2000 international Pipeline Conference — Volume 1 AS ME 2000

IPC2000-140 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC2000/40245/V001T03A002/2507307/v001t03a002-ipc2000-140.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021

HUSKY MOOSE MOUNTAIN PIPELINE: A CASE STUDY OF PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & CONSTRUCTION

Carol J. Engstrom Husky Oil Operations Limited

Guy M. Goulet Western Ecological Systems Management Consulting Inc.

ABSTRACT In 1998, Husky Oil Operations Limited and its partner formerly INTRODUCTION & HISTORY 2 Rigel Oil, (purchased by Talisman Energy in 1999), constructed a Kananaskis' Country encompasses an area of over 4160 km 26.2 km pipeline in to transport sour oil, solution located southwest of . It is an area of high peaks, flowing gas and produced water from Pad #3 on Cox Hill to the Shell Oil streams, and home to many important mammals and fish, as well as a Jumping Pound Gas Plant for processing. Kananaskis Country is a heavily used recreation area. People from all over and 4160 km2 "Planning Area" that has both Prime Protection and Western visit the area to hike, canoe, fish, snowmobile, Multiple Use designations. Situated just west of Calgary, Alberta, cycle, quad, ski and participate in a host of other outdoor pursuits. Canada it has considerable recreational and environmental value, Industrial activities such as cattle grazing, logging and oil & gas including significant wildlife habitat development also occur in Kananaskis Country. Although it is not a park, it is managed by an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and is The original exploration and subsequent pipeline construction nicknamed "Calgary's playground" (Figure 1). Husky's land is applications required separate Alberta Energy & Utilities Board located in the Elbow /Jumpingpound Resource management area and (AEUB) public hearings with both involving significant public is overlapped by two zones of the IRP, zone 5 (Multiple use) and consultation. Prior to drilling on the lands that had been purchased zone 1 (Prime protection) (3) more than a decade ago, Husky adopted several governing principles to reduce environmental impact, mitigate damage and foster open and Project Philosophy honest communication with other industrial users, regulators, local Prior to Husky planning any oil & gas development in the area, interest groups and local aboriginal communities. During planning six governing principles were adopted: and construction, careful attention was paid to using existing linear 1. Consulting, openly and early with all interested parties. disturbances (seismic lines, roads and cutblocks). A variety of 2. Planning activities and facilities to allow co-existence with environmental studies, that incorporated ecologically-integrated present and future uses of the area. landscape classification and included the use of indicator species 3. Preparing an environmental assessment for the such as the Grizzly Bear, were conducted prior to and during the development phase to ensure appropriate environmental early stages of development The results of these studies, along with measures are taken. the information gathered from the public consultation, historical and 4. Reducing and where possible avoiding environmental cultural studies and engineering specifications formed the basis for impact through consultation, planning, design, innovation the route selection. and technology. 5. Minimizing access and ensuring any new access is Watercourses presented particular challenges during pipeline compatible with future plans of Kananaskis Countiy. construction. The pipeline right-of-way(RoW ) intercepted 26 small 6. Co-ordinating industry activities so as to minimize water runs and 19 creeks. Fishery and water quality issues were disturbance and duplication of infrastructure and activity. identified as important issues in the lower Coxlull Creek and Jumpingpound Creeks. As a result, Jumpingpound Creek was In 1990, Husky conducted a seismic program, which led to a directionally drilled at two locations and all other watercourses were discovery well (02-23-12-07 W5M) being completed in March 1993. open-cut using low-impact techniques. To minimize new RoW A well test was conducted and the flow reached 125 m3/day of oil clearing, substantial portions of the pipeline were placed in the ditch and 70,000 mVday of gas and water. Following a public hearing and of the existing road. Husky attributes the success of this project to subsequent AEUB approval in 1994, a four-well drilling program was planning, broad community input and the co-operation and buy-in by initiated. The program resulted in two oil wells (10-14-23-07W5M, the project management team and construction companies. Pad 1 & 12-22-23-07WSM, Pad 3) and two gas wells (12-12-23- 07W5M, Pad 2 & 02-27-23-07, Pad 3) completed in late 199S. Husky

