Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
18 Traditional Knowledge Study
18.1 Introduction FMA Heritage Inc. (FMA) was contracted to complete a traditional knowledge study for the Project, including the RoW, the Hardisty B Terminal and eight pump stations (see Figure 18-1). The Project crosses lands in three treaty areas (Treaty 4, Treaty 6 and Treaty 7) in Alberta and Saskatchewan (see Figure 18-2). Traditional knowledge studies have two components: traditional land use (TLU) and traditional environmental knowledge (TEK). TLU focuses on sites and areas of cultural significance and historical and/or current use of the land (i.e., settlement locations and gathering sites, resource gathering sites and locales, trails and spiritual areas), which might be identified in the proposed project footprint. TEK focuses on Aboriginal communities’ understanding of the natural environment, which might be used to enhance analyses of a project’s environmental effects and project planning. Traditional knowledge studies broaden the information base considered in environmental assessments, provide understanding about the potential effects of a proposed development on Aboriginal communities’ historical and/or current use of traditional lands and support project engagement efforts. The consideration of potential effects of a proposed project on traditional lands is of cultural, environmental and socio-economic relevance, because it pertains to the wellbeing of affected Aboriginal communities (individually and collectively).
18.2 Regulatory Setting In undertaking traditional knowledge studies, FMA is guided by federal and provincial Aboriginal consultation guidelines, regulatory authority filing guidance documents and Aboriginal governance requirements and protocols.
18.2.1 Regulatory Federal and Provincial Aboriginal Consultation Guidelines Federal and provincial Aboriginal consultation guidelines were adopted to fulfill the Crown’s obligation to consult Aboriginal people (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) as established by the Supreme Court of Canada, and ensure that consultation takes place in relation to actions contemplated by the Crown, which could potentially adversely affect Treaty and aboriginal rights. In reference to the Project, the following guidelines were considered for the traditional knowledge studies: Government of Canada Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Interim Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Legal Duty to Consult, February 2008; Alberta First Nations Consultation Policy on Land Management and Resource Development, November 2007; and The Government of Saskatchewan Guidelines for Consultation with First Nations and Métis People: A Guide for Decision Makers, May 2006.
Page 18-1 February 2009
Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
18.2.2 Regulatory Authority Filing Requirements Aboriginal engagement and the collection of traditional knowledge information are guided by the NEB and requirements under the CEAA.
18.2.2.1 National Energy Board (NEB) The NEB Filing Manual provides guidance on when TLU is required; specifically if “the project will be located on, or traverse, Crown land or the traditional territory, reserve land or settlement area of an Aboriginal group.” The specified information requirements include: a description of current land use by Aboriginal people for traditional purposes in the study area; identification of potentially affected Aboriginal groups, the spatial and temporal extent of their current use, and how the project would affect that use; a description of the methodology used to collect TEK and TLU, and a listing of the Aboriginal groups contacted; and evidence that the participating groups had the opportunity to review the information collected and proposed mitigation, as well as comments from the Aboriginal participants on the information and proposed mitigation.
18.2.3 Aboriginal Governance Requirements and Protocols In the undertaking of this traditional knowledge study, requirements stipulated by Aboriginal governments are adhered to and prescribed cultural protocols are followed.
18.3 Cultural, Political and Historical Setting The approach adopted by FMA for the traditional knowledge studies reflects the complex evolving legal, social and political arena in which this work is done. Juxtaposed in this setting are differing cultural worldviews, longstanding and unresolved grievances related to Treaty and Aboriginal rights. Recognizing these complexities, study efforts are directed to facilitating discussions intended to create common ground, wherever practical, between the participating Aboriginal communities and the project proponent.
18.4 Participating Aboriginal Communities Traditional knowledge studies are carried out with Aboriginal communities to understand how the communities’ current use of the land for traditional purposes and other interestsmight be affected by a proposed development project. TransCanada’s Aboriginal Relations team, representing Keystone, is responsible for the engagement of Aboriginal communities potentially affected by the Project. Based on an initial engagement, a number of Alberta and Saskatchewan communities were identified and a number of them chose to participate in the Project traditional knowledge studies. Early in the course of the Aboriginal engagement, TransCanada’s Aboriginal Relations team separated the Project into two geographic segments: Alberta and Saskatchewan. In collarboration with Aboriginal communities interested in participating in the traditional knowledge studies in both geographic areas, it was determined that the following seven First Nations and one Métis Region would participate in the traditional knowledge studies: Siksika Nation, Nekaneet First Nation, Ermineskin First Nation, Louis Bull First Nation, Samson First Nation, Montana First Nation, Carry the Kettle First Nation, and Métis Nation Saskatchewan – Western Region III (see the Aboriginal Engagement Chapter 10 of the Section 52 NEB Project Application for a description of the methods used and for detailed information on the communities contacted). Carry the Kettle First Nation is included in this list, but a separate arrangement was made for Carry the Kettle to carry out an independent traditional knowledge study.
February 2009 Page 18-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
A consensus was reached with the participating Aboriginal communities that traditional knowledge studies undertaken in the two geographic areas would be carried out collectively. In other words, the Aboriginal communities related to the Saskatchewan segment of the Project would work together in completing traditional knowledge studies, as would the Aboriginal communities related to the Alberta segment. The scope of the traditional knowledge studies for each segment was determined in collaboration with the Saskatchewan and Alberta participant communities, through a series of meetings with the Aboriginal Relations team assisted by FMA.
18.4.1 Saskatchewan Segment Nekaneet First Nation, Siksika Nation, and Métis Nation SaskatchewanWestern Regions IIa and III are involved in the traditional knowledge study in Saskatchewan. Carry the Kettle First Nation carried out an independent traditional knowledge study in the Frenchman River area.
18.4.1.1 Nekaneet First Nation Nekaneet First Nation is signatory to Treaty 4. Nekaneet Reserve, No. 380 is located 121 km southwest of Swift Current, Saskatchewan (see Figure 18-3) and covers about 12,000 ha. Treaty 4 Reserve Grounds 77 (37 ha), next to and west of Fort Qu’Appelle, is shared with 33 Treaty 4 Nations. The registered membership of Nekaneet First Nation is 423, with 175 members residing on reserve. Nekaneet First Nation is a member of the File Hills Qu’Appelle Tribal Council. Inc. (INAC 2008).
18.4.1.2 Siksika Nation Siksika Nation is signatory to Treaty 7. Siksika Reserve No. 146 is located 80 km east of Calgary, Alberta near the town of Gleichen (see Figure 18-3) and covers an area of about 71,000 ha. The registered membership is 6365, with 3532 members residing on reserve (INAC 2008). Siksika Nation is a member of the Treaty 7 Management Corporation (INAC 2008) and the Blackfoot Confederacy, which includes Piikani Nation, Siksika Nation, Blood Tribe and Blackfeet Tribe (Montana, USA) (Assembly of First Nations website 2008).
18.4.1.3 Saskatchewan Métis – Western Regions IIa and lll Westerns Region IIa and III are part of the Métis Nation – Saskatchewan. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan is the organization representing all Métis people in the province and consists of 12 regions. Western Region IIa includes 14 Métis Locals and Western Region III includes 14 Métis Locals (Métis Nation – Saskatchewan 2008) (see Figure 18-3 and Figure 18-4).
18.4.1.4 Carry the Kettle First Nation Carry the Kettle First Nation is signatory to Treaty 4. Reserve No. 76 (16,590.4 ha), located 80 km east of Regina, is the main reserve. Twenty-two smaller surrounding reserves encompass an additional 8397 ha. Treaty 4 Reserve Grounds 77 (37 ha), next to and west of Fort Qu’Appelle, is shared with 33 Treaty 4 Nations (see Figure 18-3). The registered membership is 2348, with 768 members residing on reserve. Carry the Kettle First Nation is a member of the File Hills Qu’Appelle Tribal Council Inc. (INAC 2008).
18.4.2 Alberta Segment Five First Nations are involved in the Alberta Section study: Siksika Nation and four Nations from Maskwacis (Ermineskin First Nation, Louis Bull First Nation, Montana First Nation and Samson First Nation).
Page 18-5 February 2009
Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
18.4.2.1 Ermineskin First Nation Ermineskin First Nation is signatory to Treaty 6 and has two reserves (see Figure 18-3): Ermineskin Reserve No. 138, encompassing 10,296 ha, is situated 13 km south of Wetaskwin and Pigeon Lake. Reserve No. 138A, encompassing 1921 ha, is situated 39 km west of Wetaskwin. Pigeon Lake reserve No 138A is a reserve shared by the Maskwacis (Ermineskin, Louis Bull, Montana and Samson). The registered membership is 3758, with 2606 members residing on reserve.
18.4.2.2 Louis Bull First Nation Louis Bull First Nation is signatory to Treaty 6 and has two reserves (see Figure 18-3): Louis Bull Reserve No. 138B, encompassing 3,388 ha, is situated 16 km southwest of Wetaskwin and Pigeon Lake Reserve No. 138A, which is shared by the Maskwacis. The registered membership is 1870, with 1333 members residing on reserve (INAC 2008).
18.4.2.3 Montana First Nation Montana First Nation is signatory to Treaty 6 and has two reserves (see Figure 18-3): Montana Reserve No. 139, encompassing 2825 ha, is situated 24 km south of Wetaskwin, and Pigeon Lake Reserve No. 138A, which is shared by the Maskwacis. The registered membership is 894, with 621 members residing on reserve (INAC 2008).
18.4.2.4 Samson First Nation Samson First Nation is signatory to Treaty 6 and has three reserves (see Figure 18-3): Samson Reserve No. 137, encompassing 13,552 ha, is situated 76 km south of Wetaskwin. Samson Reserve No 137A is situated 76 km south of Wetaskwin. And Pigeon Lake Reserve No. 138A, encompassing 1921 ha, is situated 39 km west of Wetaskwin is shared by the Maskwacis. The registered membership is 894, with 621 members residing on reserve (INAC 2008).
18.4.2.5 Siksika Nation Siksika Nation is also participating in the Alberta segment. For a description of Siksika Nation, see Section 18.4.1.2.
18.5 Study Goals The traditional knowledge study goals for the Project were determined in the course of two sets of scoping meetings, carried out collectively by TransCanada personnel on behalf of Keystone and FMA personnel with participating Aboriginal communities in relation to the Alberta and Saskatchewan segments of the Project. The broad goal of the traditional knowledge studies, in relation to this Project, is to identify and document Aboriginal concerns related to the Project. Under the CEAA and the NEB regulatory requirements as identified in the Filing Manual, a proposed project must consider the participating Aboriginal communities’ current use of lands and resources for traditional activities. This information is included in the traditional knowledge study, although, to date, no current use of the lands has been identified by the Aboriginal communities.
February 2009 Page 18-8 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
In addition to meeting the regulatory requirements above, the additional goals of the agreed-upon studies are to: determine the potential effects of the Project on cultural and spiritual sites and locales and ancestral (archaeological) sites; determine the presence of medicines (e.g., plants and elements), which support ceremonial and healing traditions; visit portions of the LAA with known archaeological and palaeontological sites, as well as sites where SARA-listed wildlife and plant species have been identified during the project environmental assessments; and identify sacred and storied cultural landscapes and areas transected by the Project.
18.6 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
18.6.1 Temporal Boundaries for Traditional Knowledge and Land Use The temporal boundaries are defined as: baseline; construction; and operations.
18.6.2 Spatial Boundaries for Traditional Knowledge and Land Use For the purposes of the traditional knowledge studies, the RAA is the Aboriginal communities’ traditional territories, while the LAA is a distance of 50 m on either side of the Project RoW or ancillary project facilities (eight pump stations and the Hardisty B Terminal) (see Figure 18-1). The RAA and LAA were used to provide a basis for initially identifying the potentially affected Aboriginal communities.
18.7 Study Methodology The methodology for the traditional knowledge studies includes a literature review, scoping meetings, field visits, report preparation and a community report review process. FMA personnel involved in the traditional knowledge studies served as facilitators, working collaboratively with TransCanada and Aboriginal community members, to design and implement information-gathering processes for the studies. The issues and concerns, based on participants’ views, are recorded, together with recommendations in a community report. The information gathered through the traditional knowledge study is the property of Aboriginal knowledge holders and their communities. All recorded information, in tape, transcribed or electronic form, including notes, GPS readings and photographs, remains the property of the Aboriginal community and is used by the Project with their permission. The reports that will be prepared for the Project will be based on the information above and are are intended for the one-time use of the Project, unless otherwise authorized by the Aboriginal community. Any draft reports prepared by FMA personnel will be submitted to the study participants for review to ensure that observations and concerns have been accurately presented and are suitable for inclusion in a public document. The final report will then be submitted to TransCanada.
Page 18-9 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
18.7.1 Literature Review A review of background literature is ongoing and includes environmental assessments, historical and cultural studies (including documents referred to by the Aboriginal communities in scoping meetings) and government documents. Information relating to a moratorium on development in the Great Sand Hills is part of this review process. Relevant information will be included in study reports as they are completed. Existing traditional knowledge and TLU information for the study area is limited. A brief summary of the literature reviewed, addressing traditional knowledge and TLU with the Aboriginal communities involved in the Project follows.
18.7.1.1 Environmental Assessments There are few environmental assessment reports in which any of the communities (Nekaneet First Nation, Siksika Nation, Ermineskin First Nation, Louis Bull First Nation, Montana First Nation, Samson First Nation or the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan) were involved. In most cases, Aboriginal communities are referred to but traditional knowledge studies were deemed unnecessary. Environmental assessments where Aboriginal communities were involved include Enbridge Alberta Clipper pipeline, Foothills Pipeline, Keystone Pipeline and the Montana Alberta Tie power line. These traditional knowledge assessments were reviewed and considered during the planning process for the traditional knowledge studies of this Project.
18.7.1.2 Historical and Cultural Studies Historical and cultural reports related to the Project region that were reviewed as part of the baseline research, include Hildebrandt and Hubner’s The Cypress Hills: The Land and its People (1994) and Peters et al.’s Great Sand Hills Regional Environmental Study (2006).
18.7.2 Scoping Meetings The traditional knowledge study commenced with scoping meetings with designated members of the participating Aboriginal communities. Scoping is a collaborative process whereby the nature and parameters of a traditional knowledge study are determined.
18.7.2.1 Saskatchewan Scoping meetings, hosted by Nekaneet First Nation, were held in July and August 2008. Meeting participants included representatives of Nekaneet First Nation, Siksika Nation and Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, Regions IIa and III. The meetings were facilitated by TransCanada with assistance from FMA personnel (see Aboriginal Engagement chapter 10 of Section 52 NEB Project Application). Preliminary issues and concerns raised during the course of these meetings included restricted access to traditional lands and sacred landscapes since the signing of treaties. The cultural significance of the sacred landscape now referred to in government records as the Great Sand Hills was discussed. Questions about scientific interpretations of archaeological sites and their significance were raised, as well as concerns about the potential disturbance of identified tipi rings which might be death lodges (dwellings that were sealed when the occupants died of smallpox). Preserving important sites and revitalizing cultural practices were also discussed. An agreement was reached at these meetings by the three Aboriginal communities to work together and undertake a joint field program, with designated members from each community participating in the field surveys, planning meetings, recording of sites and locales and traditional knowledge study reporting processes. The tripartite group adopted the name of the Nekaneet Coalition based on the location of the
February 2009 Page 18-10 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study first meeting. It was also agreed that reports prepared for the regulatory process would be reviewed and approved by the participants and their communities before submission to TransCanada. As part of the scoping process, aerial photo mosaics of the Project route were provided to each participating community. At the request of study participants, a helicopter over-flight of the proposed route was done on July 17, 2008 for the purpose of identifying areas of interest to be visited in the field. Also provided were copies of locations for all the archaeological sites and locations where SARA-listed wildlife and plant species had been identified during the environmental field studies to date. Seven primary areas and 13 secondary areas were identified in Saskatchewan (see Figure 18-5a and Figure 18-5b). The areas of interest identified by the Nekaneet coalition members were prioritized for field survey. They were identified as primary and secondary areas and the numbering sequences did not imply degrees of importance or value. The primary areas refer to the areas selected to be visited first during field surveys, based on the density of previously known archaeological sites in a particular vicinity. The primary areas also focused on regions of major biological and cultural diversity, including the Great Sand Hills, the Cypress Hills, the Frenchman River Valley, the Val Marie grasslands and Swift and Jones Creek valleys.
18.7.2.2 Alberta A number of scoping meetings were held in Red Deer in August 2008 (see Aboriginal Engagement Chapter 10 of Section 52 NEB Project Application). Meeting participants included delegates from Siksika Nation, Ermineskin First Nation, Louis Bull First Nation, Montana First Nation and Samson First Nation; the meetings were facilitated by the TransCanada with support from FMA personnel. Preliminary interests and concerns identified related to potential presence of medicinal plants and to archaeological sites in the LAA. An agreement was reached at these meetings by the participating communities to work together and undertake a joint field program, with designated members from each community participating in the field surveys, planning meetings, recording of sites and locales and traditional knowledge study reporting processes. Initially, the Maskwacis agreed to participate in a joint field program. Since then, the Montana First Nation temporarily withdrew from the field portion of the program. Siksika Nation elected to work concurrently, but independently, to complete the Alberta segment. It was also agreed that reports prepared for the regulatory process would be reviewed and approved by the communities before submission to TransCanada. Aerial photo mosaics of the Project route were provided to each participating community to identify areas of interest to be visited in the field. Also provided were copies of locations for all archaeological sites and sites where SARA-listed wildlife and plant species had been identified during the environmental field studies. Nineteen primary areas and 31 secondary areas were identified (see Figure 18-6a and Figure 18-6b) in Alberta. The areas of interest, identified by the Aboriginal communities involved in the assessment, were prioritized for field survey, but the categories of primary and secondary and the numbering sequences did not imply degrees of importance or value. The primary areas refer to the areas selected to be visited first during field surveys, based on the density of previously known archaeological sites in a particular vicinity. The primary areas include portions of the proposed RoW that have extensive, contiguous native prairie (undisturbed) areas. Fragmented native prairie areas have been designated for secondary survey. These latter areas consist of isolated fragments with limited access in agricultural land tracts. The extent of surveys to be done in the secondary areas will be determined following the assessment of the primary areas.
Page 18-11 February 2009
Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
18.7.3 Field Studies Prefield and logistical planning efforts focused on minimizing potential disturbance of native prairie habitats and efficient movement of crews along the RoW.
18.7.3.1 Saskatchewan Segment As was requested by study participants, field studies entailed a preconstruction pedestrian survey of all native prairie (undisturbed) areas in the LAA. Arrangements were also made for one member of the Nekaneet coalition to contact landowners and make inquiries as to the potential presence of any archaeological sites not detailed on the government site list. The field program included a visit to archaeological and SARA-listed plant and wildlife sites identified thus far by the archaeological and environmental field crews. Field studies for the Saskatchewan Section began in August 2008, commencing with an opening ceremony. There were three field crews, comprising three or four members from each participant community and a traditional knowledge study facilitator. Fieldwork was carried out through August and September and involved truck, helicopter, ATV and pedestrian access. Sites and locales were recorded using GPS, audio recordings, photographs and written notes. The field program in Saskatchewan segment lasted 29 days, during which time most of the primary areas and two secondary areas were surveyed (see Figure 18-5a and Figure 18-5b). An additional field program is planned for spring and summer 2009.
18.7.3.2 Alberta Segment As was requested by the participating Aboriginal communities, field studies entailed a preconstruction pedestrian survey of all native prairie areas in the LAA. The field program includes visits to archaeological and SARA-listed plant and wildlife sites identified to date by the archaeological and environmental field crews. Field studies were undertaken in October and November. There were four field crews, comprising three or four members from each Aboriginal community and a traditional knowledge study facilitator. Additional work is planned for spring 2009.
18.7.4 Reporting In advance of the submission of final reports for the Saskatchewan and Alberta segments, the participating communities will meet TransCanada and its consultants to discuss identified areas of concern and recommendation for potential mitigation measures. Final reports for the Saskatchewan and Alberta segments will be prepared when the 2009 field studies are completed.
