regulatory approvals for various aspects of the Project. For 

a Bish Cove terminal, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) will be required 

to issue a lease would be required for the use of Bees IR No. 6. Therefore, TC, 

EC and INAC are responsible authorities for the purposes of the federal 

environmental assessment. Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 


(DFO), and Natural Resources Canada provided advice to the environmental 

assessment. 

The federal RAs determined that the Project requires a Comprehensive Study 

Review under CEAA because a component of the project meets the 

requirements of paragraph 13(d) of the Comprehensive Study Regulations. This 

was confirmed by the federal Minister of Environment after public review of a 

federal Scoping Document early in the review process. 

DFO has conducted a screening level environmental assessment of the Project 

pursuant to the CEAA, but participated in the joint assessment process and will 

use this joint federal-provincial report to inform its screening level assessment. 

The provincial and federal assessment processes have been harmonized in 

accordance with the Canada/British Columbia Agreement for Environmental 

Assessment Cooperation (2004). 

Scope of the Joint Environmental Assessment 

The scope of assessment includes the consideration of the potential effects of 

the Project, including environmental, social, economic, health and heritage 

effects and potential effects on aboriginal interests, taking into account practical 

means of preventing or reducing to an acceptable level any potential adverse 

effects of the Project. 

The scope of assessment under CEAA defines additional factors to be 

considered. These include: alternative means of carrying out the Project that 

are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any 

such alternative means; environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents; 

potential cumulative environmental effects; the significance of the environmental 

effects; measures that would mitigate significant adverse environmental effects; 

the capacity of renewable resources likely to be significantly affected; and a 

follow-up program. 

Specifically, the assessment has considered air quality, visual quality, noise 

levels, freshwater and marine ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems, wildlife and 

fisheries, vegetation, navigation, and social, economic, cultural and heritage 

values. 

Public Consultation 

Consultation with the general public occurred primarily in response to EAO and 

federal RA requirements. The Proponent initiated a public and local government 

consultation program in April 2000. In the Application review stage, a 45 day 

public review and comment period was held to obtain feedback on the Project 

Application, and included 3 public open houses and a Haisla community meeting. 


An additional 30 day public review period was established to allow public 

comments on the supplementary information generated by the Proponent for a 

more through assessment of the Bish Cove location. A public meeting was held 

by EAO on the Bish Cove plans and assessment work during this second review 

period, at the request of the District of Kitimat Council. Relevant Project 

information and correspondence was made available to the public on the EAO 

web site and the Proponent’s web site. 

In the formal June 15 to July 30, 2005 public comment period for the Application 

review, 44 written comments were received from members of the public, in 

addition to a number of comments provided during the three open house 

meetings. 

During the 30 day review period and associated public meeting on 

supplementary information related to Bish Cove, 3 written responses and 11 

questions/comments were received (the latter made verbally at the public 

meeting). 

In general, almost all comments made during the initial 45-day formal review and 

the public open houses were favourable and supportive of the Project, as initially 

proposed for Emsley Cove. The public review and meeting subsequently held for 

the Bish Cove site also confirmed public support for the Project if located at Bish 

Cove. 

The public participation for the federal environmental assessment process 

followed the provincial process while including additional participation steps 

required for a comprehensive study. These included the advertising and public 

review of the federal Scoping Document, and the provision of participant funding 

for participation in the environmental assessment process. Relevant information 

was also been placed on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry 

(CEAR). 

Six submissions were received as a result of the public participation on the CEAA 

scoping document. These submissions were of a nature that provided the 

Minister of Environment with sufficient information to confirm the comprehensive 

study as an appropriate level of review for the Project. 

All issues raised by the public during the review of the Project have been 

considered in the Application review process and the documents generated as 

part of the review. 

The public is also being provided with a formal public review opportunity to 

provide input on this joint report under CEAA. All comments submitted will be 

provided to the RAs and will become part of the public registry for the Project. 

The RAs will confirm whether or not their conclusions have been altered as a 

result of the public comments received. 


Government Consultation and Issues 

Proponent consultation on the Project with federal, provincial and local 

government agencies occurred primarily through use of a Project Working Group 

(WG), comprised of representatives of federal, provincial and local government 

agencies and the Haisla First Nation. The WG was chaired by the EAO and the 

CEA Agency. 

The WG and sub-groups were used to identify, document and resolve Projectrelated 

issues. Much of the work done in this EA was conducted by an Issues 

Sub-Group and Alternative Sites Sub-Group comprised of federal agencies, the 

EAO and the Haisla. 

All technical issues raised by federal, provincial and local government agencies 

during the review of the Project have been considered in the Application review 

process and the documents generated as part of the review. 