Copyright © 2000 by ASME applied to construct a pipeline to extract the oil from Pad 3 in 1997 were conducted targeting specific groups of Kananaskis Country (10). users. The summer target group was a broad range of recreational users while the fall target group was hunters. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed pipeline route lies within the Southern Foothills of Data from the surveys showed that the four most frequent the Rocky Mountains with the exception of Pad 3 which lies at the activities were sightseeing, hiking, picnicking and camping. Of those edge of the front range of the Rocky Mountains (Pettapiece, 1986). who were classified as hikers and campers, 28.5% did not know oil Elevations along the pipeline route range from 1356 m at and gas activities were occurring in Kananaskis Country end 61.6% Jumpingpound Creek to 1768 m at Pad #3. of these people considered themselves to be poorly informed about 1he oil and gas activities occurring in Kananaskis Country. Forty two

The smficial deposits along the pipeline route are both glacial percent (42.5%) of the hikers and campers were of the opinion that Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC2000/40245/V001T03A002/2507307/v001t03a002-ipc2000-140.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 and post-glacial in origin. They consist mostly of coarse stream oil and gas activities should not occur, hi contrast, only 14.6 % of alluvium and glacial till. Additionally, there are small areas of the hunters surveyed stated that oil and gas activity should not ofccur colhivium, alluvial fans, and aprons, as well as outwash plains (5). in Kananaskis Country (16).

Soils that formed under forest vegetation are primarily Grey This led Husky to believe that the bikers and campers were more Luvisols. The textures vary from coarse sandy loam along the north sensitive to oil & gas activities than the hunters. In response to these end of the pipeline to a finer clay loam near the south (19). The soils concerns, Husky designed a pamphlet in the summer of 1998 and two in the vicinity of Jumpingpound Creek are Black orEluviated Black signs to inform hunters, hikers and campers about their activities Chernozems that were formed under grass and forb vegetation (18). during the construction phase of the project

The two major watercourses that the proposed pipeline route The pamphlet was created to detail the construction activity in crosses are Jumpingpound Creek andCoxhill Creek. Jumpingpound the Moose Mountain area. It outlined Husky's governing principles. Creek originates on the Northwest slope of Jumpingpound Mountain and the conservation measures that were incorporated into the and flows for approximately 80 km to where it joins the Bow River, construction of the pipeline. One thousand copies of the pamphlet near Cochrane, Alberta. Coxhill Creek flows down Cox Hill into were printed and made available to the public in four key-areas Jumpingpound Creek and is classified as an intermittent stream (4 around the Moose Mountain area. Hie two information signs were Figure 2. designed and permanently displayed in four areas of high traffic (both hiking & vehicular) to inform the public on the status of the project as well as some results of the environmental assessment that was PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT completed prior to construction.

