DOCSLIB.ORG

JW-AXYS Double-Sided Report Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JW-AXYS Double-Sided Report Template Environmental Impact Statement for the EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area VOLUME 5 HUMAN RESOURCES ASSESSMENT EnCana Corporation May 2007 EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction to Human Resources Assessment ....................................................... 1-1 2 Historical Resources .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Study Area Boundaries .................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.1 Spatial ................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.2 Temporal ............................................................................................................ 2-4 2.4 Key Historical Resources Issues .................................................................................... 2-4 2.4.1 Regional Issues .................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4.2 Local Issues ........................................................................................................ 2-5 2.4.3 Valued Socio-economic Component .................................................................. 2-5 2.5 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.6 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.6.1 Description of Baseline Conditions ..................................................................... 2-7 2.6.2 Distribution and Areal Extent of the Valued Socio-economic Component ........ 2-12 2.6.3 Summary of Existing Conditions ....................................................................... 2-13 2.7 Project Environmental Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures ......................... 2-13 2.7.1 Effects Assessment by Valued Socio-economic Component and Project Phase ............................................................................................................... 2-13 2.7.2 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects on Historical Resources ............ 2-17 2.8 Accidents and Malfunctions .......................................................................................... 2-17 2.8.1 Collisions with and Releases from Vehicles ..................................................... 2-18 2.9 Cumulative Effects Assessment ................................................................................... 2-18 2.10 Follow-up and Monitoring Recommendations .............................................................. 2-19 3 Palaeontological Resources ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Study Area Boundaries .................................................................................................. 3-3 3.3.1 Spatial ................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.3.2 Temporal ............................................................................................................ 3-3 3.4 Key Palaeontological Resources Issues ........................................................................ 3-3 3.5 Valued Socio-economic Component .............................................................................. 3-3 3.6 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.6.1 Overall Assessment Approach ........................................................................... 3-5 3.6.2 Evaluating Effect Significance ............................................................................ 3-5 3.7 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 3-7 3.7.1 Description of Baseline Conditions ..................................................................... 3-7 3.7.2 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................. 3-9 EnCana Corporation May 2007 Page i EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area Table of Contents 3.8 Project Environmental Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures ......................... 3-10 3.8.1 Project Effects .................................................................................................. 3-10 3.8.2 Conclusion – VSC (Palaeontological Resources) – All Project Phases ........... 3-12 3.9 Accidents and Malfunctions ......................................................................................... 3-12 3.10 Cumulative Effects Assessment ................................................................................... 3-13 3.11 Follow-up and Monitoring Recommendations .............................................................. 3-13 4 Socio-Economics ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Study Area Boundaries .................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3.1 Spatial ................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.3.2 Temporal ............................................................................................................ 4-4 4.4 Key Socio-economic Assessment Issues ...................................................................... 4-4 4.4.1 Issues Identification ............................................................................................ 4-4 4.4.2 Scoping Considerations ..................................................................................... 4-5 4.5 Valued Socio-economic Components ............................................................................ 4-6 4.6 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.7 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 4-8 4.7.1 Canadian Forces Base Suffield .......................................................................... 4-8 4.7.2 Regional Study Area ........................................................................................ 4-17 4.7.3 Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................. 4-21 4.8 Project Socio-economic Impact Assessment ............................................................... 4-21 4.8.1 Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 4-21 4.8.2 Project Impact Assessment by Valued Socio-economic Component and Project Phase ................................................................................................... 4-22 4.8.3 Accidents and Malfunctions .............................................................................. 4-39 4.8.4 Summary of Residual Socio-economic Impact ................................................. 4-40 4.9 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................... 4-40 4.10 Follow-up and Monitoring ............................................................................................. 4-41 5 References .................................................................................................................... 5-1 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 6-1 Appendix 2A Summary Description of the ARM Model ........................................ 2A-1 Appendix 2B Pre-contact and Historical Context of Alberta ................................ 2B-1 Appendix 2C Photos of Common Historical Resource Sites (Stone Circles and Cairns) ......................................................................................... 2C-1 Appendix 2D Location of Historical Resource Sites in the NWA ......................... 2D-1 Appendix 2E HRIA and Mitigation Measures (Current Practice) ..........................2E-1 May 2007 EnCana Corporation Page ii EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area Table of Contents Appendix 3A Photographs Related to the Palaeontological Historical Resource Effects Assessment ......................................................... 3A-1 Appendix 4A