Haisla Consultation and Issues 

The Haisla were fully engaged in the environmental; assessment process as 

members of the WG. They reviewed all key documents associated with the 

process. The Haisla were provided capacity funding by the Proponent and EAO 

for participation in the EA, as well as by the CEA Agency for involvement in the 

comprehensive study review process. 

In addition, four meetings of the Haisla leadership and federal and provincial 

agency representatives were held during the EA process to discuss with the 

Haisla their views about potential effects of the Project on their interests and 

asserted infringements of aboriginal rights, and to coordinate consultation with 

the Haisla on post-EA federal and provincial permit applications. The primary 

issue for the Haisla was the Emsley Cove location of the Project and its 

associated effects on Haisla interests. . 

The Proponent made early and regular efforts to consult the Haisla and secure 

their support for the Project. During Application review, the Proponent was 

required to hold a community open house in Kitimaat Village. Issues raised 

included concerns about the location of the Project at Emsley Cove, effects on 

traditional and current uses, and questions related to employment, training and 

business opportunities. 

In December 2005, the Haisla and the Proponent signed an agreement-inprinciple 

to locate the Project in Bish Cove, subject to a favourable outcome of 

the environmental assessment process. The Haisla have since been supportive 

of the Project and on April 13, 2006 the Proponent advised the EAO and the RAs 

that an impacts and benefits agreement had been reached for Bish Cove. The 


Haisla have advised the EAO and federal RAs that they are satisfied with the 

conclusions of this report. 

The Province has also formed a negotiation team to work with the Haisla on 

referral and approval and potential accommodation associated with post-EA 

permits from provincial agencies. Discussions are also underway to include 

federal agency authorizations and permits as part of this post-EA initiative. 

The Haisla have provided the EAO and federal RAs with a letter that indicates 

they have been adequately consulted in the EA process and that confirms the 

adequacy of accommodation if a decision is made to approve the Project at Bish 

Cove. 

Key Environment Effects Issues Raised During the Assessment 

Key environmental issues considered during the Project review for both Emsley 

Cove and Bish Cove Project locations were: 

Atmospheric Environment 

• Potential for significant adverse effects on atmospheric environment from 

LNG terminal and marine facility emissions in the absence of further 

mitigation. 

• Clarification of the assumptions and background data used in emission and 

dispersion modelling from land and marine sources related to the Project. 

Terrestrial Environment 

• Potential for erosion and wash-outs on rights-of-way (ROW) due to steep 

terrain and high rainfall levels. 

• Potential for erosion and adverse vegetation effects on pipeline and powerline 

ROWs during operation.. 

• Effect of the road and pipeline rights of way on wetland communities. 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

• Lack of information on potential effects of Project on avifauna and avifaunal 

habitat. 

• Lack of information on potential effects of Project on coastal tailed frogs 

(species at risk). 

Freshwater Environment and Fisheries 

• Protection of fish and fish habitat at streams to be crossed by the upgraded 

Bish Forest Service Road, new access road, and pipelines. 

• Effects of Bish Forest Service Road (FSR) proposed upgrades on water and 

fisheries. 

• Minimizing impact of ROW footprint on water and fisheries. 

• Effects of access road extension on water and fisheries. 


• Prevention of effects of accidental road spills on water and fisheries 

resources in Emsley Cove or Bish Creek. 

• Potential for erosion and effects on water and fisheries from road operations. 

• Need for further information on water management requirements to minimize 

water and fisheries impacts. 

• Impact of facility footprint on freshwater riparian habitat and marine foreshore 

and estuarine habitat. 

Marine Environment and Marine Mammals 

• Construction barge jetty / tug berth rationale, installation, location and 

potential environmental effects on Emsley Cove and Bish Cove. 

• Potential effects on marine habitat from location, design and operation of ship 

berth and construction jetty/tug berth in Bish Cove. 

• Potential effects of tanker and tug operations in Bish and Emsley Coves, 

particularly the effects of potential physical disturbance from propeller wash. 

• Management of vessel ballast and bilge water discharges to prevent 

introduction of exotic species through the discharge and/or intake of ballast or 

bilge water. 

• Potential effects of marine facility construction on marine mammals and fish, 

particularly the effects of pile driving and blasting. 

• Potential effects of process water from LNG operation on marine 

environment. 

• Potential effects of LNG vessel traffic on marine mammals, and the need for 

additional information on the movement of marine mammals in Douglas 

Channel and potential for vessel collisions. 

• Potential for acid rock drainage effects on the marine environment. 

• Dredging effects and ocean disposal of dredged and blasted materials. 

Heritage and Archaeological Resources 

• Designing of Project to protect heritage and archaeological resources. 

• Adequacy of measures for further identification of heritage and archaeological 

resources. 