February 2009 Page 18-16 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
18.8 References
18.8.1 Literature Cited Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB). 2007. Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. – Application No. 1475724 Construct and Operate a 240-KV Merchant Transmission Line from the Lethbridge Area to the Alberta-USA border, Altalink Management Ltd., Application No. 1492150 Construct and Operate 240-KV Facilities to Connect the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. Facilities to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System: Proceedings. Volume II. ARESCO Ltd. 1980. Heritage Resource Impact Assessment, Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Zone 9 – The Saskatchewan Segment, Volume 1, Heritage Impact Assessment Report. AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2006. Keystone Pipeline Application. Prepared for TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1992. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). C.37; 2(1). Ottawa, Ontario. Government of Alberta. 2007. First Nations Consultation Policy on Land Management and Resource Development. Edmonton, Alberta. Government of Canada. 2008. Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Interim Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Legal Duty to Consult. Ottawa, Ontario. Government of Saskatchewan. 2006. Guidelines for Consultation with First Nations and Métis People: A Guide for Decision Makers. Regina, Saskatchewan. Hildebrandt, Walter and Brian Hubner. 1994. The Cypress Hills: The Land and Its People. Purich Publishing. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Ottawa, Ontario. National Energy Board (NEB). 2004. Filing Manual. Section A.2.4, Table A-3. Calgary, Alberta. Peters, Evelyn et al. 2006. First Nations Use and Culture Baseline Study Report: Great Sand Hills Regional Environmental Study. Research Report prepared for the Great Sand Hills Scientific Advisory Committee. Regina, Saskatchewan. TERA Environmental Consultants. 2007. Alberta Clipper Expansion Project: Application by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Volume II. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, Alberta. United Nations (UN). 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New York New York.
18.8.2 Internet Sites Assembly of First Nations (AFN). 2008. Available at: www.afn.ca. Accessed October 2008. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2008. First Nation Profiles: Siksika Nation. Available at: http:// pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=430&lang=eng. Accessed September and October 2008. INAC. 2008a. First Nations Profiles: Nekaneet. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/ Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=380&lang=eng. Accessed: September and October 2008.
Page 18-17 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 18: Traditional Knowledge Study
INAC. 2008b. First Nations Profiles: Ermineskin Tribe. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/ Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=443&lang=eng. Accessed September and October 2008. INAC. 2008c. First Nations Profiles: Louis Bull. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/ Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=439&lang=eng. Accessed September and October 2008. INAC. 2008d. First Nations Profiles: Samson. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/ Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=444&lang=eng. Accessed September and October 2008. INAC. 2008e. First Nations Profiles: Montana. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/ Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=442&lang=eng. Accessed September and October 2008. INAC. 2008f. First Nations Profiles: Carry the Kettle. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/ Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=378&lang=eng. Accessed September and October 2008. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan (MNS). 2008. Governance. Available at: http://metna.sasktelwebhosting.com/index.php?page=index. Accessed October 2008.
February 2009 Page 18-18 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Hydrology
19 Hydrology
19.1 Project Interactions In the Project Interactions table (see Section 7), hydrology was rated 1 for the following reasons: construction and operation have a low potential to affect surface water quantity (streamflow) and quality. Surface water quantity can be affected by interception and alteration of surface flow during construction. Grading and trenching activities could alter surface flows. surface water quality could potentially be affected during construction through accidental releases or surface erosion that could enter nearby surface watercourses or wetlands affecting the water quality. Additionally, surface erosion from the Project RoW facility site could result in reduced water quality. Standard mitigation measures address these potential effects for all phases of the Project. Taking into consideration these mitigation measures, the potential residual effects or cumulative effects of the Project on hydrology were determined to be not significant. The following sections provide an overview of the baseline conditions of the resource and mitigation measures.
19.1.1 Scope The goal of the hydrology study is to provide a general characterization of the hydrology of watercourses crossed by the Project. Knowledge of the hydrology will help plan for pipeline crossing design and construction, including construction timing, and supports the fisheries and aquatic resources components of the study. The scope of work includes estimates of the median annual hydrograph and upper and lower quartile hydrographs for major watercourses and those with catchment areas above the crossing of 100 km2 or greater. Smaller streams are characterized more generally. The hydrology study was limited to a desktop study, but made use of streamflow measurements made by the fisheries team during its field program. The study did not include estimates of design discharges for preparation of stream crossing designs.
19.1.2 Study Area Geographically, the study includes all watercourse crossings along the Project, between Hardisty, Alberta and the US border near Monchy, Saskatchewan. Each watercourse with a defined bed and banks, as identified by the fisheries field investigation, is included. For the pipeline route and watercourses, see Figure 19-1a and Figure 19-1b. For more detailed information on the watercourse crossings, see Section 10. Most crossings are located in the South Saskatchewan River Basin, with the remainder in the North Saskatchewan and Missouri River basins (see Table 19-1).
Page 19-1 February 2009 Sedgewick Killam Camp Wainwright Military Reserve
RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12 RGE. 11 RGE. 10 RGE. 9 RGE. 8 RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 RGE. 4 RGE. 3 RGE. 2 TWP. 43 Hardisty RGE. 1
ver Ri TWP. 42 tle at B Dillberry Lake Provincial Park TWP. 41
4 TWP. 40
Provost Stettler TWP. 39 ek Cre e 12 n to s TWP. 38 ib R
Castor Sounding Lake TWP. 37
Sullivan Lake Gough Coronation TWP. 36 Lake 8
9 TWP. 35 12
ek e r Kirkpatric C TWP. 34 r o Lake it Grassy on M Island Lake Currant TWP. 33 Lake Dowling Misty Lake Lake TWP. 32
Loverna
9 Hanna TWP. 31
SASKATCHEWAN
S ou k n ding Cree TWP. 30 27
Drumheller TWP. 29
ALBERTA
TWP. 28 9 Oyen
TWP. 27 Red Deer River
TWP. 26
TWP. 25
TWP. 24
Ephemeral Crawling Valley Reservoir TWP. 23 Intermittent 43 R NVC e TWP. 22 d Deer River Dinosaur Perennial Bassano Provincial Park TWP. 21 Keystone XL Pipeline
0 10 20 30 TWP. 20 47 r e iv Kilometers - 1:1,150,000 R an Brooks w TWP. 19 C.F.B. Suffield he JW-1028274-109-000 Tide Lake tc a k s a S
h t
u
PREPARED BY son
o her
NT TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. S
cp
pm : :
AB PREPARED FOR By 2008 BC Area SK
of 11, Watercourse Crossing Locations .
Interest
Nov : :
FIGURE NO.
odified
M
USA Acknowledgements: Cimaroon Engineering Ltd; Base Data provided by the Government of Alberta
19-1a Last TWP. 28
Danielson Provincial Park TWP. 27 RGE. 27 RGE. 26 RGE. 25 RGE. 24 RGE. 23 RGE. 22 RGE. 21 RGE. 20 RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12 RGE. 11 RGE. 9 RGE. 8 RGE. 28 RGE. 10
Eatonia Elrose
TWP. 26
Eston TWP. 25
TWP. 24 wan Riv er he t c S ka ou th Sas TWP. 23
Leader
TWP. 22 Kyle Lake Diefenbaker
TWP. 21 Saskatchewan Landing Provincial Park
TWP. 20 Burstall Cabri
TWP. 19
TWP. 18 AKA HEAN EWA CH AT SASK Herbert Morse
1 TWP. 17 Reed Lake
TWP. 16
ALBERTA Bigstick SWIFT CURRENT Lake TWP. 15 Antelope Lake 51 TWP. 14 Crane Lake Swift Current Creek Gull Lake Many Island Lake TWP. 13 Bitter Lake 1 53
TWP. 12 Irvine 56 TWP. 11 Maple Creek 57
59 TWP. 10 Nekaneet Ponteix I.R. #4 Nekaneet I.R. #4 63 66 TWP. 9 Cypress Hills Provincial Park 65 TWP. 8 Shaunavon
TWP. 7 Nekaneet I.R. #4 Eastend 75 Frenchman River TWP. 6 Cypress Lake 86 TWP. 5
TWP. 4 Ephemeral
IntermittentTWP. 3
NVC TWP. 2 Grasslands National Park Perennial TWP. 1 Keystone XL Pipeline
0 15 30 45 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Kilometers - 1:1,350,000
JW-1028274-110-000
PREPARED BY son
NT TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. her
cp
pm : :
MB PREPARED FOR By
SK 2008
AB 11, Area Watercourse Crossing Locations .
of Nov Interest :
FIGURE NO.
odified
M
USA Acknowledgements: Cimaroon Engineering Ltd; Base Data provided by the Government of Saskatchewan 19-1b Last Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Hydrology
Table 19-1 Watercourse Crossing Inventory
Assessment Locations No.* Watercourse Name Easting Northing Alberta 4 Ribstone Creek 496618 5834574 8 Loyalist Creek 496568 5762183 9 Monitor Creek 508643 5780510 27 Sounding Creek 517570 5737311 43 Red Deer River 537562 5660433 47 South Saskatchewan River 551726 5640723 Saskatchewan 51 Maple Creek 602999 5581669 53 Piapot Creek 624846 5543113 56 Skull Creek 634263 5545442 57 Bridge Creek 648790 5530374 59 Bone Creek 652654 5548161 63 Unnamed Tributary to Black Jack 650691 5542975 Lake 65 Swift Current Creek 665237 5527176 66 Rock Creek 673402 5516151 75 Gunn Creek 696508 5483428 86 Frenchman River 701599 5500959 NOTE: * The numbering shown corresponds to the crossing numbers shown on the Figure 19-1a and Figure 19-1b.
19.2 Methodology
19.2.1 Available Data
19.2.1.1 Historical Streamflow Data The hydrology study was based on historical stream flows recorded at hydrometric monitoring stations operated by Water Survey of Canada (WSC)—an agency of Environment Canada. Twelve WSC streamflow stations were selected for the hydrology study (see Table 19-2 and Figure 19-1a and Figure 19-1b). In most cases, the operating season for the stream-flow stations was from March to October; therefore, the analysis of mean discharges is focused on March to October.
19.2.1.2 Study-Specific Streamflow Measurements Although field work was not included as part of the work, stream-flow measurements were gathered during the fisheries baseline assessments at the proposed crossing locations on two ungauged streams (see Table 19-3).
February 2009 Page 19-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Hydrology
Table 19-2 Water Survey of Canada Stations – Selected for the Analysis
Station Record Catchment Area Number Station Name Period of Record Length Gross Effective Regulated 1 (years) (km2) (km2) 05FD005 Ribstone Creek near Czar 1968 – 1991 24 1,830 697 No 05GA013 Loyalist Creek near Consort 1984 – 1995 11 260 124 Yes 05GA003 Monitor Creek near Monitor 1954 – 2007 54 1,430 227 Yes 05GA008 Sounding Creek near Oyen 1968 – 2007 54 2,990 580 Yes 05CK004 Red Deer River near Bindloss 1960 – 2006 46 47,800 28,200 Yes 05AK001 South Saskatchewan River at Highway 41 1966 – 1993 28 66,000 46,700 Yes 05HA067 Maple Creek above Tenaille Lake Reservoir 1944 – 1954 10 1,560 959 Yes 05HA062 Piapot Creek near Piapot 1908 – 1973 22 123 123 No 05HA003 Bear Creek near Piapot 1908 – 2007 68 253 253 No 05HA075 Skull Creek near Piapot 1963 – 1973 10 127 94 No 05HD036 Swift Current Creek below Rock Creek 1955 – 2007 51 1,430 1,090 No 11AC023 Frenchman River at 50 mile 1914 – 1992 45 3,080 2,670 Yes 1 regulated refers to control by dams, reservoirs and irrigation withdrawals
Table 19-3 Study-Specific Streamflow Measurements
Stream Measurement Date Measured Discharge (m3/s) Skull Creek* June 18, 2008 0.15 Bone Creek June 19, 2008 0.37
NOTE: * WSC operated a hydrometric station on Skull Creek historically, but the station was discontinued in 1973.
Page 19-5 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Hydrology
For comparison, provisional data provided by WSC for two other regional streams indicated that discharges on June 18 to 19 were well above mean open-water season discharge (see Figure 19-2 and Figure 19-3. Based on that comparison, the mean discharges to Skull Creek and Bone Creek are expected to be somewhat less than the values measured in June.
19.2.2 Hydrologic Characterizations
19.2.2.1 Overview The watercourses in the study area were divided into three categories: gauged streams (those with at least 10 years of continuous historical record); major ungauged streams (streams with a catchment area greater than 100 km2 without a historical record); and minor ungauged streams (streams with a catchment area less than 100 km2 without a historical record). The hydrologic characteristics of the streams in each category were assessed using different methods, a discussion of which follows.
19.2.2.2 Gauged Streams Hydrologic characteristics of the crossing sites on gauged streams were derived by transferring historical discharges measured at an upstream or downstream stream flow station to the crossing site. Catchment areas between each crossing and the stream flow station were delineated and measured using NTS 1:50,000 scale mapping. A factor was applied to the hydrometric record to account for the drainage area difference between the index stations and the pipeline crossings. The transfer factor was typically taken as the ratio of gross catchment areas at the site to the gross catchment area at the hydrometric station. Where the gross catchment area between the crossing site and the hydrometric station differed by less than 5%, the transfer factor was taken as 1. In the case of Maple Creek, where the hydrometric station was some distance from the crossing and much of the intervening catchment area was ineffective, the ratio of effective drainage areas was used. For details of the river crossing locations, WSC stations and transfer factors, see Table 19-4. The transferred hydrometric record for each crossing location was analyzed to determine the historical range of daily discharge, median hydrograph, hydrographs for various specified quantiles and mean annual discharge.
19.2.2.3 Major Ungauged Streams Crossings on ungauged streams were characterized using the streamflow record collected at a WSC hydrometric station (at least 10 years of record) on another hydrologically similar nearby catchment. The hydrometric record from the adjacent station (the index station) was transferred to the crossing site using the same procedure as for the gauged streams. For a list of the index stations selected for each crossing site and the associated transfer factors, see Table 19-4.
19.2.2.4 Minor Crossings The hydrology for minor stream crossings is presented as a qualitative description based on inspection of the hydrometric records for the smallest gauged catchments.
February 2009 Page 19-6 Figure 19 - 2 Discharge Quantiles and 2008 Hydrograph Bear Creek near Piapot, WSC 05HA003 12 Discharge quantiles are based on 1909 - 2007 (68 years of record). 95% 2008 discharge is provisional.
Upper Quartile 10 Median
Lower Quartile
5% 8 2008 /s) 3
6 Discharge (m
4
2
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone Pipeline 21/10/2008 A03180A02.410 Bear creek near Piapot.xls Figure 19 - 3 Discharge Quantiles and 2008 Hydrograph Swift Current Creek below Rock Creek, WSC 05HD036 90 Maximum
80 Upper Quartile
Median
70 Lower Quartile
Minimum
60 2008 /s) 3 50 Discharge quantiles are based on 1955 - 2005 (51 years of record). 2008 discharge is provisional. 40 Discharge (m
30
20
10
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 21/10/2008 A03180A02.410 Swift current crossing.xls Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Hydrology
Table 19-4 Index Stations and Transfer Factors Used to Characterize Major Water Crossings
Drainage Drainage Area* Area* WSC Index at Index Transfer No River Crossing Location at Crossing Station Number Station Factor (km2) (km2) 4 Ribstone Creek NW 9-40-6-W4 1,431 05FD005 1830 0.78 8 Loyalist Creek W 3-35-5_W4 314 05GA013 260 1.21 9 Monitor Creek N 34-34-5_W4 1,076 05GA003 1430 0.75 27 Sounding Creek SE 19-30-4-W4 2,885 05GA008 2990 1.00 43 Red Deer River W 14-22-4-W4 47,672 05CK004 47800 1.00 47 South Saskatchewan River E 16-21-1-W4 66,000 05AK001 66000 1.00 51 Maple Creek W 5-15-25-W3 1,030 05HA067 959 1.07 53 Piapot Creek NW 20-12-23-W3 638 05HA062 + 376 1.70 05HA003 56 Skull Creek NW 22-11-22-W3 130 05HA075 127 1.00 59 Bone Creek N 11-10-21-W3 185 05HA075 127 1.46 65 Swift Current Creek NE 14-9-20-W3 248 05HD036 1430 0.17 66 Rock Creek SW 23-8-19-W3 243 05HD036 1430 0.17 86 Frenchman River E 26-5-17-W3 2,860 11AC023 3080 0.93
NOTE: * Drainage area shown is the gross drainage area except for the case of Maple Creek, where effective drainage area was used.
Page 19-9 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Hydrology
19.3 Results
19.3.1 Major Crossings For the estimated March to October mean discharge at each major gauged and ungauged stream crossing, see Table 19-5. For hydrograph quantiles for each crossing, see Figure 19-4 to Figure 19-16. These figures provide annual hydrographs of daily discharge for selected quantiles. The hydrographs indicate that, in general, discharges in the streams are highest in April and May. Outside those two months, stream flows are typically low, except for occasional high flows related to rainfall events. The two largest crossings—the South Saskatchewan River and the Red Deer River—behave differently relative to streamflow than the other crossings. The South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Rivers originate in the mountains, therefore, the snowmelt peak is later than for the prairie streams. In addition, flows in the two large rivers are significantly affected (regulated) by dams and reservoirs and by irrigation withdrawals. Consequently, the highest flow periods of the year occur on the South Saskatchewan in June and on the Red Deer in June or July.