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Encana Shallow Gas Infill Development in the CFB Suffield
    EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in IR Due Date: the CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area CEAA File #05-07-15620 August 2nd, 2007 IR Requested By: Federal Government IR No. Page CEAA-EIS-001 1 #Terr – 2 –C Reference: Volume 1, Section 1.3.2.1, Page 1-8 Preamble: EnCana comments on the primary approvals required under the Regulatory Framework. Request: GOC recommends that EnCana specify the requirements of the Master Access Agreement and the Partial Assignment Agreement as they apply to the approval process for development applications within the National Wildlife Area, formerly known as the Riverbank Zone, Middle Sandhills, and Mixed Grassland areas; specify the role of the Base Commander and the Suffield Environmental Advisory Committee and how the Project will conform to the Agreements. Response: The above-referenced Agreements (the “Agreements”) speak for themselves. EnCana does not purport to limit, expand or otherwise interpret the Agreements. EnCana remains bound by, and committed to, the Agreements. However, the Agreements clearly prescribe that: (i) NWA development applications are to be made to the EUB; (ii) the EUB shall seek the opinion of SEAC (the “Opinion”) in respect of such applications within the Riverbank and Middle Sandhill zones; but, (iii) the EUB shall not be bound by the Opinion. The Base Commander has no role in the approval process but may “give or refuse consent to,” or “order the performance or cessation of,” an act or thing relating to NWA development only on the unanimous recommendation of SEAC and only in the following circumstances: (i) within the Riverbank and Middle Sandhill zones; and, (ii) for the purpose of “developing natural gas as discreetly as possible” following “the development of protection measures.” In EnCana's view its policies and procedures as detailed in the EIS conform to all requirements of the Agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision 2009-051: Encana Corporation Suffueld Field
    Decision 2009-051 EnCana Corporation Applications for Three Well Licences Suffield Field August 25, 2009 ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD Decision 2009-051: EnCana Corporation, Applications for Three Well Licences, Suffield Field August 25, 2009 Published by Energy Resources Conservation Board 640 – 5 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G4 Telephone: 403-297-8311 Fax: 403-297-7040 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.ercb.ca EnCana Corporation, Applications for Three Well Licences CONTENTS 1 Decision .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Applications...................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Interventions..................................................................................................................... 1 2.2.1 The Department of National Defence................................................................... 1 2.2.2 AltaGas Holdings Incorporated............................................................................ 2 2.3 Written Hearing................................................................................................................ 2 3 Background..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Track Report Encana Corporation's
    Environmental Assessment Track Report EnCana Corporation’s Proposed Shallow Gas Development Project in the CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area Submitted to the Minister of the Environment Pursuant to Subsection 21(2) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Prepared by Department of National Defence February 2006 Table of Contents 2.0 Environmental Assessment Process .................................................................. 4 2.1 Requirement for a Comprehensive Study 4 Responsible Authority (RA) ......................................................................................... 4 Federal Authorities (FA’s) ............................................................................................ 5 Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC)...................................... 5 Provincial Involvement.................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Current Path and Next Steps 5 3.0 Project Overview................................................................................................... 6 4.0 CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area..................................................................... 7 5.0 Scope 7 5.1 Scope of Project 7 5.2 Scope of Assessment 8 6.0 Public consultation............................................................................................... 8 7.0 Public Concerns in Relation to the Project ........................................................ 9 Written Public Comments 15 8.0 The Potential of the Project to
    [Show full text]
  • GROUNDS for PERMANENT WAR Land Appropriation, Exceptional
    GROUNDS FOR PERMANENT WAR Land Appropriation, Exceptional Powers, and the Mid-Century Militarization of Western North American Environments by Brandon C. Davis A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2017 © Brandon C. Davis, 2017 ABSTRACT Few areas across globe have escaped the pressures of militarization. Despite the many significant developments and repercussions tied to the military control of vast areas of national territories, the complex intersections between militarization and the environment have only recently attracted scholarly attention. This dissertation argues that the contemporary condition of global permanent war and ongoing state of emergency are rooted in the military control of land and other natural resources. During the mid-twentieth century buildup of North American defense forces, the practice of military land appropriation not only legitimized and expanded certain types of unilateral, emergency powers but also produced secret and legally permissive spaces in which the exercise of such extraordinary powers and related military land use practices could be more freely conducted. A major impetus driving these mid-century land use developments was the rise of unconventional weapons of mass destruction. Not only did such weapons technologies destabilize the global political order but they also brought about a multitude of disruptions at local sites. By investigating the establishment and operations of two of the world’s largest, most secretive, and longest-lasting chemical and biological weapons proving grounds—the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in western Utah and the Canadian-and U.K.-controlled Suffield Experimental Station in southeastern Alberta—this study reveals how the imperatives of permanent war have had critical influence in shaping the workings of power between local citizens, government, and the environment in western North America.