1. Consulting, Openly and Early With All Interested 3. Preparing and Incorporating an Environment Parties. Assessment Into the Development Phase. From the onset in 1988 Husky tried to be very open and In 1992 prior to the initial road construction an ecological straightforward about their plans for Moose Mountain. They held inventory and several environmental studies were completed. From numerous kitchen table meetings with residents and scheduled these studies the best route for the exploration road and a possible meetings with environmental and recreational groups such as the future pqjeline route was chosen. In 1997 after the successful Calgary Outdoor Council, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society completion of the sour oil well on Pad 3 a new AEUB application and the Environmental Coalition. First Nations were and more environmental studies were commissioned. Upon given tours and held spiritual ceremonies, blessings and inspections completion of these studies and consideration given to engineering of the area. Newspapers were delivered to over 40,000 homes in specifications, EUB regulations and existing disturbances, three Cochrane and Bragg Creek. In addition nine Husky Oil Moose pipeline routes were presented (15) (Figure 2): Mountain Updates were mailed to over 100 people from industry, • the proposed route, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) and area residents (10). • the south Jumpingpound variation • and the Hwy 68 variation The Alberta Energy & Utilities Board (AEUB) commissioned The examples below demonstrate how Husky used the two public hearings to evaluate the projects. The delineation drilling information to settle upon the actual pipeline route. hearing occurred in 1994, and the pipeline hearing was in 1997. In the 1994 hearing, two First Nation groups and five environmental Vegetation groups voiced specific concerns with the proposed project The One of the surveys conducted prior to pipeline construction was concerns of the First Nations included the deterioration of their a multi-scale ecological land inventory and classification study. The traditional hunting grounds and possible restrictions on the use of the study had three goals (11). mountain for spiritual ceremonies. Environmental concerns ranged 1. To classify the land into Ecologically Integrated Landscape from local environmental impact, greenhouse gases, wildlife and Units (EILU). fisheries concerns to regional cumulative effects. As a result of the 2. To evaluate habitat suitability for 12 indicator wildlife first hearing a Traditional Native Cultural Properties Study was species using these EILU. completed by the Tsuu Tina Nation and Husky Oil (5) as well as a 3. To characterize the vegetation and site conditions for the comprehensive environmental assessment (10). The results of these region. studies are discussed later in the paper. A total of 117 unique EILU were classified and these were 2. Planning Of Activities and Facilities to Co-Exist With further grouped into 76 Wildlife Habitat Ecological Units (WHEU). Present and Future Uses of the Area. Of the EILlPs that were classified, several in thefoothills parkland A recreational survey was conducted in the summer and fall of and lower foothills were rated as being in low supply. In thdoothills 1994 to determine the type of people who use Kananaskis Country parkland: Lodgepole pine forests of all slope and aspect, steep south- (16). The pmpose was to determine what kinds of recreational west facing white spruce andmixwood forests, and steep north-east activities occur in Kananaskis Country and the attitudes of the public facing grassland. In the lower foothills, native grasslands, gently towards oil and gas development within its boundaries. Two surveys sloping conifers and deciduous dominated mixwood (11). The sloping conifers and deciduous dominated mixwood (11). The under Jumpingpound creek were planned to avoid disturbance to any proposed route did not traverse any vegetative units that were in low site. supply. As a result of the AEUB PublicHearing in 1994 a Traditional The highest level of overall vegetative richnesswa s found in the Native Cultural Properties Study was completed in 1995. This study mixedwood forests especially in the foothills parkland and identified several important traditional pursuits and associations with coniferous-dominated mixedwoods of the lower foothills (11). Moose Mountain. The Tsuu Tina have used the Moose Mountain area since the late 1800's for religious practice, hunting, trapping, A study was conducted to deteimine the presence and frequency fishing, plant collecting, and ethnobiology. To help preserve of rare plants along the pipeline route. One provincially rare plant, tradition, the Tsuu Tina were encouraged to continue using the area the Dwarf Fleabane (Erigeron radicahu) which inhabits diy gravelly for their activities. Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC2000/40245/V001T03A002/2507307/v001t03a002-ipc2000-140.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 alpine habitat was found on Moose Mountain. There were four regionally tare plants found namely Simple Kobresia (Kobresia Route Analysis simplhacula). Heart-leaved Twayblade (Listera cordata), Five- In the final analysis, the preferred route was chosen because it leaved Braiible (Rubtu pedatus), and Alpine Mitrewort QvSteUa paralleled existing distmbances for 94% of its length, traversed more pentandra). These plants were found in a small, wooded wetland gentle terrain and averted some important habitat However, its located north of Pad #3 and within a fen on the Demonstration Forest disadvantages were two additional crossings of Jumpingpound Creek, Loop near Highway 68. The pipeline was deflected slightly in one the proximity to the Demonstration Forest Loop and the location of area to avoid one rare plant community near Pad #3(17). an archaeological site at Jumpingpound Creek (15).