Table 19-5 Estimated March to October Mean Discharges at the Major Crossings
Gross March to October Stream Name Drainage Area Mean Discharge (km2) (m3/s) Ribstone Creek 1,431 0.16 Loyalist Creek 314 0.05 Monitor Creek 1,076 0.11 Sounding Creek 2885 0.10 Red Deer River 47,700 72.70 South Saskatchewan River 66,000 208.00 Maple Creek 3,190 0.54 Piapot Creek 638 1.24 Skull Creek 130 0.17 Bone Creek 185 0.25 Swift Current Creek 248 0.22 Rock Creek 243 0.22 Frenchman River 2,860 2.37
February 2009 Page 19-10 Figure 19 - 4 Estimated Discharge Quantiles Ribstone Creek at Pipeline Crossing 5.0 Basis: WSC station 05FD005, Ribstone Creek near Czar. 1968-1991, 24 years of record. 95% Transfer factor: 0.78 Upper Quartile Median 4.0 Lower Quartile 5%
3.0 /s) 3
Discharge (m 2.0
1.0
0.0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Ribstone creek crossing.xls Figure 19 - 5 Estimated Discharge Quantiles Loyalist Creek at Pipeline Crossing 2.5
Basis: WSC station 05GA013, Loyalist Creek near Consort. 1984-1995, 11 years of record. 95% Transfer factor: 1.21 Upper Quartile
2.0 Median Lower Quartile 5%
1.5 /s) 3
Discharge (m 1.0
0.5
0.0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Loyalist Creek crossing.xls Figure 19 - 6 Estimated Discharge Quantiles Monitor Creek at Pipeline Crossing 6.0
95% Upper Quartile 5.0 Median Lower Quartile 5%
4.0
Basis: WSC station 05GA003, Monitor Creek near Monitor. /s)
3 1954-2007, 54 years of record. Transfer factor: 0.75 3.0 Discharge (m
2.0
1.0
0.0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Monitor Creek crossing.xls Figure 19 - 7 Discharge Quantiles Sounding Creek at Pipeline Crossing 6
95% Upper Quartile 5 Median Lower Quartile 5%
4 Basis: WSC station 05GA008, Sounding Creek near Oyen. 1968-2007, 39 years of record. /s)
3 Transfer factor: 1.00
3 Discharge (m
2
1
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 sounding creek crossing.xls Figure 19 - 8 Discharge Quantiles Red Deer River at Pipeline Crossing 600
95% Basis: WSC station 05CK004, Red Deer River near Bindloss. 1983-2006, 24 years of record. Upper Quartile Transfer factor: 1.00 Median 500 Lower Quartile 5%
400 /s) 3
300 Discharge (m
200
100
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Red Deer River crossing.xls Figure 19 - 9 Discharge Quantiles South Saskatchewan River at Pipeline Crossing 1400 Basis: WSC station 05AK001, South Saskatchewan River at Highway 41. 95% 1966-1993, 28 years of record. Upper Quartile Transfer factor: 1.00 Median 1200 Lower Quartile 5%
1000
/s) 800 3
600 Discharge (m
400
200
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 South saskatchewan River crossing.xls Figure 19 - 10 Discharge Quantiles Maple Creek at Pipeline Crossing 30
95% Upper Quartile Median 25 Lower Quartile 5%
20 Basis: WSC station 05HA067, Maple Creek above Tenaille Reservoir. 1944 -1954, 10 years of record. Transfer factor: 1.07 /s) 3
15 Discharge (m
10
5
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Maple creek crossing.xls Figure 19 - 11 Estimated Discharge Quantiles Piapot Creek at Pipeline Crossing 25 Basis: WSC station 05HA062, Piapot Creek near Piapot, plus 05HA003, Bear Creek near Piapot . 1908-1973, 22 years of record. Transfer factor: 1.70
20
95% Upper Quartile 15 Median /s) 3 Lower Quartile 5%
Discharge (m 10
5
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Piapot creek crossing.xls Figure 19 - 12 Estimated Discharge Quantiles Skull Creek at Pipeline Crossing 9.0
Basis: WSC station 05HA075, Skull Creek near Piapot. 95% 1963-1973, 10 years of record. 8.0 Transfer factor: 1.00 Upper Quartile Median Lower Quartile 7.0 5%
6.0 /s) 3 5.0
4.0 Discharge (m
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Skull creek crossing.xls Figure 19 - 13 Estimated Discharge Quantiles Bone Creek at Pipeline Crossing 14
Basis: WSC station 05HA075, Skull Creek near Piapot. 95% 1963-1973, 10 years of record. Upper Quartile 12 Transfer factor: 1.46 Median Lower Quartile 5% 10
/s) 8 3
6 Discharge (m
4
2
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Skull creek crossing.xls Figure 19 - 14 Estimated Discharge Quantiles Swift Current Creek at Pipeline Crossing 16 Basis: WSC station 05HD036, Swift Current Creek below Rock Creek. 1955-2006, 51 years of record. 95% Transfer factor: 0.17 14 Upper Quartile Median Lower Quartile
12 5%
10 /s) 3
8 Discharge (m 6
4
2
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Swift current crossing.xls Figure 19 - 15 Estimated Discharge Quantiles Rock Creek at Pipeline Crossing 16 Basis: WSC station 05HD036, Swift Current Creek below Rock Creek. 1955-2006, 51 years of record. 95% Transfer factor 0.17 14 Upper Quartile Median Lower Quartile
12 5%
10 /s) 3
8 Discharge (m 6
4
2
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Swift current crossing.xls Figure 19 - 16 Discharge Quantiles Frenchman River at Pipeline Crossing 60 Basis: WSC station 11AC023, Frenchman River at 50 Mile. 1914-1992, 45 years of record. 95% Transfer factor: 0.93 Upper Quartile Median 50 Lower Quartile 5%
40 /s) 3
30 Discharge (m
20
10
0 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
Keystone XL Pipeline - Hydrology Baseline 12/11/2008 A03180A02.410 Frenchman River crossing.xls Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Hydrology
19.3.2 Minor Crossings Streams with catchments less than 100 km2 are expected to flow only intermittently. In most cases, flow is expected only during the spring snowmelt, although some flow might occur in response to rainfall events during summer and fall, or because of a snowmelt during winter. Hydrographs for minor crossings are expected to be similar in shape to those shown for Piapot Creek (see Figure 19-11) and Skull Creek (see Figure 19-12). Flow magnitudes are expected to vary depending on catchment size and other hydrologic characteristics.
19.3.3 Level of Confidence Stream-flow estimates for the crossings of gauged streams are presented with a high degree of confidence because, in most cases, the crossing site is relatively close to a hydrometric station with a good period of record. Exceptions are Loyalist Creek, Maple Creek and Skull Creek, where the periods of record are about 10 years. The level of confidence in the major ungauged crossings is moderate, considering the uncertainty involved in transferring data from one catchment to another. In some cases, the effects of regulation on either the index stream or the study stream introduce additional uncertainty.
19.4 Summary of Mitigation for Hydrology It is recommended the following mitigation measures be used to protect hydrological resources: use crossing methods as indicated in the EPP and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets; follow DFO the Operational Policy Statements for Watercourse Crossings in Alberta and Saskatchewan; follow provincial Acts, regulations and codes of practice for watercourse crossings; and adhere to the sediment and erosion control measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Plan (see Appendix A). Taking into consideration these mitigation measures, the potential residual effects or cumulative effects of the Project on hydrology were determined to be not significant.
February 2009 Page 19-24 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
20 Hydrogeology
20.1 Introduction In the Project Interactions table (see Section 7), hydrogeology was rated 1 for the following reasons: construction and operation have a low potential to affect groundwater quantity and quality. Groundwater quantity can be affected by interception and alteration of ground water flow during construction. Grading and installation of footings could alter groundwater flows, wetlands or springs and associated groundwater and surface water interactions. groundwater quality could be affected by a small scale release of hydrocarbons from vehicles and construction equipment. Accidental fuel, oil or lubricant spills or leaks could infiltrate the soils into the groundwater or enter nearby surface watercourses, affecting the quality of the water. Standard mitigation measures address these potential effects during the construction and operation of the Project. Taking into consideration these mitigation measures, the potential residual or cumulative effects of the Project on hydrogeology resources were determined to be not significant. The hydrogeology component of this study considers the natural interaction of groundwater with the surface water environment and other groundwater receptors, such as water wells. Regional trends in ground surface topography, surface water occurrence, geology, aquifers and the depth to the water table help to identify areas where groundwater flow is expected. In areas with significant topographic relief and adjacent surface water features, groundwater discharge can contribute significantly to surface water flow. This situation can occur even in a geologic environment that is not part of a regional aquifer. The Project RoW passes over aquifers in Alberta and in Saskatchewan. Aquifers of interest for the purpose of this baseline study include: any aquifer that is shallow (typically within 30 m of the ground surface) and has an expected high groundwater yield; any aquifer that is shallow and considered susceptible to effects from surface activities; and areas where high permeability surficial deposits are located and there is an increased risk for surface activities to effect shallow aquifers. A portion of the Project RoW east of Hardisty is located between Alkali Lake and Shorncliffe Lake, where salt-affected groundwater has been documented (see Figure 20-1).
20.1.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries Because of the large scale of this study, boundaries for the hydrogeological components varied based on the referenced data available and the significance of the component to the assessment.
20.1.1.1 Temporal Boundaries The temporal boundaries are defined as: baseline; construction; and operations.
Page 20-1 February 2009 RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12 RGE. 11 RGE. 10 RGE. 9 RGE. 8 RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 RGE. 4 RGE. 3 RGE. 2 RGE. 1 TWP. 43
C.F.B. WAINWRIGHT
TWP. 42
TWP. 41
TWP. 40
TWP. 39
TWP. 38
TWP. 37
TWP. 36
TWP. 35
TWP. 34
TWP. 33
TWP. 32
TWP. 31
TWP. 30
TWP. 29
TWP. 28
TWP. 27
TWP. 26
TWP. 25
TWP. 24
TWP. 23
Proposed Crossing of Brine Plume TWP. 22 Spring Location
Wetland (Class IV/V/VI) TWP. 21 Town
Keystone XL TWP. 20 0 10 20 30 40
Kilometers - 1:1,150,000 C.F.B. SUFFIELD TWP. 19 JW-1028274-089-001
NT PREPARED BY TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE GP LTD. AB
PREPARED FOR s
Area Location of Wetlands, Springs and rmeyer
BC : of SK Interest
Alkali Lake Pond Brine Plume 2008By
4, 4, Dec.
in Alberta FIGURE NO. Modified:
Data Provided By: Base Data provided by The Province of Alberta; Cimarron Engineering Ltd. t as USA 20-1 L Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
20.1.1.2 Spatial Boundaries The RAA, which was defined as a 30-km buffer centred on the RoW, was used to identify aquifers and springs. The LAA, which was defined as a 3-km buffer centred on the RoW, was used to identify water well users. Because of the existence of numerous wetlands in the LAA and for the purpose of this study, only wetlands crossed by the RoW were identified. In the vertical sense, the depth of interest is anticipated to be shallow (less than 30 m) groundwater aquifers and associated water wells.
20.2 Regional Physiography of the Interior Plains The Project is in the Interior Plains physiographic region of Canada. Ground surface topography slopes down toward the north and the east across Alberta and Saskatchewan, and ranges from an elevation of 1200 m above sea level (masl) in the foothills, adjacent to the Rocky Mountains, to 200 masl near Lake Winnipeg (Fenton et al. 1994). The RoW crosses the Alberta Plain with significant physiographic regions, including the Neutral Hills (about 27 km north of Consort) in Alberta. Notable drainage courses along the RoW include the valleys of the Red Deer River and South Saskatchewan River in Alberta. Intervening areas are typified by flat topography.
20.3 Alberta
20.3.1 Regional Geology Shetsen (1998) compiled the surficial geology in southeastern Alberta. The surficial geology is glacial or glaciofluvial in origin, modified by fluvial activity. Deposits are predominantly glacial till, consisting of an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand and gravel, with local water-sorted material. The topography is dominantly hummocky to undulating, with areas of knob and kettle morphology. The relief typically ranges from less than 3 m to 20 m. Along the rivers such as the Battle River, near Hardisty, and the Red Deer River in the southern portion of the proposed Alberta alignment, there are stream and slopewash eroded deposits, as well as braided deposits of coarse gravel, fine to coarse-grained sand and fine silt and clay. Within the northern half of the proposed Alberta alignment, there are localized occurrences of ice-thrust moraine, comprising mixed and contorted bedrock, till and water-sorted material. The Neutral Hills is an example of this type of terrain. These deposits have been transported as single blocks, creating thrust slabs and folds up to 100 m thick. Topography in these areas consists of ridges, irregularly shaped hills and depressions. South of the Red Deer River, the dominant surficial geology comprises coarser-grained, ice-contact lacustrine and fluvial deposits and aeolian deposits. The ice-contact lacustrine and fluvial deposits are 25 m to 80 m thick, and consist of ice-rafted stones, gravel, sand, silt and clay, with localized till deposits. These deposits create an undulating to hummocky terrain. The aeolian deposits are up to 7 m thick and comprise fine- to medium-grained sand and silt. These deposits are found in longitudinal and parabolic dunes, creating an undulating to rolling terrain. The RoW passes through primarily glacial till with undulating topography with local relief generally less than 3 m and glacial till with hummocky topography with local relief of 5 m to 20 m, except at Red Deer River and South Saskatchewan river valleys.
20.3.2 Groundwater Flow Directions and Gradients Shallow flow systems, including the water table aquifer, reflect local topographic relief with areas of groundwater discharge next to the creeks, rivers and lakes in low lying areas. Deeper systems likely reflect the more regional west to east topographic gradient. Groundwater flow along the southwest perimeter of the Neutral Hills is suspected to provide baseflow to the wetlands located further to the
Page 20-3 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology southwest. Semi-permanent ponds and lakes, permanent ponds and lakes and alkali ponds and lakes are classed as Class IV, V and VI wetlands by the Stewart and Kantrud Wetland Classification System (Stewart 1971). See also Figure 20-1. Springs are scarce in the RAA and are generally isolated to low lying areas and coulees. Borneuf (1983) mapped six springs in the Alberta RAA (see Figure 20-1). These locations represent areas of groundwater discharge. For a summary of flow rates and the water quality of the springs, see Table 20-1.
Table 20-1 Flow Rates and Water Quality of Springs in the RAA
Local Springs Field Flow HCO3 Discharge Geology Temp Rate TDS Ca Mg Na+K CO3 SO4 Cl NO3 Location (°C) (L/sec) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 13-26-020-01 W4M NA NA 0.1 4722 29 37 1473 512 2580 168 11 01-05-025-05 W4M NA 13 NA 5270 100 224 1234 478 3160 70 1 13-19-027-03 W4M NA NA NA 2336 NA NA NA NA 117928 0 04-35-027-03 W4M NA NA NA 1690 NA NA NA NA 64124 0 08-25-027-06 W4M sand 11 0.1 3012 93 60 794 554 1575 18 12 03-33-030-03 W4M sand and NA NA 1216 68 38 296 388 42026 29 gravel
NOTES: NA: Not available because of insufficient data Temp: Temperature
SOURCE: Borneuf 1983
20.3.3 Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality is characterized according to total dissolved solids (TDS). The Health Canada aesthetic goal for TDS is less than 500 mg/L (Health Canada 2008). Saline groundwater is defined, with respect to the domestic use aquifer (DUA), as groundwater having TDS greater than 4000 mg/L (AENV 2008a). In the Wainwright area (Townships 035 to 046, Ranges 01 to 14, W4M), the drift and bedrock groundwater is typically bicarbonate type (Hackbarth 1975). The dominant cations in the drift are calcium and magnesium, whereas the dominant cations in the bedrock are sodium and potassium. Total dissolved solids concentrations range from 0 mg/L to 1000 mg/L at shallower depths (less than 50m), and increase to greater than 1000 mg/L with increasing depth. In the Oyen area (Townships 023 to 035, Ranges 01 to 15, W4M), the drift groundwater is bicarbonate- type, with the dominant cations being calcium or magnesium (Borneuf 1979). Total dissolved solids concentrations range from 1000 mg/L to 5000 mg/L, with an average of 2000 mg/L. Bedrock waters are generally of the sodium sulphate to sodium-bicarbonate type. These waters typically have TDS concentrations of 1000 mg/L. In the Medicine Hat area (Townships 012 to 023, Ranges 01 to 15, W4M), the drift groundwater is typically calcium-bicarbonate type, with a TDS concentration generally less than 1000 mg/L (Stevenson and Borneuf 1977). Total dissolved solids concentrations can reach 3000 mg/L in topographic lows in the drift groundwater. The bedrock in this area typically has sodium bicarbonate-type waters, with TDS concentrations from 1000 mg/L to 2000 mg/L, however, sodium-sulphate-type waters are present in the Foremost Formation aquifers.
February 2009 Page 20-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
20.3.3.1 Groundwater Yield Regional groundwater reports describe the water-transmitting capacity of subsurface formations in terms of the transmissivity, which is a function of the thickness and hydraulic conductivity of the formation, as related to the average available 20-year safe yield. These values are based on the data available from AENV water well records. The probable range in average expected yield of bedrock wells in the Wainwright area is typically associated with the interbedded sandstone lenses of the Oldman and Foremost Formations of the Belly River Group. Yield estimates for wells producing from these formations typically range from 0.5 L/s to 2 L/s. Surficial deposit aquifers in the area consist of accumulations of sand and gravel in bedrock topographic lows (bedrock valleys). Yield estimates from these aquifers range from 2 L/s to 40 L/s (Hackbarth 1975). The probable range in average expected yield of bedrock wells in the Oyen area is typically associated with the shallow fine-grained shaly sandstones of the Bearpaw Formation, or in the drift deposits (Borneuf 1979). Yield estimates for wells producing from both of these lithologies typically range from 0.1 L/s to 2 L/s. The probable range in average expected yield of bedrock wells in the Medicine Hat area is similar to that of the Wainwright area: it is associated with the interbedded sandstone lenses of the Oldman and Foremost formations of the Belly River Group. Yield estimates for wells producing from these formations typically range from 0.5 L/s to 2 L/s (Stevenson and Borneuf 1977). Surficial deposit aquifers in the area consist of accumulations of sand and gravel in the bedrock topographic low paralleling the South Saskatchewan and Red Deer rivers. Yield estimates from these aquifers range from 2 L/s to 40 L/s (Stevenson and Borneuf 1977).
20.3.3.2 Registered Water Well Users The AENV Groundwater Database (AENV 2008b) was queried for registered groundwater well users meeting the following details: wells located in the LAA; and wells completed to a depth of less than 30 m (or the completion depth is unknown). The accuracy of the locations of the water wells is often limited to the centre of the quarter section (scale of plus or minus 800 m). Furthermore, wells beyond a certain age may not appear on the database. For the approximate location of water wells, see Figure 20-2. In Alberta, there are 246 wells identified in the LAA, of which 17 wells are completed to depths equal to or less than 10 m and 43 wells are completed to depths unknown. Based on the March 2008 AENV Groundwater Database, there are 87 registered water wells identified within 200 m of the RoW and 93 registered water wells within 200 m to 500 m.
Page 20-5 February 2009 RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12 RGE. 11 RGE. 10 RGE. 9 RGE. 8 RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 RGE. 4 RGE. 3 RGE. 2 RGE. 1 TWP. 43
C.F.B. WAINWRIGHT
TWP. 42
TWP. 41
TWP. 40
TWP. 39
TWP. 38
TWP. 37
TWP. 36
TWP. 35
TWP. 34
TWP. 33
TWP. 32
TWP. 31
TWP. 30
TWP. 29
TWP. 28
TWP. 27
TWP. 26
TWP. 25
TWP. 24
TWP. 23
TWP. 22 Water Well Depth (<= 30m)
Town TWP. 21 Keystone XL
3 km Study Area
0 10 20 30 40 TWP. 20
Kilometers - 1:1,150,000 C.F.B. SUFFIELD TWP. 19 JW-1028274-086-001
PREPARED BY NT TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE GP LTD.
AB PREPARED FOR s
Area rmeyer SK : BC of Interest
Registered Water Well Users in Alberta 2008By
4, 4, Dec.
FIGURE NO. Modified:
USA Data Provided By: Base Data provided by The Province of Alberta; Cimarron Engineering Ltd.; AENV t as 20-2 L Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
20.3.3.3 Identification of Aquifers and Aquifer Susceptibility Groundwater resources have been mapped on a regional scale through a series of hydrogeology reports produced on behalf of the PFRA and hydrogeological reports published by the Alberta Research Council. The reports applicable to the RAA are organized according to county, special area and municipal district as: Municipal district of Provost No. 52 (Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. [HCL] 1999); Special Areas two, three and four and municipal district of Acadia (HCL 2000); Cypress County (HCL 2001); Hydrogeology of the Wainwright Area, Alberta (Hackbarth 1975); Hydrogeology of the Oyen area, Alberta (Borneuf 1979); and Hydrogeology of the Medicine Hat area, Alberta (Stevenson and Borneuf 1977). Groundwater resources in southeastern Alberta typically consist of a lower surficial sand deposit occurring along buried bedrock valleys and an upper surficial deposit consisting of glacial till and sand along the trends of glacial meltwater channels. The PFRA reports state that the surficial deposits generally consist of three hydraulic parts: sand and gravel deposits of the lower surficial deposits, saturated sand gravel deposits of the upper surficial deposits and sand and gravel close to the ground level, which is unsaturated (HCL 1999, 2000 and 2001). Shallow groundwater in southeastern Alberta is typically of poor quality and salt deposits at the surface are common. Based on surface permeability and depth of the deposits, the PFRA reports have categorized surface areas susceptible to effects from surface activities. Shallow sand and gravel deposits provide a pathway for parameters to move downward into the groundwater. The PFRA reports refer to risk of groundwater effects from surface activities (see Table 20-2).