    [Show full text]
  • The Defence Research Board of Canada, 1947 to 1977
    The Defence Research Board of Canada, 1947 to 1977 by Jonathan Turner A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto © Copyright by Jonathan Turner 2012 The Defence Research Board of Canada, 1947 to 1977 Jonathan Turner Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto 2012 Abstract The Defence Research Board of Canada existed from 1947 to 1977. It was created because of the successful contribution of scientific management and specific military technologies to victory in the Second World War, and it was dismantled during a period of review and renewal of the government’s science and defence policies. The demise of the Defence Research Board demonstrated the triumph of business and public administration models over scientific management in spite of the successful defence research program. Among the successful projects of the Defence Research Board were satellites, research rockets, hydrofoils, nylon pile clothing, the wind chill factor, the strategic distinction between first and second nuclear strikes, open heart surgery, and blast trials. The strengths of the Defence Research Board were the scientific management practices that united the four Chairmen (Omond Solandt, Hartley Zimmerman, Robert Uffen and Léon L’Heureux) and the bench scientists. Over the course of its existence the Defence Research Board was shaped by six chains of events. 1. Solandt’s ability to recruit veterans from 1947 to 1953, 2. The election of John Diefenbaker and the ensuing conflict between Diefenbaker and civil servants, particularly over nuclear weapons, which led to the Royal Commission on ii Government Organisation and a decade of review of national defence policy (including two White Papers, integration and unification, and the Management Review Group), 3.
    [Show full text]
  • JW-AXYS Double-Sided Report Template
    Environmental Impact Statement for the EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area VOLUME 6 AIR, NOISE AND HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT EnCana Corporation May 2007 EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction to Air, Noise and Human Health Assessment .................................... 1-1 2 Air Quality Assessment............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 2-6 2.3 Study Area Boundaries ................................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.1 Spatial .............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.2 Temporal .......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.4 Key Air Quality Issues .................................................................................................. 2-7 2.4.1 Regional Issues................................................................................................ 2-9 2.4.2 Local Issues
    [Show full text]
  • Suffield Pipeline Emergency Response Plan
    AltaGas Suffield Pipeline Emergency Response Plan December 2016 AltaGas 1700, 355 - 4th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 0J1 Telephone: (403) 691-7575 Fax: (403) 691-7576 online copy ERP REVISION REQUEST FORM ERP Name: ERP Date: No. Sect Page Requested Revision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Revisions requested by (print name): _______________________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Send to: <name & email address removed> Fax: 403-691-7576 CONTENTS Revision Request Form Page Section 1 Introduction Overview ................................................................................................................1 Definition of an Emergency ....................................................................................5 Assessment Matrix for Classifying Incidents ..........................................................7 Emergency Planning and Response Zones ...........................................................9 Isolation Block Valves (Suffield South) ...................................................................11 Isolation Block Valves (Suffield North) ...................................................................13 Emergency Equipment ...........................................................................................14 ERP Distribution List ..............................................................................................15 Revision Log ..........................................................................................................16 Section
    [Show full text]
  • Cfb Suffield National Wildlife Area Shallow Gas Infill Development Project
    CFB SUFFIELD NATIONAL WILDLIFE AREA SHALLOW GAS INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION NOVEMBER 1, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW............................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Purpose of the Project................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Project Area................................................................................................... 2 1.1.3 Land Use....................................................................................................... 3 1.1.4 Nature of Project ........................................................................................... 4 1.2 PROPONENT INFORMATION................................................................................... 6 1.3 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 6 1.3.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act..................................................... 6 1.3.2 Other Federal Legislation, Regulations and Policies ..................................... 9 1.3.3 Provincial Regulatory Process..................................................................... 10 1.4 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS.................................................................................... 12 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................
    [Show full text]