Wildlife A survey of the wildlife in the 11 vegetation categories found 4. Integrating Environmental Planning, Construction and 199 bird species, 55 mammal species and ten species of reptile. Technology Wildlife habitat suitability indices (HSI) were developed for four Although the Moose Mountain Pipeline project used fairly large mammals, two small mammals, and six bird species. Indicator conventional construction techniques, several variances from species for the study were grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), convention were implemented. Clearing was limited to less than 252 moose (Alces, alces), elk (Cervus elaphus), and black bear (Ursus ha (from the planned clearing of 39.3 ha) by using existing linear americamts), meadow vole Qificrotus permsyb/anicus) and the marten features such as existing cut-lines, seismic lines, old logging trails, (Aiartes americana). The birds chosen were the northern goshawk and placing the pipe in the bar ditch of the road (8). (.Accipiter gentilu), American pipit (Anthus rubescens), pileated woodpecker (Dryocapus pileatus), blue grouse (Dendmgapus Environmental issues related to stringing and welding operations obscurus), ovenbird (Seiuris aurocapillus) and the alder flycatcher for conventional pipelines include disturbance to vegetation, mixing (Empidonax ebiorum). In addition, the grizzly bear was chosen for a of soil types, surface rutting, soil compaction, and potential barriers cumulative effects assessment (12). to wildlife movement Generally, the weight of the stringing truck/ trailers combined with the high frequency of passes has the greatest During the evaluation of the three routes the proposed route was environmental impact during pipeline construction. Because both the deemed more suitable because it avoided some very high grizzly stringing and welding crews were quite small and construction spring, early fall and late fall habitat however it did transect some proceeded at a low pace, overall impacts to vegetation were not better denning habitat In addition, the proposed route averted some observed (8). very high black bear, elk, moose and alder flycatcherhabita t (12). During construction, gaps in the welded pipe string were Amphibian and reptile surveys were conducted and two species provided to maintain access across theRoW for wildlife and cattle. of frogs were found on the large clear-cut areas along the road; boreal Along ttie Coxhill Creek Husky road, all pipe activities were toads (Bufo boreas) and wood frogs (Fiona sylvatica). Additionally, compressed into one-kilometer sections and made concurrent, so that wood frogs along with Chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) were from the time the pipe was strung, welded, lowered-in, and back- found in the wetland area of Fredrick and Darnell lakes (14). filled, not more than 24 hours passed (8).

Aquatic Animate The ditching crew commenced at Kp 11+200 and worked There were six fish species encountered in the Study Area in towards kickoff at Pad #3, directly after welding, x-ray, and coating. 1994. They included brook trout (Satvelimufontincdis), bull trout Track hoes were used for all ditch advancements. Prior to ditching, (Sahelimts confluentus), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkUemsi), additional upper surface material was salvaged and stored at the edge rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and mountain whitefish of the RoW, usually between trees for easy retrieval upon cleanup. (Prosopium wiltiamsonijlj). There were no fish found in the upper Ditch spoil was placed on the road surface and used as the work reaches of Coxhill creek; however, near the confluence with surface by the pipe lower-in crew. This process limited most rubber- Jumpingpound Creek brook trout and some cutthroat trout were tired traffic to Pad #3 (8). found. All six species of fish were found in Jumpingpound Creek at varying numbers throughout the season. To protect the fish habitat Cleanup was initiated immediately following backfill activities and the riparian zone two directional drills under Jumpingpound to ensure that erosion control measures and watercourse restoration creek were planned. could take place. Slopes and watercourses were restored to original pre-construction contour. Swails were replaced on slopes to maintain Archaeology cross RoW drainage and surface diversion berms were installed to A comprehensive Historical Resource study was completed in prevent washouts and surface erosion (8). 1997. Ten pre-contact sites, two historic sites and a number of historic structures were found within lkm of the pipeline route (6). Directional Drilling From the evaluation of the routes the south Jumpingpound variation Typically, watercourse crossings associated with pipeline would avoid the archaeological site near Jumpingpound Creek (15) construction can present environmental challenges, including the while the proposed route crossed through the site and the Hwy 68 harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of aquatic route came close to the sites. A reroute and an extension of the bore habitats and the impairment of water quality. Impacts on aquatic resources may result from in-stream and near-stream woik, ineffective clean up and restoration near the watercourse, or from fuel Coxhill Creek or other hazardous material spills (8). Discussions about timing, procedures, and regulatory requirements between the Contractor and Husky Construction staff The primary issues associated with the Moose Mountain were conducted prior to any of the thirteen crossings ofCoxhUl Pipeline project included; maintaining clean flowing water by using Creek. The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) indicated that isolation techniques, installing bridge spans on watercourses with relatively simple wet crossings (open cut) could be executed fisheries capability, direct grading away from the watercourses, regardless of the flow regime of the upperCoxhill Creek. However storing trench spoil beyond the wetted channel, and implementing Fisheries Management staff requested that isolation or diversion sediment control for the watercourse crossing, as required (8). techniques be implemented if any flow were present at the time of

