DOCSLIB.ORG

IR# JRP.166 Downstream Effects Below Muskrat Falls INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IR# JRP.166 Downstream Effects Below Muskrat Falls INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT IR# JRP.166 Downstream Effects below Muskrat Falls INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT Requesting Organization – Joint Review Panel Information Request No.: JRP.166 Subject – Downstream Effects below Muskrat Falls References: EIS Guidelines, Section 4.5.1 (Environmental Effects General) Related Comments / Information Requests: IR # JRP.43, IR # JRP.149, IR # JRP.153 Information Requested: a. Nalcor hydrology studies indicate the Churchill River exerts a strong influence on the estuarine regime in Goose Bay and concerns have been expressed by a number of participants regarding the downstream effects of the Project. Explain the specific criteria used in Nalcor's response to Information Request (IR) JRP.43 to predict no measurable effect on downstream total phosphorus and total suspended solids, transport distances, fish productivity, salinity, velocity and thermal profiles from Goose Bay to Lake Melville, ice dynamics, ringed and harbour seal use of Lake Melville, bank stability, fish habitat utilization and fish migration. Identify whether and how these predictions apply to the period of reservoir impoundment, and the post‐impoundment transitional period before water quality stabilizes. Response: The influence of the lower Churchill River freshwater hydrology on Goose Bay and Lake Melville is recognized by Nalcor Energy (Nalcor) and has been central to limiting downstream effects to the extent possible. The minimal change in flow regime below Muskrat Falls as a result of the Project as described in IR# JRP.43, IR# JRP.149 and IR# JRP.153 mitigates most potential effects in terms of changes in salinity, circulation/current influenced by freshwater flows of the Churchill River, shoreline erosion (due to changes in water levels), tributary access, fish movements, habitat utilization and transportation distances. Discussion of the downstream effects below Muskrat Falls is assisted by delineating various features as the Churchill River meets Goose Bay and beyond. Figure 1 illustrates the area of consideration and offers labels for distinct features (sub areas and/or boundaries). These features will be referred to when describing the extent of downstream effects below Muskrat Falls. Nalcor’s response to IR# JRP.166 (a) is based upon the documentation contained in the EIS, Component Studies, previous responses to IRs, and other supporting material that has been gathered over a number of years. In order to provide additional analytical support and clarity to EIS predictions and responses (e.g., IR# JRP.43 and IR# JRP.152), additional dispersion modelling was conducted to further describe the extent of potential downstream effects related to variables of interest such as mercury, phosphorus, and temperature (Oceans 2010) (Attachment A). IR# JRP.166 (a) is organized to provide some background on the body of work supporting the conclusions, and then comments on each of the parameters of interest. JOINT REVIEW PANEL – IR# JRP.166 PAGE 1 INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT JOINT REVIEW PANEL – IR# JRP.166 PAGE 2 INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT Background Nalcor has considered downstream effects on the aquatic environment in a number of component and supporting studies. Some of these studies have used the mouth of the river at Goose Bay (e.g., JWEL 2000; AMEC and Sikumiut 2007) or Goose Bay Estuary as the downstream boundary (e.g., AMEC – BAE 2001; JWEL 2001) and some have included Lake Melville (e.g., JWEL 2001; Sikumiut 2007). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the study limits for various attributes studied in detail as part of this Project. They clearly extend well beyond the mouth of the river, with some overlapping extensively with Goose Bay and Lake Melville. The rationale for defining the downstream boundaries for the EIS was based on two main premises: 1. The mouth of the river is the end of the riverine habitat; and 2. With a few potential exceptions (discussed later), Goose Bay dilutes any effects originating from upstream to “no measureable effects” level on the key indicators (KI) The term “no measureable effects” as used in the EIS means that any effect or changes to the KIs, if they occur, are within the range of natural variability. Dilution in the area of Goose Bay is caused by freshwater inputs from a number of sources and by mixing with the salt water that enters Goose Bay from Lake Melville. The Churchill River accounts for between 38 to 81 percent of the freshwater input to Lake Melville, Northwest River 13 to 61 percent, and the Goose and Kenamu Rivers 2 to 28 percent (Coachman 1953 in AMEC ‐ BAE 