Table 20-2 Risk of Groundwater Effects from Surface Activities
Sand or Gravel Present within 1 m Surface Permeability of Ground Surface Risk of Groundwater Effects Low No Low Moderate No Moderate High No High Low Yes High Moderate Yes High High Yes Very High
20.3.3.4 Aquifers in the RAA and Areas Susceptible to Effects from the Ground Surface In Alberta, aquifers of interest for the study are shallow, within 30 m of ground surface and have an expected groundwater yield greater than 100 m3/d. Specific aquifers have not been named in eastern Alberta. The two significant water-bearing surficial units identified from PFRA reports are the Upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer and the Lower Sand and Gravel Aquifer. The Upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer includes saturated sand and gravel deposits in the upper surficial deposits. Because of the depth of the Lower Sand and Gravel Aquifer, it is not considered of interest for the RoW study. Bedrock units of hydrogeological interest in Alberta in the area of the RoW are the Bearpaw and Belly River Formations of the Late Cretaceous age, as well as the Oldman and Foremost Formations of the Upper Cretaceous age. The Belly River Formation outcrops along a narrow section of Sounding Creek;
Page 20-7 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology sections of the Bearpaw, Oldman and Foremost Formations outcrop along the banks of the Red Deer and South Saskatchewan Rivers and in tributary channels. The PFRA reports identified areas in Alberta at risk to effects on aquifers (see Table 20-2). For majority of the RoW, the PFRA reports categorize the risk as high. Areas of interest for this assessment are those rated as very high, where high permeable sand and gravel deposits are expected to be within 1 m of the ground surface. The aquifers of the Upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer, where groundwater yields are greater than 100 m3/day and areas categorized as very high risk, are mapped (see Figure 20-3). Although specific aquifers have not been named in eastern Alberta, the PFRA reports have mapped areas of aquifer susceptibility, based on permeability and depth of the sand and gravel deposits.
20.3.3.5 Surficial Aquifers of Interest and Very High Risk Areas in Alberta The Alberta RoW has been divided into areas based on a series of hydrogeological reports produced on behalf of PFRA (see Figure 20-3).
Municipal District of Provost The most prevalent surficial deposits in the municipal district of Provost are morainal deposits, outwash sand deposits and lake deposits. Over the majority of the area, surficial deposits are less than 40 m thick. The RoW crosses the Buried Wainwright Valley, where surficial deposits might be up to 80 m thick. The water table is approximated by the land surface and is usually within 15 m of the surface.
Upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer The aquifers of the Upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer consist of discontinuous sand and gravel deposits. Yields can be high (greater than 100 m3/d), however, because of discontinuous layers, long term yields can be limited (see Figure 20-3). The majority of the water wells in the area are completed in the upper surficial deposits, however, water wells along the buried valleys might be completed in the surficial Lower Sand and Gravel Aquifer. Water from surficial aquifers is used for farm and domestic and municipal water supply purposes. The hydraulic relationship between the surficial deposits and the bedrock aquifers is interpreted mainly as a downward hydraulic gradient, with no areas of upward hydraulic gradient mapped.
Special Areas 2, 3 and 4 and Municipal District of Acadia and Cypress County The most prevalent surficial deposits in the Special Areas, municipal district of Acadia and Cypress County are preglacial materials and glacial deposits. Lower surficial deposits include pre-glacial fluvial and lacustrine deposits of clay, silt and fine grained sand. Water wells completed in the surficial sand and gravel aquifers are expected to have long-term yields of less than 100 m3/d, however, yields of more than 100 m3/d are expected in areas of linear bedrock lows (thawlegs). Over the majority of the area, surficial deposits are less than 30 m thick. The RoW crosses several linear bedrock lows such as the Buried Calgary Valley and Buried Lethbridge Valley where the deposits can be more than 50 m thick. The water table is approximated by the land surface and is usually within 15 m of the surface.
Upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer The aquifers of the Upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer consist of discontinuous sand and gravel deposits. Yields can be high (greater than 100 m3/d), however, because of discontinuous layers, long term yields can be limited (see Figure 20-3). The majority of the water wells in the area are completed in the upper surficial deposits, however, water wells along the Buried Calgary Valley and Buried Lethbridge Valley might be completed in the surficial Lower Sand and Gravel Aquifer. Water from surficial aquifers is used for farm and domestic and municipal water supply purposes. The hydraulic relationship between the surficial deposits and the bedrock aquifers is interpreted mainly as a downward hydraulic gradient.
February 2009 Page 20-8 RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12 RGE. 11 RGE. 10 RGE. 9 RGE. 8 RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 RGE. 4 RGE. 3 RGE. 2 RGE. 1 TWP. 43
TWP. 42
TWP. 41
TWP. 40 M.D. of Provost
TWP. 39
TWP. 38
TWP. 37
TWP. 36
TWP. 35
TWP. 34
TWP. 33
TWP. 32
TWP. 31
TWP. 30
TWP. 29 Special Area's 2,3, & 4 and TWP. 28 M.D. of Acadia TWP. 27
TWP. 26
TWP. 25
TWP. 24
TWP. 23 Town
Thalwegs
Keystone XL TWP. 22
Keystone XL 30Km RAA
Very High Risk Area TWP. 21 3 Upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer (Yields >100m /day(15 igpm))
Municipal District TWP. 20 0 10 20 30 40 Cypress County Kilometers - 1:1,150,000 TWP. 19 JW-1028274-090-001
PREPARED BY TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE GP LTD. NT
PREPARED FOR s
AB Shallow Surficial Aquifers and rmeyer
Area : BC of SK
Interest Very High Risk Areas 2008By
4, 4, Dec.
in Alberta FIGURE NO. Modified:
Data Provided By: Base Date Provided by The Province of Alberta; Cimarron Engineering Ltd; AENV t as USA 20-3 L Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
20.3.3.6 Identification of Geology and Hydrogeology between Alkali Lake and Shorncliffe Lake In groundwater recharge areas, contaminants can migrate downward through high-permeability materials such as sand and gravel. The surficial geology in the area of the Alkali Lake is ice-contact fluvial deposits comprising coarse gravel and sand and fine to coarse-grained sand. The gravel and sand deposits terminate in 21-040-07 W4M, west of Shorncliffe Lake. Between 21-040-07 W4M and Shorncliffe Lake, surficial deposits comprise stagnation moraine deposits consisting of till of uneven thickness (HCL 1999). The water table flow direction is approximated by the land surface, with shallow groundwater discharging into lakes. For the approximate location of the Alkali Lake brine pond, see Figure 20-1.
20.4 Saskatchewan
20.4.1 Regional Geology The following description was summarized from an overview produced by Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization (SAFRR) in January 2005. Saskatchewan is underlain by nearly flat-lying Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Upper Cretaceous and Paleocene sandstones and coal seams form important bedrock aquifers in southern Saskatchewan. These include the Judith River (Belly River) and Bearpaw Formations. Throughout southern Saskatchewan, the bedrock is overlain by unconsolidated sediments of Quaternary and recent age, and include till and stratified deposits. Major surficial formations are: Empress Group – sand, gravel, silt and clay of fluvial, lacustrine and colluvial origin, and underlies till of Quaternary age; Sutherland Group – drift between the Empress Group and Saskatoon Group, consists of the Mennon, Dundurn and Warman formations; Saskatoon Group – consists of Floral and Battleford formations and surficial stratified deposits, consisting of deglacial lacustrine, outwash, ice-content and post glacial alluvium and eolian sediments; and Surficial – Great Sand Hills Area and surficial stratified deposits.
20.4.1.1 Groundwater Flow Directions and Gradients Shallow flow systems, including a water table aquifer, reflect local topographic relief with areas of groundwater discharge next to the creeks, rivers and lakes in low-lying areas. Semi-permanent ponds and lakes, permanent ponds and lakes and alkali ponds and lakes are classed as Class IV, V and VI (Stewart and Kantrud 1971). For an illustration of Class IV, V and VI wetlands along the RoW, see Figure 20-4. Deeper systems likely reflect the more regional west to east topographic gradient. Springs are scarce in the RAA in Saskatchewan and are generally isolated to low-lying areas and coulees. The hydrogeology reports produced on behalf of the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) for the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority report that discharge is limited to creeks occupying the numerous valleys that dissect the area, and to the erosional edges of the aquifer. Springs can be expected where the erosional edge outcrops at the ground surface.
February 2009 Page 20-10 RGE. 28 RGE. 27 RGE. 26 RGE. 25 RGE. 24 RGE. 23 RGE. 22 RGE. 21 RGE. 20 RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12 RGE. 11 RGE. 10 RGE. 09 RGE. 08 TWP. 27 RGE. 07
TWP. 26
TWP. 25
TWP. 24
TWP. 23
TWP. 22
TWP. 21
TWP. 20
TWP. 19
TWP. 18
TWP. 17
TWP. 16
TWP. 15
TWP. 14
TWP. 13
TWP. 12
TWP. 11
TWP. 10
TWP. 09
TWP. 08
TWP. 07
TWP. 06
TWP. 05
TWP. 04
TWP. 03
TWP. 02
TWP. 01 Wetland (Class IV/V/VI)
Town
Kestone XL
0 10 20 30 40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Kilometers - 1:1,350,000
JW-1028274-092-001
PREPARED BY NT TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE GP LTD.
PREPARED FOR s
AB rmeyer Area SK Location of Wetlands : BC of
Interest 2008By
in Saskatchewan 4, Dec.
FIGURE NO. Modified:
USA Data Provided By: Base Data Provided by The Province of Alberta; Cimarron Engineering Ltd. t as 20-4 L Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
20.4.1.2 Groundwater Quality In western Saskatchewan, the major constituents present in groundwater are sodium, calcium and magnesium sulphates. TDS can be as high as 2500 mg/L. TDS concentrations in groundwater from the Judith River Formation are between 1000 mg/L and 2000 mg/L or greater (SAFRR 2005).
20.4.1.3 Groundwater Yield The Judith River Formation is sufficiently productive to form an important source of municipal and industrial water supply. Inter-till aquifers are locally capable of satisfying municipal supply requirements with yields of 10 L/s to 20 L/s. Aquifers formed from delta deposits are locally capable of sustaining domestic, agricultural, industrial and municipal needs (SAFRR 2005).
20.4.1.4 Registered Water Well Users The SRC database was queried for registered groundwater well users meeting the following details: wells located in the LAA; and wells completed to a depth of less than 30 m (or the completion depth is unknown). In Saskatchewan, there are 32 wells identified in the LAA that are either completed to depths equal to or less than 30 m or completed to unknown depth (see Figure 20-5). Based on the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority Digital Ground Water Data Base (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority 2008), as of August 2008, there is one registered water well identified within 200 m of the RoW and another one within 200 m to 500 m of the RoW.
20.4.1.5 Aquifers of Interest and Aquifer Susceptibility Groundwater resources have been mapped on a regional scale through a series of hydrogeology reports produced on behalf of the SRC for the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. The reports applicable to the RAA are compiled according to NTS map sheet areas as: Groundwater Resources of the Prelate (72K) Area, Saskatchewan (Maahuis and Simpson 2007a); Groundwater Resources of the Cypress Lake (72F) Area, Saskatchewan (Maahuis and Simpson 2007b); and Groundwater Resources of the Wood Mountain (72G) Area, Saskatchewan (Maahuis and Simpson 2007c). The SRC digital ground water database comprises water well records and testhole information compiled from a variety of sources, which provide information to determine principle aquifers in Saskatchewan. Protecting the quality of groundwater from surface effects is a priority, leading SRC to apply the aquifer vulnerability index (AVI) method to rate the vulnerability of aquifers located in Saskatchewan. AVI category ratings are extremely high, high, moderate, low and extremely low.
February 2009 Page 20-12 RGE. 28 RGE. 27 RGE. 26 RGE. 25 RGE. 24 RGE. 23 RGE. 22 RGE. 21 RGE. 20 RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12RGE. 11 RGE. 10 RGE. 09 RGE. 08 TWP. 27 RGE. 07
TWP. 26
TWP. 25
TWP. 24
TWP. 23
TWP. 22
TWP. 21
TWP. 20
TWP. 19
TWP. 18
TWP. 17
TWP. 16
TWP. 15
TWP. 14
TWP. 13
TWP. 12
TWP. 11
TWP. 10
TWP. 09
TWP. 08
TWP. 07
TWP. 06
TWP. 05
TWP. 04
TWP. 03
TWP. 02
Water Well Depth (<= 30m) TWP. 01 Town
Keystone XL
3 km Study Area
0 10 20 30 40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Kilometers - 1:1,350,000
JW-1028274-087-001
PREPARED BY NT TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE GP LTD.
AB PREPARED FOR s rmeyer Area SK Registered Water Well Users : BC of
Interest 2008By
in Saskatchewan 4, Dec.
FIGURE NO. Modified: Data Provided By: Base Data Provided by The Province of Alberta; Cimarron Engineering Ltd,; AENV; Saskatchewan Water Corporation t
USA as 20-5 L Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
Aquifers in the RAA and Areas Susceptible to Effects from the Ground Surface Saskatchewan aquifers of interest for the assessment are shallow, typically within 30 m of ground surface, or are at risk of surface activities affecting groundwater. The aquifers of interest are the Great Sand Hills South Aquifer, Saskatoon Group aquifers, Eastend–Cypress Hills Aquifer, Empress Group aquifers and surficial aquifers in Cypress Lake Area. For an illustration of these surficial aquifers along with an area of shallow surficial stratified deposits in Wood Mountain Area (composed of alluvial sand), see Figure 20-6. The Wood Mountain Area deposits do not indicate a surficial aquifer, as some areas might be unsaturated. Other surficial and bedrock units of hydrogeological interest in Saskatchewan in the area of the RoW are the Tyner Valley Aquifer, Mannville Aquifer, Milk River Aquifer, Ribstone Creek Aquifer, Judith River Aquifer, Bearpaw Aquifer and aquitards, Lea Park Formation and Bearpaw Formation. The aquifers and aquitards might outcrop along river banks and in tributary channels.
The AVI method indicates the susceptibility of mapped aquifers to surface activity effects. The AVI method ranges from extremely low to extremely high, with some aquifers allocated a range of categories defined as variable. For an illustration of the AVIs of the shallow aquifers of interest in the RAA, see Figure 20-7.
Aquifers of Interest and AVI in Saskatchewan The Saskatchewan RoW RAA has been divided into three areas based on a series of hydrogeological reports published by SRC (see Figure 20-6 and Figure 20-7).
Prelate Study Area. Drift thickness in the RAA in the Prelate Study Area ranges in depth from about 21 m to 175 m. There are no major withdrawals from the Quaternary aquifers, but water from these aquifers is used for farm, domestic and municipal water supply.
Great Sand Hills South Aquifers The RoW passes through the Great Sands Hill area where the Great Sand Hills South Aquifer is located. This unconfined surficial aquifer is recharged by infiltrating precipitation that reaches the water table. There is insufficient information to establish the saturated thickness of the Great Sand Hills deposits; therefore, the thickness of the aquifer is unknown. The Great Sand Hills South Aquifer consists of glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine silt and clay. The potential yield of wells completed in the surficial aquifers will be small because the saturated thickness of the aquifers is limited. The AVI of the surficial aquifer in the RAA is rated as extremely high. By definition, the absence of a confining layer makes the aquifer susceptible to effects from the ground surface.
Saskatoon Group Aquifers The RoW passes near the Saskatoon Group aquifers. The unnamed surficial aquifers of the Saskatoon Group occur at depth ranging from 20 m to 50 m below ground surface. The aquifers are confined by thick till units and are of limited extent. The Saskatoon Group aquifers are recharged by vertical downward flow from the water table. The aquifer AVI rating varies from low to moderate in the RAA. In most areas, the depth of the aquifers means they are considered protected against effects from the ground surface.
February 2009 Page 20-14 RGE. 28 RGE. 27 RGE. 26 RGE. 25 RGE. 24 RGE. 23 RGE. 22 RGE. 21 RGE. 20 RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12 RGE. 11 RGE. 10 RGE. 09 RGE. 08 TWP. 27 RGE. 07
TWP. 26
TWP. 25
41 TWP. 24
TWP. 23
TWP. 22
TWP. 21
TWP. 20
TWP. 19
TWP. 18
TWP. 17 Prelate Study Area TWP. 16
TWP. 15
TWP. 14
TWP. 13
TWP. 12
TWP. 11
TWP. 10
Wood Mountain TWP. 09 Study Area TWP. 08
TWP. 07
TWP. 06
Thalwegs TWP. 05 Keystone XL
Keystone XL 30Km RAA TWP. 04
NTS Map Sheet
Empress Group Aquifers in Cypress Lake Area Cypress Lake TWP. 03
Great Sand Hills South Aquifer Study Area TWP. 02 Saskatoon Group Aquifers
Surficial Aquifers in Cypress Lake Area TWP. 01 Surficial Deposits in Wood Mountain Area
Eastend Cypress Hills Aquifer
Judith River Aquifer
0 10 20 30 40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Kilometers - 1:1,350,000
JW-1028274-091-001
PREPARED BY NT TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE GP LTD.
PREPARED FOR s
AB rmeyer Area SK Aquifers in : BC of
Interest 2008By
Saskatchewan 4, Dec.
FIGURE NO. Modified:
USA Data Provided By: Base Data Provided by The Province of Alberta; Cimarron Engineering Ltd.; Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) t as 20-6 L RGE. 28 RGE. 27 RGE. 26 RGE. 25 RGE. 24 RGE. 23 RGE. 22 RGE. 21 RGE. 20 RGE. 19 RGE. 18 RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 RGE. 13 RGE. 12 RGE. 11 RGE. 10 RGE. 09 RGE. 08 TWP. 27 RGE. 07
TWP. 26
TWP. 25
41 TWP. 24
TWP. 23
TWP. 22
TWP. 21 Prelate TWP. 20 Study Area TWP. 19
TWP. 18
TWP. 17
TWP. 16
TWP. 15
TWP. 14
TWP. 13
TWP. 12
TWP. 11 Irvine
TWP. 10
TWP. 09
Wood Mountain TWP. 08
Study Area TWP. 07
TWP. 06 Cypress Lake Study Area TWP. 05
TWP. 04
Town TWP. 03 Keystone XL
Keystone XL 30Km RAA TWP. 02 NTS Map Sheet
Extremely High TWP. 01 Low to Moderate
Low
Variable
0 10 20 30 40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Kilometers - 1:1,350,000
JW-1028274-095-001
PREPARED BY NT TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE GP LTD.
PREPARED FOR s
AB rmeyer Area SK : BC of Aquifer Vulnerablity Index (AVI)
Interest 2008By
in Saskatchewan 4, Dec.
FIGURE NO. Modified:
USA Data Provided By: Base Data Provided by The Province of Alberta; Cimarron Engineering Ltd.; Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) t as 20-7 L Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
Cypress Lake Area Drift thickness in the RAA ranges in depth from about 0 m to 100 m. The Eastend Cypress Hills Aquifer is at shallow depths in the RAA.
Eastend – Cypress Hills Aquifer The RoW crosses over the Eastend–Cypress Hills Aquifer. The Eastend–Cypress Hills Aquifer consists of, in ascending order, the Eastend, Whitemud, Battle, Frenchman, Ravenscrag and Cypress Hills formations. The aquifer consists of sand, silts, clays and coals. Portions of the aquifer outcrop or are covered by a thin layer of drift and the aquifer is considered unconfined. Water levels are typically a reflection of topography. Recharge takes place over the majority of the aquifer with discharge limited to creeks and erosional edges of the aquifer. Estimates of the hydraulic conductivity of the Eastend– Ravenscrag sand are reported as ranging from 1.1 x10-5 m/s to 1.1 x 10-4 m/s. Estimates of the hydraulic conductivity of the gravels of the Cypress Hills Formation are unknown; however, literature suggests that the hydraulic conductivity can range from hundreds to thousands of metres per day (Freeze and Cherry 1979). Because of formation outcrops or areas with only a thin layer of drift, aquifer AVI is variable in the RAA, with areas susceptible to effects from the ground surface.
Empress Group Aquifers The RoW crosses an aquifer of the Empress Group. The unnamed surficial aquifers of the Empress Group consist of sand and gravel, and occur at depths ranging from 30 m to 60 m. The Empress Group aquifer is recharged by vertical downward flow from the water table. Generally, domestic and farm wells are shallow and are installed in fractured till or sand seams of limited extent, resulting in low expected yields. Because of depth, the AVI rating for the aquifer in the RAA is extremely low.