pipeline installation (8). Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC2000/40245/V001T03A002/2507307/v001t03a002-ipc2000-140.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 The Pipeline project intersected several watercourses including Coxhill Creek (13 tunes), Jumpingpound Creek (3 times) Little To begin the diversions the contractor blocked off a culvert Jumpingpound Creek, Darnell Lake, and Frederick Lake drainage, along the road to create a dam. An electric puttq> was placed and some additional minor drainages. The towerCoxhil l Creek and upstream of the dam and pumped water around a rock outcropping Jumpingpound Creek were identified as having the most significant and into an old meander ofCoxhill Creek. This meander and natural fisheries and water quality issues associated with pipeline streambed provided excellent opportunity for natural filtration of construction. The upper Coxhill Creek, Little Jumpingpound Creek, sediments by the many natural sumps and moss hummocks and fiie two lake drainages (i.e., Darnell and Frederick) had no downstream. Eventually, approximately 2S0 m downstream, the old fisheries issues identified at the time of the initial assessment, and channel joined with the active channel and stream flow was were deemed to be appropriate for simple open cut crossings (8). maintained (8).

In order to protect local fish habitat, wildlife corridors, Simultaneously, at a tributary crossing that originated uphill recreational space and inqwrtant riparian habitat, the three (3) from the road, a dam and pump were placed in a natural hollow and Jumpingpound Creek crossings were assessed for geotechnical water was pumped through fee culvert in the road.Followin g this the suitability for a trenchless crossing using a horizontal directional drill contractor had control of all stream flow for approximately 300 m technique. This study indicated that two of three crossings were most and water was diverted away from the ditching activities, leaving a suitable for directional drill, and the third crossing at the highway relatively dry ditch. Ditching simultaneously from both ends atKp was unsuitable because of thick gravel seams on both sides of the 5+600 and Kp 5+300 using three track hoes allowed the entire 300 m creek. Husky committed to attempting the first two crossings of section to be lowered-in and back-filled immediately. Creek sections Jumpingpound Creek using the directional drill method, even though were roughedi n to approximate pre-construction bed and bank levels gravel seams were also found on one or both sides (8). and dimensions with local material. Finally the upstream dam was removed and returned flow to the original, pre-construction All the watercourse crossings were constructed under an AEP watercourse (8). Water Resources Act Permit. Planning meetings were held in the field and general discussions included pre-construction preparation, Sediment mitigation measures during the entire operation construction methodology, site restoration, and construction drawings included the use of straw bales with filter cloth at outlets of culverts and scheduling (8). and in downstream placements. Additional protection measures included; minimum grading to approaches of creeks, no clearing for Jumpingpound Creek at Kp 11+600 & Kp 13*930 material storage and having all ditch spoil placed on the road and The geotechnical assessment for this watercourse crossing contained in-situ by proper material handling by experienced indicated suitable conditions to warrant an attempt at a horizontal operators. Erosion control measures included rock armoring of large directional drill. The Crossing Company ofNisku, Alberta was downstream culverts and bends. Creek beds were contoured and commissioned to perform the drill. The Crossing Company additional rock was placed where appropriate to prevent future compressed the drill set-up to accommodate a narrow and long erosion impacts (8). configuration for a location on the Demonstration Forest Road. Workspace of 5 m x 40 m was acquired, but was not used. Therefore, Historical Resources no additional clearing was required. An Emergency Response Plan A number of mitigation steps were taken for protection of three (ERP) was submitted to Husky in the event of a release of drilling historical and cultural resources sites which had been identified aKp fluids, to either the creek itself or the surrounding work area (8). 5+300, Kp 13 +930 and Kp 19+600 (6). A rock of cultural importance at Kp 5+300 was encircled with steel posts and chain to Case pounding to bedrock and stringing of the 3n, 4", and 6" protect it during construction. The site atKp 19+600 (intersection of future blank line pipe for the creek section was initiated. The pilot Hwy 68) was avoided with a relatively minor re-route and a 35 m dry hole exited successfully in a meadow beside the creek without bore under the highway and the site atKp 13 +930 was averted by incident after only seven days. The hole, which was eventually extending the directional drill of the second Jumpingpound Creek widened to a maximum diameter of IT, was completed crossing (8). approximately 14 days later. Final cleanup, including topsoil replacement, seeding and hanowing was conducted immediately after tie-ins and backfill (8). 5. Minimizing Access and Ensuring Any New Access Is Compatible With Future Plans of the Kananaskis Country The second directional drill of Jumpingpound Creek was There are six priorities of Kananaskis Country, as stated in fee consistent with all the preliminary fishery and geotechnical IRP, which form fee regulatory basis for operating in Kananaskis assessments. However, the Crossing Company requested a change to Country (3). The following table describes what measures were taken the original drill path aid length during an early pre-drill assessment to construct the pipeline in accordance with these principles. This increased the overall length of the drill, but it was believed to be an easier path and, therefore, more favorable for success. Fourteen days after the pilot hole, the creek section of pipe was pulled to the rig side (8). Table 1: Mitigation measures taken to fulfill the priorities of The RoW was seeded with three native grass seed mixes, a Kananaskis Country white zone mix, a green zone mix and a steep slope and stream bank mix. Priorities Measures Talun 1. To maintain water quality There were no measurable increases quantity and flow regime, in sediment load to the streams 6. Co-ordinating Industry Activities to Minimize Disturbance during construction for the following and Duplication of Infrastructure and Activity. reasons: isolation techniques were Original construction planning and timing for scheduled pipeline used, bridge spans on watercourses withfisheries capabilit y were activities had the project divided into three (3) sections. They were installed, grading was directed away as follows: from the watercourses, trench spoil • Section 1 ftomKp0+00 0 to Kp 11-KJOO along theCoxhill Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC2000/40245/V001T03A002/2507307/v001t03a002-ipc2000-140.