• Potentially adverse effect of site preparation, construction and operation on 

heritage and archaeological resources. 

Effects of the Environment on the Project 

• Effect of seismic activity on LNG facilities. 

• Effects of high winds on LNG vessel berthing. 

Environmental Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions 

• Effects of accidental road spills on water and fisheries. 

• Potential effect of accidental spills on the marine environment, intertidal 

wetlands and coastal streams. 

• Spills of contaminants or hazardous materials from vessels as a result of 

grounding or collision. 


• Control of potential releases from LNG storage tanks. 

• Need for emergency response coordination. 

• Size and firefighting capability of tugs. 

Capacity of Renewable Resources 

No issues were raised by the public, government agencies and Haisla during the 

EA on the Capacity of renewable resources. 

Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment 

• Cumulative effects related to shipping in Douglas Channel. 

• Cumulative effects related to Haisla interests. 

Key Socio-Economic Effects Issues Raised During the Assessment 

Key socio-economic issues considered during the Project review for both Emsley 

Cove and Bish Cove Project locations were: 

Communities and Economy 

• Accommodation, employment and business opportunities for Kitimat. 

• Provision of services by the District of Kitimat. 

• Provision of local jobs and training. 

Public Safety and Health 

• Protocols, standards and reliability of ambient air quality information and 

future monitoring. 

• Concern over potential spills of contaminants or hazardous materials due to 

accidental releases from vessels. 

• Need to include Federal Responders when developing coordinated incident 

response plans with Local and Provincial Responders. 

• Control of potential releases from LNG storage tanks to minimize potential 

effect on local communities. 

• Public safety adjacent to the LNG facilities. 

• Increased demand for public health services. 

• Concern over road safety for public, construction and operation workers 

traveling through the area. 

Land and Resource Use 

• District of Kitimat development and approval issues. 

• Provision of Project information affecting land use. 

• Potential restrictions on public, Haisla and recreational use of Emsley and 

Bish Cove areas, resulting from the Project. 


Navigable Waters 

• Need for a Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systems and 

Transhipment Sites (TERMPOL) review process for the Project, and 

clarification of the relationship between the EA process and TERMPOL. 

• Effects of tug berth size on navigable waters. 

• Potential effects of tanker and tug operations in Bish and Emsley Coves, 

particularly the effects of potential physical disturbance from propeller wash. 

• Need for additional information on potential erosion effects from tug and LNG 

vessel traffic in Douglas Channel, including the effect of wake on shoreline 

erosion on archaeological sites. 

• Effect of vessel traffic along the shipping route in Douglas Channel on other 

First Nations. 

• Size of tugs necessary to manoeuvre a 250,000 m 3 capacity LNG vessel. 

• Drift tests for piloting of LNG vessels. 

Key First Nations Interests Raised During the Assessment 

Key Haisla interests considered during the Project review for both Emsley Cove 

and Bish Cove Project locations were: 

• Lost or reduced ability of Haisla to hunt and trap animals and birds, to fish, to 

gather plant materials for food, medicines and building purposes in the ROW 

corridors and on the LNG terminal site, and to use the areas for bathing, 

recreation and spiritual purposes. 

• Haisla loss of access to the marine environment in Emsley and Bish Cove for 

traditional use, for fishing and gathering of shellfish and marine plants, 

recreation and bathing due to marine terminal facilities and LNG vessel 

unloading. 

• Potentially adverse effects of the Project on marine habitat and fisheries 

resources, and on freshwater fish and fish habitat, vegetation, wildlife and 

wildlife habitat including avifauna and avifauna habitat. 

Monitoring and Follow up 

The purpose of a follow-up program is to verify the accuracy of the environmental 

assessment and determine the effectiveness of measures taken to mitigate the 

potential adverse environmental effects of the Project. 

• The Proponent committed in its Application to undertake follow up monitoring 

for some Valued Components (VC) described in the Application, to determine 

the accuracy of the predicted environmental effects of the Project and efficacy 

of the proposed mitigation. 

• During the course of the EA, the requirements of the environmental 

monitoring and follow-up program were refined and several new components 

were added. 


• The Proponent will design and implement a focused follow-up Environmental 

Effects Monitoring Program in consultation with relevant regulators which will 

be worked out prior to the permitting stage. 