Surficial Aquifers The RoW crosses a surficial sand aquifer consisting of alluvial, eolian and fluvial materials. Locally, surficial sands might form an important water supply source. Because of the shallow depths of the surficial aquifers and the absence of a confining layer, the AVI is rated as extremely high in the RAA and the aquifers are vulnerable to effects from ground surface.
Wood Mountain Area Drift thickness in the RAA ranges in depth from about 9 m to 100 m. The bedrock Judith River aquifer is at shallow depths in the RAA and might be within 25 m of the ground surface at some locations in the RoW.
Judith River Aquifer The Judith River Aquifer extends across the entire Saskatchewan province, but is at a shallower depth in the Wood Mountain Area of the RAA. The Judith River Formation is highly complex: for half of the formation, thickness comprises silts and clays; the other half comprises sand units that are not typically thicker than 15 m and are often only a few metres thick (Maahuis and Simpson 2007c). The range in average hydraulic conductivity for the Judith River aquifer sands is about 1.2 x10-6 m/s to 5.8 x 10-5 m/s. Generally, in the Wood Mountain Area RAA, the aquifer is well protected and the AVI is extremely low to low.
Page 20-17 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
Surficial Deposit In the RoW, surficial deposit consists mostly of undifferentiated till. However, the RoW intercepts a small area of shallow surficial stratified deposits comprising alluvial sand. The alluvial sand might be thin and unsaturated and, therefore, is not necessarily considered an aquifer. Because of the occurrences of shallow depths of the surficial aquifers and the absence of a confining layer, the AVI of the surficial deposit in the RAA is extremely high, and aquifers are vulnerable to effects from ground surface.
20.5 Summary and Conclusions The RoW intercepts areas of surface water and shallow groundwater flow systems. Wetlands are typically located in areas of low topographic relief, and groundwater might discharge in creeks, rivers, lakes and low lying areas. Springs are scarce in the RAA and are generally isolated to low lying areas and coulees. Registered water wells with completion depths less than 30 m, or for which the depth is unknown, have been identified in the LAA. The RoW crosses areas where shallow surficial aquifers exist in Alberta and Saskatchewan. These aquifers might have high expected groundwater yields and might be susceptible to surface effects. Unsaturated areas of shallow, high permeability, surficial deposits have also been mapped because shallow sand and gravel deposits provide a pathway for contaminants to move downward into the groundwater. Other aquifers or aquitards of hydrogeological significance are also noted as these aquifers might outcrop along river or creek banks and in tributary channels. The RoW in Alberta crosses an area where salt-affected groundwater has been documented near Alkali Lake.
20.6 Discussion and Summary
20.6.1 Level of Confidence Hydrogeological parameters of the aquifers are presented at a moderate level of confidence as there is a limit to the quality control for data provided to the groundwater databases, which are used for interpretation. Where possible, geology and hydrogeological parameters are determined from individual records, such as drilling reports. Data might also be spatially referenced, which therefore provides a regional spatial distribution of aquifers. Locations of the water well users and the water well characteristics (water quality and quantity) are presented at a moderate level of confidence because of the spatial referencing of wells within a quarter section scale applied by the AENV Groundwater Database (AENV 2008b). The locations of the springs in Alberta and the spring characteristics are presented with a low degree of confidence due to the age of the mapping (Borneuf 1983).
20.6.2 Summary of Mitigation for Hydrogeology It is recommended the following mitigation measures be used to protect hydrogeological resources: ensure detailed engineering design considers potential effects on pipeline integrity in the salt-affected ground water area between Alkali Lake and Shorncliffe Lake; during construction, use special trench water management procedures in the area between Alkali Lake and Shorncliffe Lake, if required collect and dispose of salt-affected water at an approved facility;
February 2009 Page 20-18 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
employ measures to maintain cross-RoW flow if an area of groundwater flow (seeps and springs) is encountered during construction; sample and analyze for water quality at all shallow (less than 30 m) water wells and wells with unknown depth within 200 m of the RoW before the start of construction; sample and analyze all wells within 500 m of the blast area before the start of blasting; backfill geotechnical test holes with drill cuttings; if flowing artesian conditions are encountered, seal test holes with a bentonite product to prevent ongoing release of groundwater to the surface; make design modification if the geotechnical drilling program indicates a shallow water table or the potential for flowing artesian conditions is significant; implement dewatering; adhere to the spill contingency plan in the environmental protection plan (see Appendix A); and develop and implement an emergency response plan for operations that considers high-risk aquifers. Taking into consideration these mitigation measures, the potential residual or cumulative effects of the Project on hydrogeology resources were determined to be not significant.
20.7 References Alberta Environment. 2008a. Alberta Tier 1 and Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines. Alberta Environment. 2008b. Alberta Environment Groundwater Database. Edmonton, Alberta. Borneuf, D.M. 1979. Hydrogeology of the Oyen Area, Alberta. Alberta Research Council Earth Sciences Report (78-2). Borneuf, D.M. 1983. Springs of Alberta. Alberta Research Council, Earth Sciences Report (82-3). Fenton, M.M, B.T. Schreiner, E. Nielsen, and J.G. Pawlowicz. 1994. Quaternary Geology of the Western Plains. In Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, G.D. Mossop and I. Shetson (comp.). Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and Alberta Research Council, Calgary, Alberta. Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewoods Cliff, New Jersey. Hackbarth, D.A. 1975. Hydrogeology of the Wainwright Area, Alberta. Alberta Research Council Earth Sciences Report (75-1). Health Canada. 2008. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, Summary Table. Federal- Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment, May 2008. Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. (HCL). 1999. M.D. of Provost No. 52 Regional Groundwater Assessment. Prepared for the M.D. of Provost No. 52, in conjunction with Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, November 1999. Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. (HCL). 2000. Special Areas 2, 3 and 4 and M.D. of Acadia Regional Groundwater Assessment. Prepared for Special Areas 2, 3 and 4 and M.D. of Acadia, in conjunction with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, March 2000.
Page 20-19 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 20: Hydrogeology
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. (HCL). 2001. Cypress County Regional Groundwater Assessment. Prepared for Cypress County, in conjunction with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, November 2001. Maahuis, H., and Simpson, M. 2007a. Groundwater Resources of the Prelate (72K) area, Saskatchewan. Prepared for Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. Published by Saskatchewan Research Council. Saskatoon. Maahuis, H., and Simpson, M. 2007b. Groundwater Resources of the Cypress Lake (72F) area, Saskatchewan. Prepared for Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. Published by Saskatchewan Research Council. Saskatoon. Maahuis, H., and Simpson, M. 2007c. Groundwater Resources of the Wood Mountain (72G) area, Saskatchewan. Prepared for Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. Published by Saskatchewan Research Council. Saskatoon. Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization (SAFRR). 2005. Site Characterization Manual for the development of Intensive Livestock Operations and Earthen Manure Storage. January 2005. Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. 2008. Digital Ground Water Data Base. Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Shetsen, I., 1998. Quaternary Geology of Southern Alberta. Alberta Energy and Utilies Board. EUB/AGS Map 207D, scale 1:5000,000. Stevenson, D.R., and Borneuf, D. M. 1977. Hydrogeology of the Medicine Hat Area, Alberta. Alberta Research Council Earth Sciences Report (75-2). Stewart, Robert E. and Harold A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie region. Resource Publication 92, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
February 2009 Page 20-20 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
21 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
In addition to assessing project-specific effects, Section 16.1(a) of the CEAA requires that every screening consider the effects of accidents, malfunctions or unplanned events that might occur in connection with the project.
21.1 Approach For the purpose of the assessment of accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events, the focus is on pipeline related events. The pump stations are considered within the context of the pipeline. The Hardisty B terminal has secondary containment associated with the tanks. This containment has the capacity of 110% of the largest tank. The tanks will be bermed and lined with an impermeable line. Based on use of secondary containment, the Hardisty B terminal is not considered within this section.
21.1.1 Identification of Possible Events The following are potential accidents, malfunctions or unplanned events that could occur during construction or operations: accidental spill of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel); inadvertent mud release during construction while horizontal directionally drilling (HDD) watercourse crossings; or pipeline failure during operations, resulting in an accidental release of oil.
21.1.2 Event Scenarios
21.1.2.1 Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material The operations and maintenance of equipment during construction and operations will require the presence of hazardous liquids onsite. Materials that are likely to be found include fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel and propane), lubricants (e.g., engine oil, transmission or drive train oil, hydraulic oil, gear oil and lubricating grease), coolants (e.g., ethylene glycol and propylene glycol), methanol, paints and solvents. Generally, these materials are stored in controlled environments (e.g., locked facilities) and behind control measures (e.g., berms). Liquid wastes pose the greatest threat to the environment because of their ability to flow into porous material if not properly contained at all times. Some liquid wastes (e.g., lubricating oil, methanol and antifreeze) contain components that are toxic to plants and wildlife. Many of these materials are readily flammable or explosive. Antifreeze (ethylene glycol) is toxic and has a sweet smell that might attract wildlife.
21.1.2.2 Drilling Mud Release HDD techniques are currently proposed to install pipelines under the South Saskatchewan and Red Deer rivers. One of the risks associated with HDD crossings is the inadvertent release of drilling mud. Drilling mud is an inert, naturally occurring material, but an inadvertent release can be harmful to fish and fish habitat if it results in increased sedimentation. Therefore, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has issued regional operational statements that require monitoring mud volumes during drilling, emergency response plans to address an inadvertent mud release during trenchless crossings and contingency crossing plans to be implemented should the HDD crossing prove unsuccessful.
Page 21-1 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
21.1.2.3 Operational Pipeline Failure The Company completed a pipeline failure threat assessment for the Project. Third party damage is considered the primary and only viable threat to the pipeline. However, puncture of the pipeline causing a leak or rupture would be extremely remote given the specified pipe toughness properties and the pipeline’s depth of cover. Using the PRCi fault tree model [Chen and Nessim, “Reliability-based Prevention of Mechanical Damage to Pipelines”, Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., 1999], and utilizing the puncture resistance of the line, the failure frequency for this pipeline is estimated to be 7.58E- 03/km*yr or one (1) failure every 131.85 years. This value indicates a very low likelihood of failure. During operations, industry best practice damage prevention programs will be implemented such as public awareness programs, participation in provincial one call programs and aerial surveillance to minimize the potential for a pipeline strike.
21.1.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize or prevent effects to the environment as result of an unlikely accident, malfunction or unplanned event.
21.1.3.1 The Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material Environmental Protection Plan (see Appendix A) provides protection measures to be used in the event of the spill of hazardous materials associated with construction activities. These measures are document in the spill contingency plan (see Appendix A, Attachment A8) of the environmental protection plan. Additional measures are also specified with respect to fuelling and servicing equipment in proximity to waterbodies, as well as secondary containment requirements for pumps used during installation of water body crossings.
21.1.3.2 Drilling Mud Release To mitigate potential effects of the inadvertent releasing of drilling mud into a watercourse, the Company has developed a drilling mud release contingency plan (see Appendix A, Attachment A6). This contingency plan is based on DFO operational statements for trenchless crossings that require monitoring of drill mud pressure and requirements for water quality monitoring. Additionally, the Company requires the its drilling contractor to submit for approval a site specific HDD execution plan that incorporates a requirement for an inadvertent mud release response plan.
21.1.3.3 Operational Pipeline Failure Mitigation
Emergency Response Plan The Company has developed an emergency response plan for the existing Keystone pipeline, which is a component of the comprehensive emergency response program. The plan has been prepared to: ensure regulatory compliance; ensure the plan is suitable for all key Stakeholders, including field operations; include all emergencies and response measures; ensure timely internal and external notification procedures; and meet training requirements. In addition, the plan contains information related to worst-case discharge, Company-owned equipment, environmental sensitivities, contract resources, public officials and tactical control plans.
February 2009 Page 21-2 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
The plan will be distributed to key internal and external Stakeholders. The plan will be updated to integrate the proposed Project and will be modified to consider sensitive environmental features that might require the additional staging of response equipment. The Keystone emergency response plan, combined with a rigorous training program, retention of and access to the industry’s most known response experts, and a state-of-the-art pipeline integrity and maintenance program, make emergency response for the integrated Keystone Pipeline system a priority.
Additional Mitigation Measures The frequency of a potential failure event is expected to be low, based on the pipeline risk assessment. Environmental consequences will likely be nominal. The potential for environmental effects will be greatly limited through the Company’s prevention, detection and mitigation programs. These apply to all biophysical components in the discussion following.
Prevention Prevention includes using construction specifications, a quantitative risk-based integrity management program (IMP) and operational procedures. The IMP uses advanced inspection and risk mitigation technology to identify potential integrity issues. Based on the results of the IMP process, specific integrity maintenance activities are developed. The goal of the IMP is to establish and maintain acceptable levels of integrity, while regarding: safety of the public and company employees; potential effect on the environment; public and regulatory perception; potential effect on receipt and delivery reliability; protection of the installed asset base; and lowest lifecycle cost. The IMP provides the basis for compliance with regulations and developing the annual pipeline maintenance plan (PMP). The PMP summarizes the individual programs and activities planned to manage pipeline issues. Where unacceptable risks exist, projects or maintenance procedures are developed to mitigate the risk. Adherence to safety procedures will help ensure environmentally sound operations of the pipeline and associated facilities.
Detection The pipeline will be controlled from the OCC in Calgary, Alberta. The OCC is staffed 24 hours per day and uses a comprehensive SCADA system to continuously monitor and control pipeline operations. Data provided by the SCADA system alerts the OCC operator to an abnormal operating condition, which might signify a possible spill or leak. A computer-based leak detection system will be installed for the Keystone pipeline system that will meet or exceed industry standards. This system will report through the SCADA system to the OCC and will provide the OCC operator with enhanced capabilities related to the early detection and location of leaks. The Company has an integrated public awareness (IPA) program that is applicable to the Project. The goal of the IPA program is to inform Stakeholders of the location of facilities and operational activities to protect the public from injury, to protect or limit effects on the environment, to protect the facilities from damage by the public and to provide an opportunity for ongoing public awareness.
Page 21-3 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
Mainline Valves Mainline valves will be located to ensure that they are accessible to operational personnel and are protected from damage or tampering. The valves will be supported, as required, to prevent settlement and movement. Most valves will be remotely controlled, and electronically operated. Valve spacing will take into account considerations such as: operational activities; pipeline segment isolation time; and emergency response planning. For major watercourse crossings (i.e., the Red Deer, South Saskatchewan and Frenchman rivers) and sensitive areas, the preliminary design philosophy includes: on the upstream side, a remotely controlled, electrically operated mainline valve; and on the downstream side, a check valve and a manually controlled valve. Valve locations have been selected to provide ready access from adjacent roadways, where practical, and will be located near existing base Keystone valve sites where the two pipelines are contiguous. Final valve locations will be determined during detailed design to: optimize siting; address landowner concerns; and incorporate the results of a final engineering assessment. The Company has developed an emergency response plan for the existing Keystone Pipeline. This plan will be enhanced to include the Project, will be communicated to Stakeholders and is part of the Company IPA program. The plan ensures emergency response equipment is prepositioned at strategic locations along the pipeline system. The Company will work with emergency response personnel in the areas in which it operates to ensure communications, understanding and cooperation. This will ensure the oil spill response plan is linked into plans maintained by other affected agencies. The Company will amend the approved Keystone emergency response plan, as necessary, to accommodate the routing of the Project.
21.2 Scoping of Assessment The following discussion focuses on the qualitative effects of three accident, malfunction or unplanned event scenarios – accidental spill of hazardous material, drilling mud release and operational pipeline failure. The discussion includes the potential effect on the following VECs: air quality; soils; hydrogeology; vegetation and wetlands; wildlife and wildlife habitat; fisheries and fish habitat and hydrology; and archaeology and paleontology.
February 2009 Page 21-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
21.3 Air Quality
21.3.1 Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material An accidental spill of hazardous material could potentially result in air emissions. In the event of an accidental spill, and depending on the material spilled, the material spilled could evaporate to produce small amounts of fugitive air emissions of various fractions of VOCs. The rate of evaporation to air from the spill would depend on the characteristics of the spilled material, the surface area of the spill, the volume of the spill, time of day and season when the spill occurs and atmospheric conditions. It is expected that, in the event of a spill, the effects on ambient air quality would be localized near the spill. Any vapour plume that results from a spill would likely dissipate in hours and would subsequently not pose a direct threat to human or wildlife health. The effect is expected to be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.3.2 Drilling Mud Release An inadvertent mud release will not result in any effects on air quality given the benign nature of drilling mud.
21.3.3 Operational Pipeline Failure A pipeline failure could potentially result in air emissions. In the event of an accidental release, oil spilled onto the land surface could evaporate to produce small amounts of fugitive air emissions of various fractions of VOCs. The rate of evaporation to air from spilled oil would depend on the surface area of the spill, the volume of the spill, time of day and season when the spill occurs and atmospheric conditions. It is expected that, in the event of an oil spill, the effects on ambient air quality would be localized near the spill, with a very low probability of occurrence. Any vapour plume that results from an oil spill would likely dissipate in hours and would subsequently not pose a direct threat to human or wildlife health. The effect is expected to be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.4 Soils
21.4.1 Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material The spill of hazardous material in soil has the potential to affect soil quality. Depending on the characteristics of the material spilled, it could contain a variety of materials that could degrade soil quality through changes to physical, chemical and biological properties. Hazardous materials could be toxic to microorganisms and soil invertebrates or have negative effects on biochemical processes such as respiration and nutrient transformation. Soil hydraulic properties will determine whether a liquid spill affects primarily upper layers or deeper soils. A liquid spill in coarser textured soils would possess a higher potential for infiltration into the soil horizon and remediation would focus on the depths and area of interaction. A liquid spill in fine textured soils would tend to remain closer to the surface and infiltrate more slowly, allowing for a more controlled and localized remediation. With the waste management plan (see Appendix A, Attachment A5) and the spill contingency plan (see Appendix A, Attachment A8) in place during construction and operations, the effects on soil quality from an accidental spill are expected to be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
Page 21-5 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
21.4.2 Drilling Mud Release An inadvertent mud release will not result in any significant effects on soils, given the contingency and response plans in place during construction and the benign nature of drilling mud. The effect from a release of drilling mud is expected to be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.4.3 Operational Pipeline Failure The release of oil in soil has the potential to affect soil quality. Oil contains a variety of types of hydrocarbons that can degrade soil quality through changes to physical, chemical and biological properties. An example of a long-term physical change is that of hydrophobicity, where infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt is slowed or even prevented and potential soil water storage capacity is reduced. Some hydrocarbons are toxic to microorganisms and soil invertebrates (AENV 2001a) or have negative effects on biochemical processes such as respiration and nutrient transformation (AENV 2001b). Soil hydraulic properties will determine whether a release affects primarily upper layers or deeper soils. A release in coarser textured soils would have the potential to infiltrate deeper and faster into the ground and remediation would focus on a larger volume and deeper plume. A release in the fine-textured soils would tend to remain closer to the surface and infiltrate more slowly, allowing for a more controlled and localized remediation. Effective implementation of the emergency response plan will reduce the risk of long-term effects on soil quality. A release will result in a change in soil quality, which can be mitigated and, therefore, the effects on soil quality from a pipeline failure are expected to be local, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.5 Hydrogeology
21.5.1 Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material A hazardous material spill could adversely affect groundwater resources. The potential for adverse effects on groundwater depends on the characteristics of the material spilled, the volume of the spill, the depth of subsurface penetration, the direction of groundwater flow and the lateral distance to the nearest groundwater receptor (e.g., water wells). The depth of subsurface penetration is dependent on the following subsurface characteristics: the geology beneath the spill site (higher permeability sand and gravel versus lower permeability silt and clay); the characteristics of the material spilled; and the depth to the water table, since oil floats on water and since a portion of the oil dissolves in water. Liquids migrate under the influence of gravity and capillary forces. The spill of liquid hazardous material in a homogeneous geologic deposit will experience minimal lateral spread, whereas a spill on a highly variable deposit could spread out laterally. The liquid would penetrate through the unsaturated zone above the water table resulting in an interval where the sedimentary deposits would contain discontinuous pockets of hazardous material. A slow release over a long period would occur over a relatively smaller area and the depth of penetration would be greater, whereas the same volume released over a short period would penetrate to shallower depths. However, it is anticipated that given the management and contingency plans in place, that any hazardous spill would be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
February 2009 Page 21-6 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
21.5.2 Drilling Mud Release A drilling mud release could affect groundwater resources. The potential for effects on groundwater depends on the volume of the release, the depth of subsurface penetration, the direction of groundwater flow and the lateral distance to the nearest groundwater receptor (e.g., water wells). The depth of subsurface penetration is dependent on the following subsurface characteristics: the geology around the release (higher permeability sand and gravel versus lower permeability silt and clay); and the depth to the water table. However, given the management and contingency plans in place and the benign nature of drilling mud, any effect would be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.5.3 Operational Pipeline Failure Release of oil could adversely affect groundwater resources along the Project route. The potential for adverse effects on groundwater depends on the volume released, the depth of subsurface penetration of the oil released and the lateral distance to the nearest groundwater receptor (e.g., water wells). The depth of subsurface penetration is dependent on the following subsurface characteristics: the geology beneath the pipeline (higher permeability sand and gravel versus lower permeability silt and clay); the specific gravity of the oil product; and the depth to the water table, since oil floats on water and since a portion of the oil dissolves in water. Oil migrates under the influence of gravity and capillary forces. The spill of oil in a homogeneous geologic deposit will experience minimal lateral spread, whereas a spill on a highly variable deposit could spread out laterally. Released oil would penetrate through the unsaturated zone above the water table, resulting in an interval where the sedimentary deposits would contain discontinuous pockets of oil. A slow release over a long period would occur over a relatively smaller area and the depth of penetration would be greater, whereas the same volume released over a short period would penetrate to shallower depths. However, it is anticipated that mitigation would occur through the Company’s prevention, detection and mitigation programs before all of the released oil penetrates into the subsurface. Based on information available on the surficial geology along the RoW, an accidental release might occur in the following settings: release over a clay or till base with an associated range in hydraulic conductivities of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-9 cm/s; release over a gravel or sand base with an associated range in hydraulic conductivities of 1 x 10-2 to 1 x 10-4 cm/s and with a shallow water table; and release over a gravel or sand base with a deep water table. In the first case of release over a clay base, it is anticipated that most of the oil will be contained in the pipe and the trench with a heightened potential for the oil to emerge to the surface. This then affects the aboveground biophysical environment. In the second case, a release of oil over a sand and gravel base will potentially allow the oil to penetrate to the water table. The components of oil that are soluble in water and that have an associated environmental quality guideline include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. In the unlikely event oil accumulates in the water table, the free flowing oil could migrate along the water table and discharge to the surface or collect in a water well. Of equal or greater concern is the mobility of the oil components that have become dissolved in the groundwater.