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 was stored beyond the wetted Creek portion; channel, and sediment control was • Section 2 fiom Kp 11+000 to Kp 18+000 to include the implemented for all crossings Demo Forest and the majority of the Green Area; 2. To provide a widerange o f The construction schedule was • Section 3 fiom Kp 18+000 to Kp 26+200 through the recreational, leisure and tourism planned to keep public interruption opportunities to aTMniifiMP', White (Public Lands and Private) Area. 3. Maintenance of the The results of the environmental abundance, diversity, distribution studies showed the study area Timing or scheduling for pipeline construction had Section 1 for and recreational use offish and contained important wildlife and fish June 25 to July 29; Section 2 for August 30 to September, and wildlife resources. habitat As a result Husky routed the Section 3 for July 30 to August 29. Changes to scheduling came into pipeline accordingly effect almost immediately. Section 2 was compressed to include only 4. To provide for the Used existing disturbances where the Demonstration Forek portion with no time constraints on the management and development of feasible and worked co-operatively Green Area portion from Homestead Road (Kp 13+3400) to the third renewable natural resources. with other land users (Spray Lakes crossing of Jnmpingpound Creek #3 (Kp 19+350). Originally this Sawmills) and government agencies to achieve this goal. To minimize section was to be constructed last so that construction activities and access, controls were implemented: disturbance to tourists and other users might be minimized. public motorized vehicles were However, the directional drill activity at the first Jumpingpound preventedfrom usin g the road and Creek crossing was on-going during late June to early August, so logging slash and stumps were rolled authorization was granted to close the Demonstration Forest Road back onto the RoW. (Le., gate with information signage) to the public for both safety and 5. To protect historical and The pipeline was routed around / environmental reasons, as construction of fee pipeline proceeded. archaeological resources under areas of historical The only other stipulations for construction was that no pipeline significance. construction, except the directional drill, could occur in the 6. Maintenance and By creating public information signs Demonstration Forest portion on the weekends during the summer encouragement of research, and pamphlets Husky hoped to educational and interpretation increase awareness and education months (8). programs about oil & gas activities in Kananaskis Country. Environmental Assessment and Ecologically CONCLUSIONS Integrated Landscape mapping contributes significantly to Appropriate planning, environmental assessment, regulatory and knowledge of the study area. The co- public participation contributed significantly to the successful operative Tsuu Tina -Husky construction of the 26.2-km pipeline in this sensitive ecosystem in Cultural study adds knowledge of Kananaskis Country. This project would not have achieved its goals Native history in the Moose without the onsite commitment of the Parkland Oilfield Construction, Mountain area. the project engineers, Tera Environmental and the supervisory team (Tridyne). Revegetation As part of commitments made by Husky Oil, a number of areas required tree planting along the Moose Mountain pipelineRoW and REFERENCES areas across Spray Lakes cut blocks to ensure reforestation was kept in-sync with existing efforts. 1. Alberta Environmental Protectioa 1994. Alberta Protected Areas System Analysis (1994). Prepared by Seedlings were acquired fromWate r Valley Tree Nursery with Dept. of Environmental Protection; Edmonton, AB. approval from Spray Lakes. The two species planted wereLodgepole 119pp. Pine (Pinus contorta) and White Spruce (Picea glauca). 2. Alberta Environmental Protection. 1997. The Parkland Approximately 5000 seedlings were planted. Natural Region of Alberta. Prepared by Dept of Environmental Protection; Edmonton, AB. 110pp. On one occasion a group of 40 students from Strathcona- 3. Alberta Forestry. 1986. Kananaskis Country Sub Regional Tweedsmuir School participated in the planting of the seedlings. This Integrated Resource Plan. Edmonton, AB. gave them the opportunity to learn about pipelines and the 4. Anderson et al. 1997. Assessment of Potential impacts to Company's environmental responsibility when conducting operations in a sensitive area. Fisheries Resources. Associated with the Husky Oil Proposed Moose Mountain Pipeline. Golder Associates As part of Husky's commitment to reclaiming distmbed sites in Ltd. association with its activities, Husky construction staff hydro-seeded 5. Bayrock, L.A. and T.H.F. Reimchen. 1975. Surficial the steep slopes and the cut and fill slope faces of Pad 3. This was Geology of the Foothills ands Rocky Mountains. 6 maps. partially successful and will be repeated in the summer of2000. Alberta Research Council. 6. Fedirchuk McCullough & Associates. 1997. Preliminary Historical Resources Impact Assessment 7. Golder Associates Ltd. 1996. Fisheries Resource Inventory in the Moose Mountain Study Area. Golder Associates Ltd., Calgary 8. Goulet G. 1999. Environmental As-Built Report for Husky Moose Mountain Pipeline Project Western Ecological System Management Consultant Inc. 9. Husky Oil Operations Limited, Tsuu Tina Nation. 1995.