Commitments made by the Proponent for Mitigation of Potential Effects 

Kitimat LNG Inc. has proposed to mitigate potential effects through commitments 

made in its Application, as well as modified commitments and new commitments 

to address issues raised during the EA review. Key commitments included: 

• The redesign of road and utilities corridors to reduce terrain hazards, loss of 

wetlands and other environmental effects; 

• Appropriate design, review and approval for all stream crossings, including 

required culverts and bridges; 

• The redesign of marine terminal facilities to minimize dredging, blasting, and 

marine habitat loss; 

• The development of stream bank and marine high water mark setbacks for 

LNG terminal facilities and infrastructure; 

• Developing a riparian management plan for areas within the terminal fence 

line; 

• Specific design standards for the terminal access road and upgrades to the 

Forest Service Road, and road use and maintenance agreements with West 

Fraser Mills Ltd. and Alcan; 

• A Water Management Summary Report, consolidating water management 

issues and mitigation strategies; 

• Passive sulphur dioxide SO2 monitoring to both verify the dispersion modeling 

results and verify the conclusions of the air quality effects assessment; 

• Undertaking a number of surveys for plant and animal species at risk, such as 

the marbled Murrelet, Great Blue heron, and coastal tailed frog; 

• Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) and Emergency Response Plans 

(ERPs) for Project construction and operation phases; 

• Conducting a habitat assessment within the jetty and marine terminal 

footprint, and negotiating and implement a habitat compensation program; 

• Identifying “No-Go” zones for tugs and tankers to be marked as off-limits for 

vessel movements to minimize effects on marine habitat, as well as speed 

limits and thrust management recommendations; 

• Developing a marine terminal manual and subjecting the project to a 

TERMPOL review process led by Transport Canada (Technical Review 

Process of Marine Terminal Systems and Trans Shipment Sites); 

• Addressing bilge and ballast water management issues through the 

TERMPOL process, guidelines to shipping contractors, and compliance with 

regulations and guidelines; 

• Reducing the potential marine environment effects of blasting and drilling; 

• Designing the Project to avoid disturbance of known archaeological sites 

wherever possible, and to undertake additional surveys, monitoring and 

assessments where required; 


• Developing a protocol for consultation with the Haisla on heritage and 

archaeological resource assessment, monitoring and disturbance mitigation 

activities; 

• Determining an appropriate location for discharge of process water, as well as 

acceptable water quality and discharge infrastructure requirements; 

• Working with the District of Kitimat to address cost-sharing and use of 

municipal services; 

• Provision of job opportunities and appropriate training opportunities for local 

community residents; 

• Development of a comprehensive environment, health and safety 

management system for all Project phases; 

• Minimizing public access restrictions to those required around the ship berth 

when at the terminal, the foreshore lease area, and the LNG terminal site; 

• Maintaining a map of recommended public safety sites on its web site, and 

post and regularly updating LNG vessel schedules on its web site; 

• Implementing road safety provisions such as posting of roads during 

construction, considering worker transportation alternatives, and managing 

vehicle movements; 

• Consulting with the District of Kitimat on the access road and road 

improvements; 

• Providing regular updates on the KLNG web site to advise the public on the 

Project schedule, permit approvals and construction schedules; 

• Working with the District of Kitimat, local recreational groups, other industries 

and the Haisla to address public recreational access issues in Douglas 

Channel; 

• A number of specific commitments to minimize potential effects on Haisla use 

of Emsley and Bish Cove, and the surrounding areas; 

• Hiring First Nations people, with appropriate qualifications and skills, from 

local community or region, when available; 

• Purchasing goods and services from First Nation businesses, where such 

goods and services are available on a competitive basis; 

• Working with local professional and trade associations, to ensure First 

Nations people are considered for jobs; 

• Providing advance notice to First Nation businesses about goods and service 

requirements for the Project; and 

• Negotiating a benefits agreement with the Haisla to address loss of access to 

the Project area. 

Conclusions of the Assessment 

This joint Report and its conclusions are based on: review of the information 

provided by the Proponent; the potential effects of the Project identified by the 

Proponent; potential effects and issues raised by the public, government 

agencies and the Haisla; and the additional mitigation measures and 

commitments made by the Proponent to mitigate all potential effects identified. 


Pursuant to the requirements of the BC Environmental Assessment Act 

(BCEAA), EAO is satisfied that: 

• The process and documents generated as part of this EA adequately identify 

and address the potential adverse environmental, land use, socio-economic, 

public safety and health, heritage, navigable waters and First Nations effects; 

• Public and First Nations consultation, and the distribution of information have 

been adequate; 

• Issues identified during the review process by the public, the Haisla, federal, 

provincial and local government agencies have been adequately addressed 

by the Proponent during the review of the Application; and 

• Practical means have been identified to prevent or reduce to an acceptable 

level any potential adverse effects. 

Pursuant to the requirements of the CEAA, the federal RAs have determined 

that, on the basis of this CSR, and provided that the Proponent conducts the 

mitigation measures as described, the Project is not likely to cause significant 

adverse environmental effects whether it is located at either Emsley Cove or Bish 

Cove.

executive summary kitimat lng terminal project comprehensive study ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?