Page 21-7 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
The third case—release over a sand base with a deep water table—is the most problematic because of the difficulty in accessing the soil and groundwater effects from the oil. Oil would penetrate the sand and would be difficult to remediate if it enters the deep water table. From the perspective of groundwater, it is anticipated the downward migration of oil through unsaturated permeable sand will be detected through the normal course of monitoring and spill response before the oil intersects the water table. Tthe Company’s detection program should detect the release before any significant effect. Also, oil spill response plans will address significant regional aquifers discussed elsewhere (see Section 20). Given this mitigation, it is anticipated that the effects of a pipeline failure and oil release on groundwater resources will be localized, medium term, reversible and not significant.
21.6 Vegetation and Wetlands
21.6.1 Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material The majority of the Project crosses agricultural lands or native prairie, and effects on vegetation from an accidental spill would be limited. Annual crops or forage crops are readily available and easy to establish following soil remediation. For this reason, this subsection will focus on the potential effects on native prairie and rare ecological communities or plants. Native prairie areas near a release might be affected by an accidental spill of hazardous material. Effects on vegetation could occur through: direct contact with surrounding vegetation; indirect effects through spill-affected soils; and vegetation loss through removal of affected soils and vegetation during cleanup. Variation in the severity and significance of the effects on vegetation will be a function of: extent of vegetation lost—the smaller the extent of the effect, the smaller the potential effect; characteristics of hazardous material spilled; and seasonality and ground conditions with effects having less potential significance in winter when snow cover might be present and ground is frozen. In areas with rare plants or vegetation communities, releases are a concern since vegetation damaged or removed as part of cleanup will require revegetation. Some plant communities such as fescue prairie is vulnerable to disturbance and subsequent invasion by non-native species and is difficult to reclaim. Permanent shifts in vegetation types might occur in plains rough fescue communities as a result of a spill and subsequent cleanup. However, alternate revegetation techniques such as fescue plug planting can help recover the plant communities. In the unlikely event a rare plant community was present near the spill, the chemical properties of the spilled material and necessary remedial activity could eliminate the plant and adversely affect any surrounding suitable habitat. The effect from a release of a hazardous material on native prairie or rare plant communities would be localized, medium term, reversible and not significant.
February 2009 Page 21-8 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
21.6.2 Drilling Mud Release An inadvertent mud release on vegetation is not expected to result in any significant effects given the contingency and response plans in place during construction and the benign nature of drilling mud. The effect from a release of drilling mud is expected to be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.6.3 Operational Pipeline Failure In areas with rare ecological communities (e.g., plains rough fescue) or rare plants (e.g., tiny Cryptanthe, slender mouse-eared cress), releases are a concern since vegetation damaged or removed as part of cleanup will require revegetation. These communities or rare plants are vulnerable to disturbance and subsequent invasion by non-native species and can be difficult to reclaim. Permanent shifts in vegetation types might occur in as a result of a release and subsequent cleanup activities. However, this can be mitigated through use of native seed mixes, native mulch application and plug planting. In the unlikely event a rare plant community was present near the release, the chemical properties in the oil could eliminate the plant and adversely affect any surrounding suitable habitat. The germination of dormant seed in the seed bank could also be affected. The frequency of a pipeline failure is extremely low and, consequently, the effect from a release of oil on native prairie or rare plant communities is expected to be localized, medium to long term, reversible and not significant.
21.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
21.7.1 Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material Accidental releases of hazardous material might directly affect terrestrial wildlife species, or livestock, in three major ways: physical contact with material; toxic effects, which might occur when animals inhale or ingest material, depending on its characteristics; and habitat loss, because of spill-affected terrestrial or wetlands communities. The release of hazardous material could affect livestock, terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife species. Terrestrial species, such as ground-nesting birds on grassland habitat, would be affected by a release of hazardous material if it occurs in close proximity to the nest and depending on the characteristics of the material. There is potential for ground nests to be adversely affected, although there is a low possibility of this occurring, and the site would be remediated and reclaimed to ensure no long term effects on the habitat. Ungulates and livestock, if they contact, inhale or ingest the material, could also be adversely affected. However, this is unlikely given they are highly mobile and can leave the affected area. The greatest potential effect from a release of hazardous material could be on those species groups that use aquatic environments, including amphibians, waterbirds (e.g., waterfowl and shorebirds) and semi- aquatic mammals. There is a greater potential for an adverse effect with a release into an aquatic environment because of difficulty in containing and subsequently cleaning up, compared with a release on land, which can be quickly contained and cleaned up. Potential effects into an aquatic environment include: increased mortality risk; compromising physiological and immunological condition; reduced growth and development;
Page 21-9 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
reduced habitat availability; reduced survival; reduced reproductive success; and decreased food availability. Provided the mitigation measures outlined in the spill contingency plan (see Appendix A, Attachment A8) and contaminated soils plan (see Appendix A, Attachment A7) are implemented immediately following the accidental release, the effects on wildlife are expected to be localized, short to medium term, reversible and not significant.
21.7.2 Drilling Mud Release The Company has completed a geotechnical investigation as part of the HDD water crossing design to ensure the drill-hole depth below the thalweg is sufficient to limit the risk of inadvertent mud releases given the subsurface materials and drilling mud pressure. Equipment and response plans will be ready in case a release occurs. For the directional drill mud release contingency plan, which outlines the mitigation measures required in the case of an inadvertent mud release, see Appendix A, Attachment A6. An inadvertent mud release will not result in any significant effects on the environment, given the response plans and the benign nature of drilling mud. The effect on wildlife from a release of drilling mud is expected to be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.7.3 Operational Pipeline Failure Accidental releases of oil from a operational pipeline failure might affect terrestrial wildlife species or livestock in three major ways: physical contact with oil; toxic effects, which might occur when animals inhale or ingest oil; and habitat loss because of spill-affected terrestrial and wetland communities. The release of oil could affect livestock, terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife species. Terrestrial species, such as ground-nesting birds on grassland habitat, would be affected by a release of oil if it occurs in close proximity to the nest. There is potential for ground nests to be adversely affected, although there is a low possibility of this occurring and the site would be remediated and reclaimed to ensure no long term effects on the habitat. Ungulates and livestock, if they contact, inhale or ingest the oil, would also be adversely affected. However, this is unlikely given their ability to leave the area. Of the species observed along the Project route, SARA-listed wildlife species were encountered: Ord’s kangaroo rat (endangered) black-tailed prairie dog (special concern), and amphibian species (leopard frog and great plains toad special concern) and bird species (burrowing owl, ferriginuous hawk and other migratory bird species that could be adversely affected by a pipeline failure). For the SARA-listed bird species, the species of greatest concern would be those nesting on the ground (e.g., burrowing owl, spragues pipit, long-billed curlew). The period of greatest risk would be the nesting and rearing period and only if the failure occurred in close proximity to a nest. There is some risk to loss of habitat or individuals if a rupture was to occur. However, the likelihood of a failure is extremely low and to occur in the area of one of these species is of low probability, and in the unlikely event of a failure the site would be remediated and reclaimed to ensure no long term effect on habitat, the potential effect on ground nesting birds species is consider not significant, as any effects would be short term, very localized, and reversible. The pipeline route passes close to Ord’s kangaroo rat and blacktailed prairie dog key habitat features. If a rupture was to occur that resulted in a large release of oil, loss of denning habitat and individuals could occur. Although the likelihood of a pipeline failure is very low, to further reduce the risk to these two species, it is recommended that additional field work be done to further refine the extent of Ord’s kangaroo rat denning habitat and blacktailed praire dog colony habitat relative to the proposed pipeline
February 2009 Page 21-10 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events route. Additonal mitigation might be required based on results of the additional field work. However, given that that the likelihood of a failure is extremely low and coupled with a very low probability of an unplanned event happening in close proximity to the key habitat of these species, and any effects are likely short term, very localized, and reversible, the potential effect on these species is considered not to be significant. The greatest effect from a release of oil would be on those species groups that use aquatic environments, including amphibians, waterfowl, shorebirds and semi-aquatic mammals. A release of oil into these environments has the potential to have a greater effect on the habitat of these species than a release on land, which can be remediated quickly. The effects of potential accidental releases of hydrocarbons on each of the species groups could include: increased mortality risk; compromised physiological and immunological condition; reduced growth and development; reduced habitat availability; reduced survival; reduced reproductive success; and decreased food availability.
Amphibians Previous studies of amphibians following oil-spill events have shown these events can have acute, short- term effects on individuals and longer-term chronic effects on individual animals and populations. Increased mortality is the acute effect of a release. Chronic effects include compromised physiological condition, reduced growth and development and habitat loss (Brandt et al. 2002, Hontela 1998, Pollet and Bendell-Young 2000). Physical contact of oil by amphibians causes an immediate increase in mortality (Hedtke and Puglisi 1982, Pollet and Bendell-Young 2000). Hedtke and Puglisi (1982) found that frog larvae were more sensitive to exposure to oil than were salamanders. Also, amphibians were generally the most sensitive of all species groups to oil exposure. Hedtke and Puglisi (1982) found the oil toxicity depended on the method of introduction; emulsified oils were found to be more toxic than floating oils; therefore, higher mortality rates are expected from releases into lotic systems. Exposure to oil can be disruptive to the physiology of amphibians. For example, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contained in oil can be disruptive to kidney function. Growth of tadpoles in oil- affected wetlands, as indicated by change in mass, has been found to be either insignificant or significantly decreased and required longer times for development (Pollet and Bendell-Young 2000). Immediately following an accidental release, habitat available to amphibians will decrease because of the indirect loss resulting from deterioration of habitat quality. However, this is likely to be temporary, as studies have showed that PAH concentrations two years after a major oil spill had returned to background levels over much of the area where initial post-oiling concentrations were in one order of magnitude of the background concentrations, while more heavily oiled areas were delayed in terms of their recovery as potential habitat (Brandt et al. 2002).
Waterfowl and Shore Birds Physical contact of oil with waterfowl and shore birds causes a direct and immediate increase in mortality rate (Jenssen 1994; Mazet et al. 2002; Pribilof Islands Wildlife Protection Group 2001; Stephenson 1997). Most mortality occurs either because of the toxic effects of ingestion of oil or because of hypothermia caused by injury to the plumage (Pribilof Islands Wildlife Protection Subgroup 2001). In regards effects of
Page 21-11 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events oil on feathers, oil causes a mechanical disruption of the feather structure required for thermoregulation, as well as for buoyancy (Mazet et al. 2002). Because the insulating capacity of plumage is greatly reduced as a result of the loss of the air pockets, oiled birds must increase their metabolic energy expenditure to maintain a normal body temperature. When energy stores are depleted, hypothermia and death might result (Stephenson 1997). During sensitive periods, such as molting, such risks are heightened and the effects can be more severe. Behavioural changes by oiled birds, such as excessive preening and increased difficulties in flying, might also lead to increased depletion of energy stores and a higher risk of predation (Stephenson 1997). Ingestion of oil can, in some circumstances, cause death; however, adult birds are more resistant to the toxicity of oil and large amounts of oil are needed to cause direct mortality (Jenssen 1994). Ingestion of oil has been shown to cause a variety of physiological effects. PAHs have been shown to alter host immunological defences (Rocke et al. 1982). Overall, changes in immunological and physiological conditions, coupled with the effects of oil contaminating feather structure, can reduce survival of individuals over time. The potential release of hydrocarbons into the environment would have immediate effects on the reproductive success of waterfowl and shorebirds, as the oiled birds spend excess time preening and, therefore, do not invest as much time and energy into other activities such as breeding and nesting. This is thought to negatively affect lifetime reproductive success (Stephenson et al. 1997). Ingestion of oil also affects reproductive ability (Jenssen 1994). Immediately following an accidental release of hydrocarbons, the amount of habitat available to waterfowl and shorebirds would decrease because of the deterioration of habitat quality. This habitat loss would be temporary and the length of time for which habitat availability is reduced will depend on the time required for restoration. Any losses of habitat, coupled with increased preening requirements, would likely cause a reduction in food availability and foraging time, which might result in weight loss (Mazet et al. 2002).
Semi-Aquatic Mammals Observations from spill events have shown that terrestrial and semi-aquatic mammals experience lethal and sublethal effects from oil exposure. The potential effects of accidental hydrocarbon release on wildlife include acute short-term (i.e., mortality) and long-term chronic effects. After hydrocarbon remediation, aquatic furbearers might be chronically exposed to hydrocarbons that remain in the environment via ingestion. Aquatic furbearers must also experience indirect negative effects of hydrocarbon release because of habitat loss and a decline in food availability. Two pathways are likely responsible for mortality of aquatic furbearers immediately after hydrocarbon release: external coating of the fur with hydrocarbons reduces the thermoregulatory capacity of the pelage, leading to death from hypothermia; and inhalation of fumes, ingestion of oil or dermal absorption (or both), leading to fatal internal damage to lungs, livers and other organs. Experimental studies have revealed that oil reduces the insulative capacity of mammal fur (McEwan et al. 1974; Williams et al. 1988; Hurst and Oritsland 1991), which can lead to hypothermia. Oil-exposed animals might succumb to the effects of hypothermia rapidly (Lipscomb et al. 1996). Animals might attempt to compensate by increasing metabolic rates (Hurst et al. 1991). Inhalation, ingestion and dermal absorption of hydrocarbons might also contribute to aquatic furbearer mortality after the release of oil. While avoidance of heavily affected areas might be possible, oil does effectively reduce the amount of habitat available to certain semi-aquatic mammals. However, altered home range sizes and habitat selection patterns do not persist over the long term. Changes in food availability could result from
February 2009 Page 21-12 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events decreased prey abundance because of oil effects, individuals avoiding oil-effected prey or feeding areas, or changes in the vulnerability of prey or individuals being less able to capture some types of prey. Because terrestrial oil releases near waterbodies have the potential to affect freshwater fish, wildlife species that depend on fish as part of their staple diet or use as a seasonal food resource could experience reduced food supplies. Given the low frequency of failure and the Keystone emergency response plan, the potential effects on wildlife species groups from physical contact with oil should be localized, moderate, short term, reversible and not significant. Assuming successful remediation and reclamation, the potential effects from the release of oil on habitat should be moderate, medium term, reversible and not significant.
21.8 Fish and Fish Habitat
21.8.1 Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material Accidental releases of hazardous materials could enter surface waters by several pathways, depending on the characteristics of the material, the location of the spill, the local topography, hydrogeology and surficial geology. These pathways include: direct release to the streambed or water if the spill occurs underneath an active channel; aboveground flow from a spill in proximity to an active channel; and subsurface migration from a spill in proximity to an active channel. The latter two pathways can result in effects to terrestrial environments and the effects on aquatic environments are generally less severe and somewhat delayed relative to the direct pathway. This discussion focuses on accidental releases occurring under an active channel. Accidental releases entering surface waters have the potential to directly affect fish and other aquatic biota through toxicological effects and physical smothering. Toxic effects of the spill on aquatic biota can be lethal or nonlethal, depending on the characteristics of the hazardous material, the sensitivity of species or life stage affected and degree and duration of exposure. Adult fish are generally less sensitive to hydrocarbons and, depending on the size of the waterbody and presence of barriers, are usually able to escape contaminated areas. Fish eggs and larvae are more sensitive and less mobile (USFWS 2006) and are, therefore, most vulnerable to oil. Habitat can be affected directly, or indirectly through clean-up efforts (e.g., destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation or stream bed material) or impaired productive capacity because of sublethal toxic stress on lower trophic biota and disrupted nutrient cycling. Damage to riparian vegetation can also result in habitat loss, especially in smaller watercourses where bank cover and shading are relatively more important habitat features than in larger rivers. Significant or prolonged loss of riparian vegetation can also lead to bank instability and increased erosion from surface runoff. The effects are dependent on the characteristics and volume of material released, and further influenced by seasonal timing of the release, which can affect: sensitivity of aquatic biota in the receiving water; dispersion of the product (high flow versus low flow); water and air temperature, which affect evaporation of volatile constituents, solubility of constituents and rates of weathering and biodegradation; or presence of ice, which can trap materials, reduce dispersion and evaporation and hamper clean-up efforts.