Traditional Native Cultural Properties Study. Calgary, Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC2000/40245/V001T03A002/2507307/v001t03a002-ipc2000-140.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 AB. 10. Husky Oil Operations Limited. 1997. Energy Development Application Proposed Moose Mountain Development 11. Kansas, J. andD.Collister. 1997. Ecologically-Integrated Landscape Classification and Moping, Jumpingpound Pipeline Region.. Ursus Ecosystem Management Ltd. 12. Kansas, J. and D. Collister. 1997. Wildlife Habitat Assessment, Jumpingpound Pipeline Region. Ursus Ecosystem Management 13. Pettapiece, W.W. 1986. Physiographic subdivisions of Alberta. Agriculture Canada. 1:1,500,000 map. 14. Powell, L. 1997. Amphibian and Reptile Occurrence, Moose Mountain Pipeline Assessment. GAIA Consultants Inc. 15. Tera Environmental. 1997. Conservation and Reclamation Report for the Proposed Husky Oil Operations Limited Moose Mountain Pipeline Project 16. Usher, R. and E.L. Jackson. 1995. Recreational Activities and Attitudes to Oil and Gas Development in Kananaskis Country Moose Mountain Environmental Inventory. GAIA Consultants Inc. 17. Wallis, C. & Usher. 1995. Rare Plant Survey. Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. & GAIA Consultants Inc. 18. Wyatt, F.A. and D.J. Newton. 1943. Soil survey of Rosbud and Banff sheets. The University of Alberta, Alberta Soil Survey Report 12. 19. Wyatt, F.A., D.J. Newton, W. E. Bowser and W.M. Odynsky. 1943 Soil Survey of Blackfoot and Calgary Sheets. The University of Alberta. Alberta Soil Survey Report 11. •IMMtMNftlv Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC2000/40245/V001T03A002/2507307/v001t03a002-ipc2000-140.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC2000/40245/V001T03A002/2507307/v001t03a002-ipc2000-140.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021