2001). The percentages vary seasonally with precipitation and the operating regime of the Upper Churchill Facility. The Goose and Traverspine rivers enter Goose Bay proper and the Northwest and Kenamu rivers enter at the entrance to Goose Bay. In addition, there are several tributaries below Muskrat Falls that provide freshwater inputs to the Churchill River. Erring on the conservative side, these rivers were not typically included in the modelling exercises involving the Churchill River below Muskrat Falls. Other biological (e.g., uptake), physical (e.g., settling) and chemical (e.g., photochemical) processes not accounted for in the modelling will also tend to dampen any effects going downstream. The dilution predictions in the EIS are further refined by a modelling exercise conducted using the MIKE3 dispersion model (Oceans 2010). As stated in the EIS, the shallows at Goose Bay Narrows act as a hydraulic control that slow exchange with Lake Melville (Hatch 2008a) and likely provide at least a partial barrier to plankton and fish because of the abrupt vertical mixing of fresh and saline water at this location. In the case of increased mercury in fish (a potential effect of the project as predicted in the EIS), the main pathways are water, total suspended solids (TSS), plankton and fish. Water, TSS and plankton are progressively “diluted“ going downstream from Muskrat Falls and most sediment will settle out along the way; the Narrows will further “block” sediment, plankton, and fish to some degree. Many freshwater species cannot tolerate abrupt changes in salinity thus limiting their movement past the Narrows. JOINT REVIEW PANEL – IR# JRP.166 PAGE 3 INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT JOINT REVIEW PANEL – IR# JRP.166 PAGE 4 INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT JOINT REVIEW PANEL – IR# JRP.166 PAGE 5 INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT Effects Assessment Criteria Environmental effects assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) must meet certain prescribed criteria. In Canada, the Valued Environmental Component (VEC) and the KI are common approaches and were used in the EIS. The criteria used to characterize potential environmental effects for VECs and KIs are described below. The criteria that are listed below are consistent with those outlined in CEAA guidance documents and the EIS Guidelines. • nature: the ultimate long term trend of the environmental effect (e.g., positive, neutral or adverse); • magnitude: the amount or degree of change in a measurable parameter or variable relative to existing conditions; • geographical extent: the area over which the environmental effect will occur; • timing: the Project phase within which the environmental effect will occur; • frequency: the number of times during the Project or a specific Project phase that an environmental effect might occur (e.g., one time or multiple times); • duration: the period of time over which the environmental effect will occur; • reversibility: the likelihood that a VEC or KI will recover from an environmental effect, including consideration of active management techniques (e.g., habitat restoration works). This may be due to the removal of a Project component/activity or due to the ability of a VEC or KI to recover or habituate. As well, reversibility is considered on a population level for biophysical VECs. Therefore, although an environmental effect like mortality is irreversible to an individual animal, the environmental effect on the population may be reversible; • ecological or social context: the general characteristics of the area in which the Project is located, as indicated by existing levels of human activity and associated disturbance; and • level and degree of certainty of knowledge: level of confidence in the knowledge that supports the prediction. In order to support the CEAA‐compliant effects assessment as described above, a variety of baseline, analytical and modelling studies were conducted. Many of these used criteria specific to the particular exercise. For example, the STELLA® Version 8.0 modelling software was used to develop a water quality model for TP and TSS for the proposed Project (Minaskuat 2008) and MIKE3 software was used to model sediment plumes during construction (Hatch 2008b). Baseline data on water and sediments included JWEL (2000), Minaskuat (2007), and AMEC ‐ BAE (2001). Specific Criteria for effects prediction: The relevant VEC in IR# JRP.43 and as described in Volume II A, Section 9.2 of the EIS, is the Aquatic Environment and the KI is Fish and Fish Habitat. The measurable parameters or specific criteria that were used to assess effects of the Project on Fish and Fish Habitat included: • Habitat quantity in units / hectares
Load more

Recommended publications
  • P-00352 Page 1
    CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 Page 1 Paper of Grand Riverkeeper Labrador, Inc. and Labrador Land Protectors for the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project October 1st, 2018 Muskrat Falls, Labrador 2014 "many have touched these rocks and felt its power, when the dam is finished, it will be felt no more" – Denise Cole CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 Page 2 (PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK) CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 Page 3 Commissioner Justice Richard LeBlanc Beothuk Building, Suite 502, 20 Crosbie Place St. John’s, NL A1B 3Y8 October 1st, 2018 Dear Commissioner LeBlanc, RE: Paper for the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project We enclose the paper of Grand Riverkeeper prepared pursuant to the request of the Commissioner by his letter of May 20, 2018 with respect to the pre-sanction phase of the Muskrat Falls Project. The request set out the scope as follows: We are interested in having GRL/LLP prepare a paper describing its involvement with the Muskrat Falls Project pre-sanction. Specifically, we would like the paper to: • Describe GRL/LLP involvement with the Project prior to its sanction on December 17, 2012. This would include, without limitation, their involvement in the Joint Review Panel process and any involvement they had with Government or Nalcor officials. • Describe the key issues that GRL/LLP raised in relation to the Project prior to sanction. • Describe Nalcor’s and/or the Government’s response to GRL/LLP’s efforts We have endeavoured to include as much information as possible in relation to key issues raised regarding the project prior to December 17, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • CE 54 (R1) (Public)
    Muskrat Falls Project - CE-54 Rev. 1 (Public) Page 1 of 66 Muskrat Falls Project - CE-54 Rev. 1 (Public) Page 2 of 66 Nalcor Energy - Lower Churchill Project GI1141 - Upper Churchill PMF and Flood Handling Procedures Update Final Report - August 28, 2009 Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Executive Summary 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Summary of GI1140 Study ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.3 Rationale for Smaller PMF Estimate ................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Probable Maximum Flood Definition .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Approach .................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1 Review of Previous Studies................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3.2 Update of PMF Estimate ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Generating Project Develop an Integrated Approach to Assess Sustainability
    Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Generating Project Develop an Integrated Approach to Assess Sustainability by F. I. M. Muktadir Boksh A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Policy at Memorial University of Newfoundland Grenfell Campus Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador August 2015 Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv Measurement Units ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... v Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background Information ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Literature
    [Show full text]
  • Quebec-Newfoundland and Labrador's Relationship Valérie
    Uneasy Neighbours: Quebec-Newfoundland and Labrador's Relationship Valérie Vézina Faculty, Political Science Kwantlen Polytechnic University [email protected] Note: This is a work in progress. Please do not cite without the permission of the author. Newfoundland and Labrador only has one direct territorial contact with another province: Quebec. The harsh and often unwelcoming territory of Labrador has been the centre of the animosity between the two provinces. In the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Churchill Falls, the Court, in a 7-1 decision, ruled that Quebec had no obligation to renegotiate the contract. Despite the reassuring words of the Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Dwight Ball, that the two provinces have much more to gain collaborating and that he would do so with Quebec Premier, François Legault, the general comments in both provinces by citizens does not tend towards collaboration and friendship. Why is that so? What are the factors that have contributed in the past to so many tensions between the two neighbours? What contributes today to such feelings among the public despite the willingness of political actors to move on, to develop partnerships? This paper will explore these questions. It will be revealed that 'historical' collective memories as well as cultural products (songs, humour, slogans) have helped perpetuating an uneasy relationship among Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. Resentment can be an individual emotion, an anger felt towards a perceived injustice. However, as Stockdale (2013) argues, resentment is certainly individual but can also be collective. She demonstrates that "the reasons for resentment in cases of broader social and political resentments will often be tied to social vulnerability and experiences of injustice." (Stockdale, 2013: 5) Furthermore, "collective resentment is resentment that is felt and expressed by individuals in response to a perceived threat to a collective to which they belong.