Page 21-13 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
21.8.2 Drilling Mud Release The risk of a release can be reduced through diligent geotechnical assessment practices, as well as crossing planning and execution. The Company has completed a geotechnical investigation as part of the HDD water crossing design to ensure the drill hole depth below the thalweg is sufficient to limit the risk of inadvertent mud releases given the subsurface materials and drilling mud pressure. An inadvertent mud release contingency plan will be developed before installing any HDD. The contingency plan will outline the protocol to monitor during construction, to stop work in the event of a release and to contain and clean up drilling fluids. The EPP (see Appendix A, Attachment A6) outlines the mitigation measures required in the drill mud release contingency plan. An inadvertent mud release should not result in any significant effects on fisheries, given the development of contingency plans (see Appendix A, Attachment A8) and emergency response plans, as well as the benign nature of drilling mud. Any effects would be further influenced by seasonal timing of the release, which can influence: sensitivity of aquatic biota in the receiving water; dispersion of the product (high flow versus low flow); water and air temperature, which affect solubility of constituents; and presence of ice, which can trap materials, reduce dispersion and hamper clean-up efforts. Given the seasonal flow and turbidity of most watercourses, the potential effects from a release of drilling mud on fish and fish habitat, and hydrology, should be localized to regional, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.8.3 Operational Pipeline Failure Accidental oil releases can enter surface waters by several pathways, depending on the location of the leak and local topography, hydrogeology and surficial geology. These pathways include: direct release to the streambed or water if the leak occurs under an active channel; aboveground flow from a leak in proximity to an active channel; and subsurface migration from a leak in proximity to an active channel. The latter two pathways can result in effects to terrestrial environments and the effects on aquatic environments are generally less severe and somewhat delayed relative to the direct pathway. This discussion focuses on accidental releases occurring under an active channel. Accidental releases entering surface waters have the potential to directly affect fish and other aquatic biota through toxicological effects and physical smothering. Toxic effects of oil on aquatic biota can be lethal or nonlethal, depending on the sensitivity of species or life stage affected, and degree and duration of exposure. Adult fish are less sensitive to petroleum products and, depending on the size of the waterbody and presence of barriers, are usually able to escape contaminated areas. Fish eggs and larvae are more sensitive and less mobile (USFWS 2006) and are, therefore, most vulnerable to oil. Habitat can be affected directly or through clean-up efforts (e.g., destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation or bed material), or impaired productive capacity from sublethal toxic stress on lower trophic biota and disrupted nutrient cycling. Damage to riparian vegetation can also result in habitat loss, especially in smaller watercourses where bank cover and shading are relatively more important habitat features than in larger rivers. Significant or prolonged loss of riparian vegetation can also lead to bank instability and increased erosion from surface runoff. The effects are dependent on the volume of oil released, and further influenced by seasonal timing of the release, which can influence: sensitivity of aquatic biota in the receiving water; dispersion of oil products;
February 2009 Page 21-14 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
water and air temperature, which affect evaporation of volatile oil constituents, solubility of oil constituents and rates oil weathering and biodegradation; and presence of ice , which can trap oil, reduce dispersion and evaporation and hamper clean-up efforts. This qualitative assessment is based on the basic principals of probable effect severity (see Table 21-1). This assessment considers accidental release scenarios for Sounding Creek and the South Saskatchewan River, which represent a small, low gradient watercourse and a moderate to high-gradient river.
Table 21-1 Physical and Biological Variables and Probable Effect Severity
Lower Effect Severity Higher Effect Severity Low release volume High release volume Short duration release Long duration or chronic release High oil viscosity Low oil viscosity High stream gradient Low stream gradient High stream flow Low stream flow High water temperature 1 Low water temperature 1 No ice cover Ice cover Rocky substrate Muddy substrate No riparian vegetation Riparian vegetation present Less sensitive species (e.g., minnows) More sensitive species (e.g., salmonids) Less sensitive life stages (e.g., adult fish) More sensitive life stages (e.g., fish eggs and larvae) No critical habitat present Critical habitat (e.g., spawning, overwintering) No species of concern present Species of concern present (e.g., lake sturgeon) High dissolved oxygen 1 Low dissolved oxygen 1 High nutrients 1 Low nutrients 1
1SOURCE: Leahy and Colwell 1990
Sounding Creek Sounding Creek is a small perennial watercourse, characterized by low discharge and flow velocities, stable banks with well established riparian vegetation, muddy substrate and important fish habitat potential. An accidental release under this watercourse would result in localized but relatively high severity effect, primarily because of the low oil dispersion potential. Smothering of benthic substrates and organisms and coating of aquatic and riparian vegetation could occur, and the severity and duration of effects would be largely determined by the success of clean-up efforts. A release occurring under ice- cover conditions would further limit dispersion and evaporation potential and would hamper cleanup effort. A release occurring under relatively high flow conditions (i.e., spring freshet) would increase downstream dispersion, thereby reducing the severity of the effect, but would spread it over a wider area. Recovery after cleanup would likely be aided by biodegradation, once the organisms become established. Riparian and aquatic vegetation, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic birds and animals would likely be most affected. Fish habitat value is high for Sounding Creek and limited to relatively tolerant (flathead) minnow species. No large bodied fish species or species of concern are present in Sounding Creek.
Page 21-15 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
South Saskatchewan River The South Saskatchewan River is a large watercourse with moderate to high gradient reaches, relatively high discharge and flow velocity and a preponderance of cobble substrate. Instream and riparian vegetation are minimal, but the fish habitat rating is critical. Operational failure at the crossing location might release oil to the substrate and water. Mitigation for potential effects includes placement of block valves in the vicinity of the crossing, additional depth of cover of the pipeline and the use of thicker wall pipe. Valve spacing at the location is driven by the pipeline being directionally drilled, the topography of the area and the restricted access because of wildlife and vegetation concerns. Concerns regarding third- party line strikes are remote, as the pipe will be installed using an HDD technique and will be located well below depths where third-party line strikes are commonly an inssue. In addition, thicker pipe is used when installing an HDD to manage constructability issues; this enhances the strength of the pipe and thus substantially decreases the potential for a pipeline failure in these areas. Mitigation of the volume and effect of release needs to be addressed in the emergency response plan. Although localized severe effects would likely occur, primarily because of habitat smothering, rapid and extensive dispersion of released oil would lessen the effects in the moderate to long term. The severity of the effect would be less if a spill occurred in the mid-summer, high-flow period (because of rapid dispersion and evaporation of volatile components) and greatest if it occurred under ice-cover conditions. Fish sensitivity would also be greatest under winter conditions because of the presence of several fall and winter spawning species (i.e., trout, whitefish and burbot). Recovery after cleanup would likely be aided by biodegradation, once the organisms become established. Of concern in the South Saskatchewan River is the location of the crossing, which is upstream of over- wintering habitat for two COSEWIC-listed species (lake sturgeon and river shiner) and two species that might be of concern in Alberta (sauger and spoonhead sculpin). In addition to its current endangered status in western Canada, lake sturgeon is a bottom-feeding species that would likely be affected by reduced benthic invertebrate productivity and increased bioaccumulation of oil-related contaminants. The effect on fish resources from a release of oil is dependent on the location of the release, response time and the effectiveness of spill response plans. Given the mitigation measures outlined in the emergency response plan, the strategic placement of valves and the extremely low frequency of a rupture or leak, it is expected the effects on fish and fish habitat and hydrology would be short to medium term, moderate, reversible and not significant.
21.9 Archaeology and Palaeontology
21.9.1 Accidental Spill of Hazardous Material An accidental spill could affect archaeological resources. Archaeological sites could be affected, decreasing the heritage value of the site and potentially permanently affecting components of the site because of chemical degradation. Cleanup of contaminated material would further disrupt the site through direct disturbance. For palaeontology, there are five main areas along the pipeline route where an accidental release could potentially affect paleontological resources: South Saskatchewan River Valley; Red Deer River Valley; Sounding Creek Area; Gunn Creek Area; and Frenchman River Valley.
February 2009 Page 21-16 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
These areas have fossiliferous bedrock exposures at the surface along the valley slopes, along with erosional areas often at the edge of the water. Quaternary fossils are also found in terraces along watercourses. A release along the valley slope or into the watercourse would introduce the hazardous material into fossiliferous bedrock and contaminate any sites that are present. This would decrease the heritage value for the site and fossils and chemical degradation might permanently affect the site. Given the low frequency, localized nature, and implementation of the spill contingency plan, any potential effects on archeological or palaeontological resources would be localized, reversible (documentation, and collection) and are not considered significant.
21.9.2 Drilling Mud Release An inadvertent mud release on archaeological and paleontological resources is not expected to result in any significant effects, given the environment of the resource and the benign nature of drilling mud. The effect from a release of drilling mud is expected to be localized, short term, reversible and not significant.
21.9.3 Operational Pipeline Failure An accidental release could affect archaeological and palaeontological resources. Spill cleanup and stripping of contaminated material would further disrupt an archaeological and paleontological site through direct disturbance. For palaeontology, there are five main areas along the pipeline route where an accidental release could potentially affect paleontological resources: South Saskatchewan River Valley; Red Deer River Valley; Sounding Creek Area; Gunn Creek Area; and Frenchman River Valley. These areas have fossiliferous bedrock exposures at the surface along the valleys slopes, along with erosional areas often at the edge of the water. Quaternary fossils are also found in terraces along watercourses. A release along the valley slope or into the watercourse would introduce oil into fossiliferous bedrock and contaminate any sites that are present. This would decrease the heritage value for the site and fossils and chemical degradation might permanently effect the site. The potential for a failure to occur is extremely low, coupled with the low probability to occur in the vicinity of an archaeological or palaeontological site and the effective implementation of an emergency response plan would ensure releases are detected and remediated to limit any potential effect to archaeological or palaeontological resources. The potential residual effect is predicted to be not significant. There may be loss of historical or palaeontological context and archaeological and palaeontological features potentially affected would be collected, cleaned , and documented and would augment current records for the area.
21.10 Summary and Conclusions Accidents and malfunctions have the potential to affect biophysical resources along the project route, including air quality, soils, hydrogeology, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish, fish habitat and hydrology. A release of liquid wastes such as lubricating oil, methanol and antifreeze used during construction could prove toxic to vegetation and wildlife. Hazardous liquids on the construction site require proper handling and storage to limit the potential for a release. HDD crossings of the Red Deer River and South Saskatchewan River use drilling mud, which could be harmful to fish and fish habitat if
Page 21-17 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events an inadvertent release results in increased sedimentation. Proper planning will ensure the risk is limited and equipment and response plans will be in place before the start of the HDD crossings. During operations, a pipeline failure could potentially release oil into the environment. Oil spilled onto the land surface would result in some small amounts of fugitive air emissions. Any vapour plume that results from an oil spill would likely dissipate in hours and would not pose a direct threat to human or wildlife health. The spillage of oil onto land has consequences for soil quality, native range, rare ecological communities or plants or riparian areas. A pipeline failure could also affect aquifers present along the route, however the valve spacing will take into consideration location and sensitivity to aquifers, and the emergency response plan and training should limit any potential effects. Accidental releases entering surface waters have the potential to directly affect fish and other aquatic biota through toxicological effects and physical smothering. An accidental release could affect archaeological resources primarily along watercourse crossings. The Company’s prevention and detection systems and effective implementation of the emergency response plan will ensure any potential effects are avoided or limited. Taking this into consideration, any potential project effects from accidents or malfunctions should not be significant.
21.11 References
21.11.1 Literature Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Information Database. Soil Layer File. 2001. Alberta Environment. 1994. Alberta Tier 1 criteria for contaminated soil assessment and remediation. Edmonton. Publication No. T/475 Alberta Environment. 1996. Guideline for monitoring and management of soil contamination under EPEA approvals. Edmonton. Alberta Environment. 2001a. Alberta Soil and Water Quality Guidelines for hydrocarbons at upstream oil and gas facilities. Volume 1. Pub. No. T/620 Alberta Environment. 2001b. Alberta Soil and Water Quality Guidelines for hydrocarbons at upstream oil and gas facilities. Volume 1. Pub. No. T/620 Alberta Environment. 2001c. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody. Ballachey, B.E. and K.A. Kloecher. 1997. Hydrocarbon residues in tissues of sea otters (Enhydra lutris) collected following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment Final Report (Marine Mammal Study 6-16). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Beckett, K.J., R.J. Aulerich, L.K. Duffy, J.S. Patterson and S.J. Bursian. 2002. Effects of dietary exposure to environmentally relavant concentrations of weathered Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil in ranch-raised mink (Mustela vison). Bulletin of Environmental and Contamination Toxicology 69: 593–600. Ben-David, M., G.M. Blundell, and J.E. Blake. 2002. Post-release survival of river otters: Effects of exposure to crude oil and captivity. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1208–1223. Ben-David, M., T.M. Williams and O.A. Ormseth. 2000. Effect of oiling on exercise physiology and diving behaviour in river otters: a captive study. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 1280–1390.
February 2009 Page 21-18 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
Bickham, J.W., J.A. Mazet, J. Blake, M.J. Smolen, Y. lou and B. E. Ballachey. 1998. Flow cytometric determination of genotoxic effects of exposure to petroleum in mink and sea otter. Ecotoxicology 7: 191–199. Biolinx Environmental Research, and E. Wind Consulting. 2004. Best Management Practices for Amphibians and Reptiles in Urban and Rural Environments in British Columbia. Prepared for the BC Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Ecosystem Standards and Planning, Biodiversity Branch, Nanaimo, BC. Bodkin, J.L., B.E. Ballachey, T.A. Dean, A.K. Fukuyama, S.C. Jewett, L. McDonald, D.H. Monson, C.E. O’Clair and G.R. VanBlaricom. 2002. Sea otter population status and the process of recovery from the 1989 ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill. Marine Ecology Progress Series 241: 237–253. Bowyer, R. T., J.W. Testa and J. B. Faro. 1995. Habitat selection and home ranges of river otters in a marine environment: effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journal of Mammalogy 76: 1–11. Bowyer, R.T., Blundell, G.M., Ben-David, M., S.C. Jewett, T.A. Dean and L.K. Duffy. 2003. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on river otters: Injury and recovery of a sentinel species. Wildlife Monographs 153: 1–53. Brandt, C.A., J.M. Becker, and A. Porta. 2001. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils and terrestrial biota after a spill of crude oil in Trecate, Italy. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1638–1643. Burk, C.J. 1977. A four year analysis of vegetation following an oil spill in a freshwater marsh. Journal of Applied Ecology 14: 515–522. Cairns, D.K., and R.D. Elliot. 1987. Oil Spill Impact Assessment for Seabirds: The Role of Refugia and Growth Centres. Biological Conservation 40: 1–9. Coon, N.C., and M.P. Dieter. 1981. Responses of Adult Mallard Ducks to Ingested South Louisiana Crude Oil. Environmental Research 24: 309–314. Dingman, L. 2002. Physical Hydrology. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall. New Jersey. Djomo, J.E., V. Ferrier, L. Gauthier, C. Zoll-Moreux, and J. Morty. 1995. Amphibian micronucleus test in vivo: evaluation of the genotoxicity of some major polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in a crude oil. Mutagenesis 10: 223–226. Duffy, L. K., R.T. Bowyer, J. W. Testa and J. B. Faro. 1993. Differences in blood haptoglobin and length- mass relationships in river otters (Lutra canadensis) from oiled and nonoiled areas of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Duffy, L. K., R.T. Bowyer, J. W. Testa and J. B. Faro. 1994. Evidence for recovery of body mass and haptoglobin values of river otters following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 30: 421–425. Duffy, L.K., M.K. Hecker, G.M. Blundell and R.T. Bowyer. 1999. An analysis of the fur of river otters in Prince William Sound, Alaska: oil related hydrocarbons 8 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Esler, D., T.D. Bowman, K.A. Trust, B.E. Ballachey, T.A. Dean, S.C. Jewett, and C.E. O’Clair. 2002. Harlequin duck population recovery following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: progress, process and constraints. Marine Ecology Progress Series 241: 271–286. Faro, J. B., R.T. Bowyer, J.W. Testa, L.K. Duffy. 1994. Assessment of injury to river otters in Prince William Sound, Alaska following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment Final Report (Terrestrial Mammal Study Number 3), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Conservation Division, Soldotna, Alaska.
Page 21-19 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
Gilsdorf, J.M., S.E. Hygnstrom, and K.C. VerCauteren. 2002. Use of frightening devices in wildlife damage management. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7: 29–45. Heatherly, W.G. 1993. Demographic characteristics of riverine muskrats after an oil spill. Unpublished M.S. Thesis University of Missouri. Hedtke, S.F., and F.A. Puglisi. 1982. Short-term Toxicity of Five Oils to Four Freshwater Species. Archives of Environmental contamination and Toxicology 11: 425–430. Hillel, D. 1982. Introduction to soil physics. Academic Press. Hontela, A. Interrenal dysfunction in fish from contaminated sites: in vivo and in vitro assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17: 44–48. Hurst, R.J., P.D. Watts and N.A. Oritsland. 1991. Metabolic compensation in oil-exposed polar bears. Journal of Thermal Biology 16: 53–56. Jeglic, Dr. Franci. 2004. Analysis of ruptures and trends on major Canadian pipeline systems. National Energy Board. Jenssen, B.M. 1994. Review article: effects of oil pollution, chemically treated oil, and cleaning on the thermal balance of birds. Environmental Pollution 86: 207–215. Jessup, D.A. 1998. Rehabilitation of Oiled Wildlife. Conservation Biology 12: 1153–1155. Leahy, J. G., and Colwell, R. R. 1990. Microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the environment. Microbiol. Rev. 54: 305–315. Lipscomb, T.P., R.K. Harris, A.H. Rebar, B.E. Ballachey and R.J. Haebler. 1996. Pathological studies of sea otters, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment Final Report (Marine Mammal Study 6-11), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. MacCarone, J.D., and J.N. Brzorad. 1998. The Use of Foraging Habitats by Wading Birds Seven Years after the Occurrence of Major Oil Spills. Colonial Waterbirds 21: 367–374. Mazet, J.A., I.A. Gardner, D.A. Jessup and L.J. Lowenstine. 2001. Effects of petroleum on mink applied as a model for reproductive success in sea otters. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37: 686–692. Mazet, J.A.K., S.H. Newman, K.V.K. Gilardi, F.S. Tseng, J.B. Holcomb, D.A. Jessup, and M.H. Ziccardi. 2002. Advances in Oiled Bird Emergency Medicine and Management. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 16: 146–149. McEwan, E.H. N. Aitchison, and P.E. Whitehead. 1974. Energy metabolism of oiled muskrats. Canadian Journal of Zoology 52: 1057–1062. Mengak, M.T., and D.C. Guynn, Jr. 1987. Pitfalls and Snap Traps for Sampling Small Mammals and Herpetofauna. American Midland Naturalist 118: 284–288. Michel, J, J, Hoff, K. Smith, M. Keiler, A. Rizzo and R. Ayella. 2002. Injury to wetlands resulting from the Chalk Point oil spill. Prepared for the Chalk Point Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council. Monson, D, D.F. Doak, B.E. Ballachey, A. Johnson, and J. L. Bodkin. 2000. Long-term impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on sea otters, assessed through age-dependent mortality patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97: 6562–6567. National Energy Board (NEB). 1996. Express Pipeline Project: Report of the Joint Review Panel. Ottawa, ON: Queen’s Printer for Canada.
February 2009 Page 21-20 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
Ormseth, O.A. and M. Ben-David. 2000. Ingestion of crude oil: effects on digesta retention times and nutrient uptake in captive river otters. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 170: 419–428. Pollet, I., and L. Bendell-Young. 2000. Amphibians as indicators of wetland quality in wetlands formed from oil sands effluent. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19: 2589–2597. Rocke, T.E., T.M. Yuill, and R.D. Hinsdill. 1984. Oil and Related Toxicant Effects on Mallard Immune Defenses. Environmental Research 33: 343–352. Ronconi, R.A., C.C. St. Clair, P.D. O’Hara, and A.E. Burger. 2004. Waterbird deterrence at oil spills and other hazardous sites: potential applications of a radar-activated on-demand deterrence system. Marine Ornithology 32: 25–33. Schwartz, J.A., B.M. Aldridge, B.L. Lasley, P.W. Snyder, J.L. Stott and F.C. Mohr. 2004a. Chronic fuel oil toxicity in American mink (Mustela vison): systematic and hematological effects of ingestions of a low-concentration on bunker C fuel oil. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 200: 146–158. Schwartz, J.A., B.M. Aldridge, J.L. Stott and F.C. Mohr. 2004b. Immunophenotypic and functional effects of bunker C fuel oil on the immune system of American mink (Mustela vison). Veterinary immunology and Immunopathology 101: 179–190. Stephenson, R. 1997. Effects of oil and other surface-active organic pollutants on aquatic birds. Environmental Conservation 24: 121–129. Weiner, A., C. Berg, T. Gerlach, J. Grunblatt, K. Holbrook, and M. Kuwada. 1997. the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Habitat Protection as a Restoration Strategy. Restoration Ecology 5: 44–55. Wiens, J.A., T.O. Crist, R.H. Day, S.M. Murphy, and G.D. Hayward. 1996. Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Marine Bird Communities n Prince William Sound, Alaska. Ecological Applications 6: 828–841. Williams, T.M., R.A. Kastelein, R.W. Davis and J.A. Thomas. 1988. The effects of oil contamination and cleaning on sea otters (Enhydra lutris). Thermoregulatory implications based on pelt studies. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66: 2776–2781.