'. " .

"

I I

~~ '"\..~OmtSl 00I1n0 RI".."d ~ II ~ ------~---) -;---- \:• '. f I . ' C4"" • . ' Rldg...... \)__ \, / I r- : :·T... CIII • H.' • '., 1 '- '~T ",,,,, •• ·.I ...... Loop ., ,r{.~ ".\ %\ : Tral ... :i:

~; fT ' ..~ ..... : Tp 2l I (! '. ..:... . , .,=' . " WlOSlBrIOG \ ~ ' , ...... ; : lit ,C'""- "P. '. ) JumpinGpound t.··.: llou ..aIn ,./ ...: ... :~:. . b..v ) ') =)0- '~i" ; ':.:' .' JumP,lntpOU;';" ':. 0:::...... ·.. .. ~ .. :, \ :.C;'·:· j·; '\ S~_TrIM .. ' 110051 IlOU ...... •• • " '. I .. :": Lookout TrIM \ ~c..t ~ -""" I '::. :'. ( ~~ - - .,t-l ' \.':

o 1:1000001 3Ka1 ••." .

LEGEND ... Mount, .. Plp ••• Opda.: N EriI~1 Pip .... iii O.yU .. ", .. N Ju""InI,Ound O"iI. N PI.. d AOld G A I A ceH.U Ll'."' •• HC P.3 tlmpground N H Ihwl,68 O,lion .. Alautio" fr.1 " .---... -- Majo, H""",r'pll, Hullry R.ld 10 P.d 3 .-.....-....._-...... ,.-. .:..... N ~ ...... ~- \ •..... -...... - -..--.,-,.~.-...... - ...... n. fOWllthip G,1d . -~ I -.- ." . PrOPOII. Rod to Pad 1 Ind" ,.... .--...... ',' .~I __ &IUlCM" • • ' 1K 1'...1 G.... IAotd - WI.Pld

328