DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Track Report Encana Corporation's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Track Report Encana Corporation's Environmental Assessment Track Report EnCana Corporation’s Proposed Shallow Gas Development Project in the CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area Submitted to the Minister of the Environment Pursuant to Subsection 21(2) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Prepared by Department of National Defence February 2006 Table of Contents 2.0 Environmental Assessment Process .................................................................. 4 2.1 Requirement for a Comprehensive Study 4 Responsible Authority (RA) ......................................................................................... 4 Federal Authorities (FA’s) ............................................................................................ 5 Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC)...................................... 5 Provincial Involvement.................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Current Path and Next Steps 5 3.0 Project Overview................................................................................................... 6 4.0 CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area..................................................................... 7 5.0 Scope 7 5.1 Scope of Project 7 5.2 Scope of Assessment 8 6.0 Public consultation............................................................................................... 8 7.0 Public Concerns in Relation to the Project ........................................................ 9 Written Public Comments 15 8.0 The Potential of the Project to Cause Adverse Environmental Effects.......... 18 8.1 Species At Risk 18 8.2 National Wildlife Regulations 19 8.3 Biological/Scientific Studies 19 8.4 Native Prairie and Ecology 20 8.5 Ancillary and Cumulative Effects 21 8.6 Supplementary Concerns 22 9.0 Ability of Comprehensive Study to Address Issues Relating to the Project 22 10.0 Recommendation................................................................................................ 25 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 ................................................................................................ i 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 13................................................................................. i 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 23 ........................................................................ i 4.0 REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO FISH AND WATERWAYS 25...................... i APPENDIX B – AEUB LICENCING PROCESS…………………………………...………29 ........................................ ii BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………..…………………………………… ……..………30....................................................................................................... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 - 2 - 1.1.1 Purpose of the Project ............................................................................................. 1 1.1.2 Project Area ............................................................................................................ 2 1.1.3 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1.4 Nature of Project..................................................................................................... 5 1.2 PROPONENT INFORMATION 7 1.3 REGULATORY OVERVIEW 7 1.3.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.............................................................. 7 1.3.2 Other Federal Legislation, Regulations and Policies............................................ 10 1.3.3 Provincial Regulatory Process .............................................................................. 11 1.4 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 13 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 13 2.1 PROJECT ACTIVITIES 15 2.1.1 Preparation Phase.................................................................................................. 15 2.1.2 Construction Phase................................................................................................ 16 2.1.3 Operations Phase................................................................................................... 19 2.1.4 Decommissioning and Abandonment................................................................... 20 2.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE 21 2.3 WASTE DISPOSAL / WATER USE AND DISPOSAL 22 2.3.1 Water Required For Drilling & Drilling Products ................................................ 22 2.3.2 Water Usage for Completions............................................................................... 22 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................... 23 4.0 REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO FISH AND WATERWAYS............... 25 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES 25 4.2 WATER SOURCES 26 The area within which a VEC functions and within which the Project’s effect may occur................................................................................................................ 9 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act .......................................................................... 16 Appendix 1 – Project Description Appendix 2 – Scope of Assessment Appendix 3 – Notice Requesting Public Comment - 3 - 1.0 Introduction On March 4, 2005, EnCana Corporation (EnCana) submitted to the Department of National Defence (DND) a project description referred to as the CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area (NWA) Shallow Gas Infill Development Project, a proposal to install over a three-year period, up to 1275 new shallow gas wells within the boundary of the NWA (“the Project”). This document provides an overview of the proposed Project, steps taken to date with respect to the environmental assessment including a summary of federal coordination activities and public consultation. The Department of National Defence (DND) has prepared this Environmental Assessment Track Report pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) to assist the Minister of the Environment in making a decision whether to continue the environmental assessment by way of a comprehensive study, or to refer the project to a mediator or review panel. In accordance with paragraph 21(2) (a) of the CEAA the EA track report must address the following matters: a) The scope of the Project; the factors to be considered in its assessment and the scope of those factors; b) Public concerns in relation to the Project; c) The potential of the Project to cause adverse environmental effects; and d) The ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the Project. 2.0 Environmental Assessment Process 2.1 Requirement for a Comprehensive Study The Project is subject to a comprehensive study in accordance with paragraph 2(c) of Part I to the Schedule to the Comprehensive Study List Regulations made pursuant to the CEAA, as it involves the construction of a gas pipeline in a National Wildlife Area as defined in section 2 of the Canada Wildlife Act. Paragraph 2(c) of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations states that a comprehensive study is required for “The proposed construction, decommissioning or abandonment, in a wildlife area or migratory bird sanctuary, of an oil or gas facility or oil and gas pipeline.” Responsible Authority (RA) In order to allow EnCana’s development in the NWA a permit is required pursuant to section 3 and 4 of the Wildlife Area Regulations. In the case of the CFB NWA, DND has been delegated the responsibility from the Minister of the - 4 - Environment pursuant to section 4.2 (1) of the Canada Wildlife Act (CWA), R.S. 1985, c. W-9, as amended, for the administration of the area and those sections of the CWA that apply to it, this includes the permitting responsibilities. Because of its regulatory role, the DND is thus the responsible authority (RA) for this environmental assessment (EA). Federal Authorities (FA’s) Following the requirements of the Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements of the CEAA, the project description was distributed to other federal departments and agencies to determine their role in the assessment, if any. The other federal departments and agencies determined they were not a responsible authority (RA) for the project under section 5 of the CEAA. The following departments self- identified themselves as federal authorities under the CEAA possessing specialist knowledge and information which should be considered in the assessment of the proposed undertaking: Environment Canada, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada and Health Canada. Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) Also, in accordance with section 12.4 of the CEEA, the Alberta Regional Office of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is the federal environmental assessment coordinator for the Project, as the Project is described in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. Provincial Involvement The Project is subject to regulatory approvals of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB). Although the Project does not require an environmental assessment under Alberta legislation, the AEUB and Alberta Sustainable Resources Development (ASRD) will participate in the federal environmental assessment under Appendix 3 of the Canada-Alberta Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation. Alberta Environment determined that a provincial environmental assessment is not
Load more

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