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Churchill: Can We Legalwait Until Options: 2041? S92A, Good Faith and Regulatory Proceedings in Quebec
    Upper Churchill: Can we Legalwait until Options: 2041? S92A, Good Faith and Regulatory Proceedings in Quebec Department of Natural Resources October 2012 Department of Natural Resources November 2012 Key Factors In the debate surrounding the development of Muskrat Falls, it has been suggested that Newfoundland and Labrador has the option of refurbishing the Holyrood Thermal Generating Station and/or taking other stop gap measures until 2041 when the Upper Churchill power contract expires and energy from the Upper Churchill become available for domestic and export use. This option is not realistic for a variety of reasons: • CFLCo is owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH) and Hydro-Quebec (HQ) jointly, with NLH owning 65.8% of the common shares and HQ 34.2% of the common shares. In 2041, NLH will not have absolute authority over the corporate actions of CFLCo. • It is not appropriate to simply assume that Newfoundland and Labrador will receive cheap or free power when the HQ Power Contract expires in 2041. It is entirely possible that the province will be required to purchase power from CFLCo at prevailing applicable market rates. • It is doubtful that life extension efforts at Holyrood could continue to provide reliable power for an additional 30 plus years. At that time the first two units would be 70 years old.1 • Deferring Muskrat Falls will mean increased reliance on oil and volatile prices for electricity as rates will be tied to fuel prices. (Note: See accompanying paper on electricity rates for a description of oil forecasts and other issues pertaining to fuel pricing).
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project
    Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project A description of the proposed project and its potential effects on the environment Nipishish Nipishish Lake Lake Red WineRed River Wine River SmallwoodSmallwood Reservoir Reservoir Grand GrandLake Lake NorthNorth West West ChurchillChurchill Falls Falls River River SheshatshiuSheshatshiu ChurchillChurchill Falls Falls GeneratingGenerating Station Station HappyHappy Valley Valley - - GooseGoose Bay Bay Mud LakeMud Lake MuskratMuskrat Falls Falls Site Site r r Wi Wi e e no no v v kapauk Laapkaeu Lake i i R R u u m m a a n n Gull IslandGull Island e e K K Site Site ChurchillChurchill River River QUEBECQUEBEC DominionDominion Lake Lake MinipiMinipi InterconnectingInterconnecting Transmission Transmission Line Line Lake Lake LABRADORLABRADOR Lower ChurchillLower Churchill River Valley River Area Valley Area Lower ChurchillLower Churchill Watershed Watershed QUE BE CQUE BE C INSET INSET 0 0 25 25 50 50 KilometresKilometres Nipishish Nipishish Lake Lake Red WineRed River Wine River SmallwoodSmallwood Reservoir Reservoir Grand GrandLake Lake NorthNorth West West ChurchillChurchill Falls Falls River River SheshatshiuSheshatshiu ChurchillChurchill Falls Falls GeneratingGenerating Station Station HappyHappy Valley Valley - - Conceptual Illustration of the Muskrat Falls Generation Station GooseGoose Bay Bay Mud LakeMud Lake MuskratMuskrat Falls Falls Site Site r r Wi Wi e e no no v v kapauk Laapkaeu Lake i i R R u u m m a a n n Gull IslandGull Island e e K K Site Site ChurchillChurchill River River
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2021-266
    Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2021-266 PDF version Ottawa, 5 August 2021 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Across Canada Various television and radio programming undertakings – Administrative renewals 1. The Commission renews the broadcasting licences for the television and radio programming undertakings set out in the appendix to this decision from 1 September 2021 to 31 March 2022, subject to the terms and conditions in effect under the current licences. The Commission also extends the distribution orders for the television programming undertakings CBC News Network, ICI RDI and ICI ARTV until 31 March 2022.1 2. In Broadcasting Decision 2020-201, the Commission renewed these licences administratively from 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021, and extended the distribution orders for CBC News Network, ICI RDI and ICI ARTV until 31 August 2021. 