21.11.2 Internet Sites Alberta Environment. 2005. Code of practice for land treatment of soil containing hydrocarbons. Available at: http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/codes/Hydrocarbons.cfm. Accessed: September 27, 2006. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 2006. Wildlife Interaction and Deterrence Plan. GC-2 Oil Transit Line. Greater Prudhoe Bay, Western Operating Area. Available at: www.dec.state.ak.us/SPAR/PERP/ response/sum_fy06/060302301/plans/060302301_plan_wildlife0315.pdf. Accessed: June 22, 2006. California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Wildlife Response Plan for California. Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Available at: www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/misc/WILDLIFE_RESPONSE_PLAN_6-30-2005.pdf. Appendices available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/misc/WLP/appendicies/6-30-05/final.pdf. Accessed: June 22, 2006. Canadian Wildlife Services. 1999. Oil Spill Response Plan. Environment Canada Atlantic Region. Available at: http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/reports/pdf/oil_spill_response.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2006. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Understanding Oil Spills and Oil Spill Response: Understanding Oil Spills in Freshwater Environments. Chapter 5: Wildlife and Oil Spills. Available at: www.epa.gov/oilspill/pdfs/chap5.pdf. Accessed: June 20, 2006.
Page 21-21 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 21: Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
Pribilof Islands Wildlife Protection Subgroup. 2001. Wildlife Protection Guidelines: Pribilof Islands. Annex D – Attachment 4. Aleutian Islands Subarea Contingency Plan for Oil and Hazardous Substance Spills and Releases. Available at: http://www.akrrt.org/AIPlan/ WPG_Pribs_Aug2005.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2006. Sellers, R.A., and S.D. Miller. 1999. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. State/Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment Final Report. Population Dynamics of Brown Bears After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Division of Wildlife Conservation. Available at: http://www.gem.state.ak.us/Store/Final_Reports/1244.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2006 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Oil Program – Sensitivity of freshwater habitats. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/freshwat.htm. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Fishery Response Plan. Accessed at: http://www.fws. gov/contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/fwscontingencyappendices/L-WildlifePlans/FISHPLAN.doc.
February 2009 Page 21-22 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 22: Effects of the Environment on the Project
22 Effects of the Environment on the Project
As defined by Section 2(1) of the CEAA, assessment of environmental effects requires consideration of any changes to the Project as a result of the environment. Effects caused by the environment are typically considered during engineering design and are used to identify required mitigation measures. Potential effects of the environment were identified for construction and operation of the Project. Several climactic factors could affect the Project, ranging from delays in construction to damage to operational facilities. Effects include: environmental issues considered during project planning; severe weather, such as heavy precipitation, blizzards and thunderstorms; and flooding. The following subsections discuss the potential for these effects and the nature of such effects and, where warranted, mitigation measures are provided.
22.1 Effects during Project Planning The project team has benefited from TransCanada’s wealth of experience in constructing and operating its extensive network of pipelines and has applied this experience to the planning of the Project. Environmental constraints were considered during route selection through the application of criteria (see Section 4). Additional route adjustments were made based on biophysical field surveys (e.g., where surveys identified SARA-listed plant locations). The route selection process also allowed for input gathered during regulatory and public consultation (see Section 3).
22.2 Severe Weather Severe weather is an important consideration in pipeline design, construction and operation. Severe weather over the Prairies generally comprises heavy precipitation, blizzards, thunderstorms (lightning) and flooding. The Company believes that it is critical to maintain effective communication between the contractor, regulatory representatives and the landowner(s) or land occupant(s). Where severe weather conditions and activities have the potential to cause, or are causing, wind erosion, water erosion, harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish and fish habitat during construction, or negatively affecting equivalent land capability, the Company’s environmental inspection staff will take action to prevent or reduce any potential adverse effects. Such action might include suspension, modification or addition of specific activities until weather conditions abate or effective mitigation procedures have been implemented. During operations, the pipeline system and facilities are monitored to ensure integrity is maintained. Emergency response plans are activated when system failures are reported by the SCADA system or discovered during field inspections.
22.2.1 Heavy Precipitation Environment Canada published information on Canadian Climate Normals. The years 1971 through 2000 show that, in the central Prairies, the month of June generally has the most precipitation and the month of February generally has the least. The monthly precipitation data for Oyen, Alberta are 70.3 mm and 7.4 mm. The data for Maple Creek, Saskatchewan are 63.2 mm and 14.8 mm.
Page 22-1 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 22: Effects of the Environment on the Project
When Pacific air streams interact with Arctic air masses over the region, heavy snowfalls can result. Extreme daily snowfalls have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project, including 24.2 cm recorded at Oyen, Alberta on March 28, 1993 and 40.6 cm recorded at Maple Creek, Saskatchewan on April 1, 1957. Extreme or persistent precipitation could result in the delay of construction if wet soil conditions and trench slumping result. During operation, heavy precipitation could potentially create ground conditions vulnerable to rutting and compaction. Heavy precipitation or runoff from rain or snow melt can cause erosion in the period following construction and before reclamation, particularly on disturbed soils. Construction scheduling will consider the timing of historical extreme precipitation events. Measures to reduce the potential effects of precipitation and runoff include installing adequate drainage on the RoW and using erosion protection measures (see Appendix A). Any effects caused by heavy precipitation can be mitigated and no residual effects will remain.
22.2.2 Blizzards Blizzards are a large part of the Prairie climate and are characterized by intense cold, strong winds, snow and reduced visibility. The occurrence of blizzards varies greatly over the Prairies. The southerly portions of the Prairies can get up to about two blizzard episodes per year (Nav Canada 2001). These storms are most likely to occur during the month of February (Environment Canada 1990). Construction could be halted in the unlikely event of a blizzard, if wind or water erosion or safety issues become a concern. During operation, blizzards could affect the response time for emergency vehicles to reach accidental releases and could slow or delay maintenance activities. However, emergency response planning activities typically take such weather events into account. Construction and operation scheduling, as well as the Company’s integrity management program, will mitigate the risk of blizzards affecting the Project, and no residual effects are anticipated.
22.2.3 Thunderstorms and Lightning Thunderstorms might cover areas ranging from 8 km in diameter to, in the extreme case, as much as 80 km (Nav Canada 2001). Thunderstorms and lightning are generally observed from May to September, with the maximum activity occurring in July (Nav Canada 2001). Lightning activity is relatively frequent on the Prairies (Environment Canada 2003). There are about 85 lightning flashes per 100 km2 per year on average for Edmonton, Alberta, while there are about 113 lightning flashes per 100 km2 per year on average for Regina, Saskatchewan. Lightning could affect construction by creating unsafe work conditions, damaging facilities or causing fires. Mitigation measures might include halting activities during severe lightning storms to ensure the safety of workers. During operations, the Company’s OCC and SCADA will continuously monitor the pipeline to ensure effective emergency response. The Company will also implement the IPA. This will inform Stakeholders of the location of facilities and activities, and will provide the public the contact information to report any damage to facilities. The potential for lightning strikes to damage facilities will be reviewed during the detailed design phase and a determination made as to whether further mitigation measures (e.g., lightning arrestors on tanks) might be required.
22.3 Flooding Rain is an expected event during construction and the schedule allows for temporary delays. The potential effects of flooding on the Project would vary depending on timing. Should flooding occur during construction, it could cause erosion, trench wall slumping and unstable ground conditions. The Company and contractors will implement measures outlined in the environmental protection plan (see Appendix A) and construction practices to manage this threat.
February 2009 Page 22-2 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 22: Effects of the Environment on the Project
Increased flows as a result of flooding during isolated watercourse crossings could exceed the capability of isolation techniques used (e.g., dam and pump or flume), causing a crossing failure. This could affect water quality through sedimentation. The risk of a flood occurring during in-stream construction is considered low, and weather forecasts are monitored by the contractor and the Company before and during watercourse crossings to ensure the crossing method can be implemented as planned. If there is a risk of flooding because of severe weather at the time of the crossing, the environmental inspector, in conjunction with the contractor and Company management, will determine if the crossing should be delayed or modified, to ensure the crossing can be completed as planned. Reclamation will stabilize soils on the RoW, and all proposed pump station sites are located above the high watermark of watercourses. Flooding is not expected to affect the Project during operation. However, the Company will implement its IPA program to provide the public with contact information to report any damage along the RoW or at facilities after a flood event. Given mitigation measures, it is not anticipated there will be any residual effects from flooding.
22.4 Summary and Conclusions The effects of the environment on the Project are considered during the engineering design phase and during the environmental assessment. Environmental constraints are considered during route selection through the application of criteria. Other effects of the environment on the construction and operation of the Project that could be caused by severe weather include heavy precipitation, blizzards, thunderstorms (lightening) and flooding. Where severe weather conditions and activities have the potential to cause or are causing wind erosion, water erosion, HADD of fish and fish habitat during the life of the Project, or are negatively affecting land capability, the Company’s environmental inspection staff will take action to prevent or mitigate any potential adverse effects. Such action might include suspension or modification of specific activities until weather conditions abate or effective mitigation procedures have been implemented. During operations, SCADA reports and field inspections by maintenance staff will cause the Company to respond to abnormal systems operations and failures that might result from conditions including severe weather. Adaptive management and the Company’s prevention, detection and mitigation programs will ensure any potential effects to the Project from the environment are not significant.
22.5 References
22.5.1 Literature Alberta Environment. 2001. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody. Environment Canada. 1990. The Climates of Canada. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
22.5.2 Internet Sites Environment Canada. 2003. Lightning Activity in Major Cities in Canada. Meteorological Service of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Online. Available at: http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/education/lightning/ cities_e.html. Nav Canada. 2001. The Weather of the Canadian Prairies. Online. Available at: http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/publications/lak/CanadianPrairies/P32E-V.PDF. Environment Canada, Historical Weather. Available at: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html.
Page 22-3 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 22: Effects of the Environment on the Project
February 2009 Page 22-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 23: Post Construction Follow Up and Monitoring
23 Post Construction Follow Up and Monitoring
23.1 Introduction The CEAA states: 14. The environmental assessment process includes, where applicable, (c) the design and implementation of a follow- up program. The Act provides a definition for follow-up program: 2.(1) in this Act, ‘follow-up program’ means a program for a) verifying the accuracy of the environmental assessment of a project; and b) determining the effectiveness of any measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the project. This section outlines recommended follow-up and monitoring programs for the Project. These include monitoring the success of general reclamation, as well as specific requirements for biophysical components, as identified in the ESA.
23.2 Post Construction Follow Up and Monitoring
23.2.1 Post Construction Monitoring The Project will follow the Company’s post-construction monitoring program, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation performance criteria as might be required by the NEBA Certificate, Monitoring of the reclamation of the RoW will be carried out for a minimum of five years following construction. After each year, reclamation results will be assessed to determine if continued monitoring is warranted. The Company’s post-construction monitoring program is initiated after the first growing season following construction on all NEB-regulated pipeline construction projects. The monitoring program will measure the progress of the Project’s success in: implementing the mitigation measures as committed to by the Project; reestablishing equivalent land capability; and mitigating predicted effects, including cumulative effects. Assessments are done during the most appropriate time of the season, which depends on the various biophysical resources and their growth stage or lifecycle. Generally, these are conducted early in the season and involve identifying deficiencies and proposing recommendations for corrective actions for that same year. The Project will use the Alberta Pipeline Reclamation Criteria (2001) to help evaluate the success of restoring an equivalent land capability (soil, landscape and vegetation components). Investigations will also assess the avoidance of Project effects and the success of mitigations measures on vegetation, riparian areas, fish habitat and soils. Where reclamation deficiencies are discovered, remedial actions will be implemented as soon as practical during the most suitable season. The timing of remedial actions will consider environmental timing restrictions (reproductive periods and migration periods), field and weather conditions and public concerns. A follow-up assessment would then be scheduled in the same year following implementation of the remedial measures or as deemed necessary to ensure the remedial actions are stable and successful.
Page 23-1 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 23: Post Construction Follow Up and Monitoring
The Company will develop an environmental commitment tracking list (ECTL) for the Project that will log the implementation of commitments related to weed control, vegetation establishment, RoW condition, including drainage, slope stability at water crossings, and reclamation success. This ECTL will be used to measure success of mitigation measures used during construction and to ensure outstanding issues are investigated, resolved and reported during operations. If, during construction, proposed mitigation measures require modification because of site conditions or an alternate method was required to complete construction, this information will also be entered in the ECTL and monitored as part of the post- construction monitoring program.
23.2.2 Post Construction Reporting A post-construction follow-up and monitoring report will be filed with the NEB, for a period of five years, in January of each year after operations commences, and will include: a reclamation monitoring report; a summary of effectiveness of Project effects mitigation measures; resource-specific follow-up reports; and any additional measures proposed to address unresolved concerns.
23.2.3 Post Construction Follow-Up and Monitoring for VECs
23.2.3.1 Soils There is no specific follow up and monitoring required for soils. Topsoil replacement will be monitored during final clean as part of the normal pipeline inspection activities.
23.2.3.2 Vegetation The Project should follow the Company’s post-construction monitoring program, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation performance criteria as might be required by the NEBA Certificate. Monitoring the reclamation of the RoW should be carried out for at least five years following construction. The monitoring program should include evaluation of the construction and mitigative measures for resources such as soils, landscape, vegetation, and wildlife. Reclamation success should also be evaluated to ensure the suitability of the measures applied and also provide opportunities for an adaptive management process for any site specific issues such as invasive non-native species, erosion, or unsuccessful re-vegetation. A long-term monitoring and research program for SARA-listed plants and monitoring of rough fescue grasslands is in place on the existing Keystone Pipeline project. Project routing should ensure that the integrity of the research plots and design for these programs is not affected by development of the Project. Monitoring and research results from these programs should be applied to the Project as the information becomes available.
23.2.3.3 Fish and Fish Habitat No additional post construction follow-up or monitoring programs are recommended.
23.2.3.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat No specific wildlife follow-up program has been recommended. However, where the Project is constructed within the recommended regulatory setback for SARA listed species, additional post-constructon wildlife surveys have been recommended in the year following completion of construction. Specific post
February 2009 Page 23-2 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 23: Post Construction Follow Up and Monitoring construction wildlife surveys are recommendations are documented in Tables 11-12 through 11-14 in section 11 of the ESA.
23.2.3.5 Atmospheric Environment The Company is a member of the Hardisty Complex Community Group and should support initiatives to manage air quality in the Hardisty area. The Company should participate in monitoring programs that are developed and supported by the Hardisty Complex Community Group and should support the long term ambient air quality monitoring program for the Hardisty area.
23.2.3.6 Acoustic Environment Requirements for noise monitoring according to the ERCB (2007) Directive 38 are complaint driven. No additional follow-up or monitoring is recommended unless complaints are received. Any additional monitoring that might be necessary will be addressed at that time. The Company plans to manage noise concerns and to promptly respond to any noise complaint. It is recommended that the Company collaborate with other industrial noise generators in the Project area to address noise concerns if they arise.
23.2.3.7 Land Use No additional post construction follow-up or monitoring programs are recommended.
23.2.3.8 Archaeological Resources No additional post construction follow-up or monitoring programs are recommended
23.2.3.9 Paleontological Resources No additional post construction follow-up or monitoring programs are recommended.
23.2.3.10 Socio-Economic Resources No additional post construction follow-up or monitoring programs are recommended.
23.2.3.11 Hydrology No additional post construction follow-up or monitoring programs are recommended.
23.2.3.12 Hydrogeology No additional post construction follow-up or monitoring programs are recommended.
23.3 Adaptive Management Adaptive management is the process where the results of current management practices and policies are regularly checked for effectiveness and modified, as necessary, if the planned or predicted results are not being achieved. The results of the post-construction environmental monitoring and follow-up programs will be included in the Company’s pipeline integrity management program that will be in place for operations. If the anticipated results are not being achieved by the current post-construction environmental monitoring and follow-up programs, possible modifications to those program(s) will be developed and reviewed with regulators and others who might be affected by the mitigation. The programs(s) will be adapted, where necessary, to achieve the desired results.
Page 23-3 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 23: Post Construction Follow Up and Monitoring
February 2009 Page 23-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 24: Environmental Protection Plan
24 Environmental Protection Plan
An environmental protection plan (EPP) is an integral component of federally regulated pipeline projects. Developing and implementing mitigation measures is a key component of the environmental assessment process. The EPP formalizes and documents the proposed mitigation measures into a single document used during construction. The purpose of the EPP is to describe environmental mitigations and commitments to be carried out by the Company and its contractor(s) and subcontractors during construction to avoid or minimize potential effects. The EPP includes current industry best practices and includes incremental improvements to environmental protection measures based on results of the environmental assessment and input from Stakeholders and regulators during public consultation and the regulatory review process. The EPP: describes the general environmental setting of the Project; outlines environmental protection measures related to specific project activities; provides instructions for carrying out construction activities to minimize environmental effects; and serves as reference information to the environmental inspection staff to support decision making and provides links to more detailed information. The EPP addresses the construction mitigation and reclamation of: constructing pipeline in Alberta and Saskatchewan; constructing the Hardisty B Terminal pump station and seven mainline pump stations along the proposed route; constructing the operational tank facilities and associated piping at the Hardisty B Terminal; installing valves; and constructing roads to access pump station facilities. The EPP applies to all project areas, including the pipeline permanent RoW, temporary RoW, extra temporary workspace, permanent and temporary access roads and shoo-flies, staging areas, facility sites, construction yards and pipe storage areas. The EPP (see Appendix A) is organized into three parts that provide the Company and its contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) personnel with an understanding of: the general environmental setting of the Project; extent and limitations of the EPP; specific or unique mitigation measures of the Project; general mitigation measures or best management practices that are typically applied to pipeline construction and generally reflect the sequence of construction of a pipeline; and general mitigation measures or best management practices that are typically applied to a facility project and generally reflect the sequence of construction of a facility. Part 1, Sections 1 to 4, outlines the purpose and organization of the EPP. Part 1 places the EPP in context of geographic location, identifies components of the Project to which the EPP applies and indicates where information can be found in the EPP.
Page 24-1 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 24: Environmental Protection Plan
Part 1, Sections 5 to 8, provides information about tools and process to facilitate compliance with all regulatory approvals, permits, commitments and the specific requirements of the EPP. Included is the process of developing and implementing a project environmental commitment tracking list. Section 8 provides details on specific activities that will ensure all relevant Stakeholders are properly notified about the Project before beginning construction. Part 2 outlines environmental protection measures associated with general pipeline construction, topsoil handling and grading, watercrossing, pipe installation activities, backfill, pressure testing, reclamation and post-construction activities associated with the pipeline. Part 3 outlines the environmental protection measures associated with facility construction, topsoil handling and grading, pressure testing, reclamation and post construction activities that will be done during construction of the facilities, including tanks, pump stations and associated access roads. There are also a number of supporting appendices to the EPP (called attachments) that provide contingency and management plans to support the specific mitigation measures identified in the EPP and provide additional guidance to decision-making processes should conditions arise that require implementation of special contingency measures. Supporting information in the attachments includes: reclamation seed mixes; regulatory and company contact lists; typical drawings; and Environmental Alignment Sheets. The EPP is written in construction-specification format and should be read together with the Environmental Alignment Sheets. The EPP will be updated before construction to incorporate results of the regulatory approval process, ongoing Stakeholder consultation and landowner discussions. For the complete EPP, see Appendix A.
February 2009 Page 24-2