3. This decision does not dispose of any issue that may arise with respect to the renewal of these licences. Secretary General Related documents Various television and radio programming undertakings – Administrative Renewals, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2020-201, 22 June 2020 Distribution of the programming service of ARTV inc. by licensed terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings, Broadcasting Order CRTC 2013-375, 8 August 2013 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation – Licence renewals, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2013-263 and Broadcasting Orders CRTC 2013-264 and 2013-265, 28 May 2013 This decision is to be appended to each licence. 1 For ICI RDI and CBC News Network, see Appendices 9 and 10, respectively,
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development and Innu Settlement: the Establishment of Sheshatshit
    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INNU SETTLEMENT: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SHESHATSHIT JAMES J. RYAN, RR #1, Edwards, Ontario, Canada, K0A 1V0. ABSTRACT/RESUME This paper documents the circumstances surrounding the compar- atively recent settlement of the nomadic Innut of Labrador in a central community. State and health officials and agents of the church at the time initiated programs that focused on economic rehabilitation, formal education and health concerns which they felt would assist in integrating Innut into Canadian industrial society. Ultimately Innut had little choice but to comply with the wishes of these officials and settle when confronted with the difficulties of pursuing traditional practices. Cet article étudie les circonstances qui entourent l'etablissement comparativement récent des Innu nomades du Labrador dans une communauté centrale. Lors de l'établissement les représentants de l'Etat et de la santé et les représentants de l'Englise avaient com- mencé des programmes ayant pour but la réhabilitation économique, l'education scolaire et les problèmes de santé qu'ils avaient jugés susceptibles d'aider à intégrer les Innu dans la société canadienne industrielle. Enfin les Innu n'avaient d'autre choix qu'à se conformer aux désirs de ces représentants et se mettre d'accord avec eux lorsqu'on les avait fait voir les difficultés que présentait la continua- tion des pratiques traditionnelles. 2 James J. Ryan Many Native people throughout Canada have long since aban- doned their traditional living patterns. Even though some groups still retain elements of this life style, the radically different context within which these activities take place today has transformed many of the practices associated with this way of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydroelectric Power and Indigenous Health in the Canadian North
    Hydroelectric Power and Indigenous Health in the Canadian North The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Calder, Ryan Spencer Dyas. 2017. Hydroelectric Power and Indigenous Health in the Canadian North. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42066834 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Dissertation advisor: Dr. Elsie Sunderland Ryan S.D. Calder Hydroelectric Power and Indigenous Health in the Canadian North Abstract Hydroelectric reservoir creation accelerates microbial conversion of inorganic mercury (Hg) to bioaccumulative, neurotoxic methylmercury (MeHg). This thesis forecasts MeHg production in flooded reservoirs based on soil organic carbon content and probabilistically models the exposure impacts on local human populations by considering as a case study the Inuit settled downstream from hydroelectric development on the Churchill River, Labrador, Canada. Expected riverine MeHg levels there are approximately ten times present-day average values. Mean MeHg exposures are forecasted to double following flooding and over half of the women of childbearing age and young children in the most northern community are projected to exceed the U.S. EPA’s reference dose. Equal or greater impacts on aqueous MeHg are expected at 11 sites across Canada, suggesting the need for remediation measures prior to flooding or screening of potential sites for human health impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • December 3, 2020 the Canada Energy Regulator Suite 210, 517
    Nancy Kleer [email protected] T: 416.981.9336 F: 416.981.9350 73353 December 3, 2020 The Canada Energy Regulator Suite 210, 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 Mr. Stéphane Talbot Director – Planning Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie 2, Complexe Desjardins East Tower, 9th floor C.P. 10000, succ. Desjardins Montréal, QC H5B 1H7 [email protected] The Honourable Seamus O’Regan Minister of Natural Resources Natural Resources Canada 580 Booth Street, 21st Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4 [email protected] Dear Sirs/Mesdames: Re: Comments of Innu Nation Inc. on Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie Application for the Appalaches-Maine Interconnection Power Line Project, Application No. C01914 I write on behalf of the Innu Nation of Labrador (“Innu Nation”) to comment on Hydro- Québec’s application for a permit (the “Permit”) to build the Appalaches-Maine Interconnection Power Line Project (the “Project”). The Project is a proposed direct current transmission line approximately 103 kilometers long between the Appalaches substation in the municipality of Saint-Adrien-d’Irlande, and a crossing point on the Canada-US border in the municipality of Frontenac. The Project will permit Hydro-Québec to further profit from the Churchill Falls Generating Station (“CFGS”) by selling electricity generated at that facility into U.S. markets. 250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0 F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0 WWW.OKTLAW.COM Page 2 CFGS was built, without their consent, on the Innu of Labrador’s traditional territory.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SOUTHEASTERN CHURCHILL PROVINCE REVISITED: U–Pb GEOCHRONOLOGY, REGIONAL CORRELATIONS, and the ENIGMATIC ORMA DOMAIN
    Current Research (2003) Newfoundland Department of Mines and Energy Geological Survey, Report 03-1, pages 35-45 THE SOUTHEASTERN CHURCHILL PROVINCE REVISITED: U–Pb GEOCHRONOLOGY, REGIONAL CORRELATIONS, AND THE ENIGMATIC ORMA DOMAIN D.T. James, G.A.G. Nunn1, S. Kamo2 and K. Kwok 2 Regional Geology Section ABSTRACT The Orma domain is a Paleoproterozoic tectonic division of the Core Zone, Southeastern Churchill Province (central Labrador), consisting principally of late Archean orthogneisses, deformed intrusions, and relicts of Archean supracrustal gneisses. Emplacement ages, determined by U–Pb age dating of zircon and titanite, for intrusions of orthopyroxene granodi- orite and K-feldspar porphyritic granite that occur in the northern Orma domain are 2581 +10/-8 and 2571 +6/-5 Ma, respec- tively. On the basis of field relationships and composition, the orthopyroxene granodiorite is interpreted to be a diatexite derived from the substantial anatexis of tonalite and granodiorite orthogneisses that dominate the Orma domain. Thus, the high-grade metamorphism of the Orma domain was late Archean. Emplacement of the porphyritic granite, containing pyrox- ene and garnet, was synchronous with high-grade metamorphism and attendant deformation. A granitic pegmatite was intruded into host Orma domain tonalite at 2628 ± 13 Ma and was subsequently mylonitized. The age of the mylonitization is undetermined; it could be either Archean or Paleoproterozoic. The data presented here are consistent with the interpretation of the Orma domain as a relatively pristine Archean block that apparently escaped 1820 to 1775 Ma high-grade metamorphism and deformation that are pervasive in contiguous tec- tonic domains of the Core Zone, and in most parts of the Southeastern Churchill Province.
    [Show full text]
  • Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project LCP Aquatic Environmental
    Aquatic Protection and Doc. #: LCP-PT-MD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan Rev A1 Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project LCP Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan LCP-PT-MD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 Comments: Total # of Pages This document supersedes document MFA-AM-CD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 (Including Cover): 82 B3 Issued for Use P. Madden M. Organ R. Power Status/ Date Reason For Issue Prepared By Functional Manager Approval General Project Manager Revision This document contains intellectual property of the Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project and shall not be copied, used or CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: distributed in whole or in part without the prior written consent from the Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project. LCP AQUATIC PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PLAN Nalcor Doc. No. Revision Page LCP-PT-MD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 B3 ii Inter-Departmental / Discipline Approval (where required) Department Manager Department Date Approval LCP-PT-MD-0000-QM-FR-0001-01, REV B2 LCP AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PLAN Nalcor Doc. No. Revision Page LCP-PT-MD-9112-EV-PL-0001-01 B3 i CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 4 2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 5 3 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 5 4 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
    [Show full text]