DOCSLIB.ORG

Enter Filename

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enter Filename MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING This section of the ESA presents a summary description of the existing biophysical and socio-economic environment potentially affected by the Project. Results of field surveys conducted in 2012 and winter 2013 have been included in this ESA report. Vegetation and wildlife reconnaissance surveys were conducted in September 2012, and additional wildlife surveys were conducted in October 2012 and March 2013. Aquatic surveys were conducted in October 2012, and winter fisheries surveys were conducted in February 2013. Methods used to determine baseline conditions for each environmental or socio-economic resource are described in the relevant subsection. The Project is located in northeast Alberta, approximately 35 km northwest of Fort McMurray. The Project footprint is located within the Northern Alberta Lowlands Physiographic Region, and crosses Crown land in the Green Area of Alberta, including two watercourses. 5.1 Study Areas The spatial boundaries or study areas considered in the description of environmental setting and assessment of potential Project effects on the environmental components include one or more of the following: Project footprint, LSA, RSA, and socio-economic study area. These study areas were used to capture the potential direct and indirect effects of the Project on each VC and their associated KI, as well as to understand the context within which the effects can occur. The LSAs and RSAs used in the effects assessment vary by environmental and socio-economic element. The LSAs were established to assess the potential, largely direct effects of the Project on the local environment. Each VC and baseline setting component is considered in defining the LSAs. The RSAs were established to assess the potential, largely indirect effects of the Project within the broader, regional context. The study areas are summarized in Table 5.1-1, shown in Figure 5.1-1 and Figure 5.1-2, and the socio-economic study area is described in more detail in Section 5.1.1. June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-1 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA Table 5.1-1 Study Areas Used in the Environmental and Socio-economic Setting and Effects Assessment Area Valued Component Study Area Description / Rationale [ha] Physical area required for Project construction, operation and eventual decommissioning and abandonment All Project footprint 15.6 (i.e., pipeline ROW (approximately 13.5 ha) plus the additional work areas required during construction (approximately 2.1 ha, including log decks) . Project footprint. Direct effects will occur in the trench. Direct and Local Study Area (LSA) 15.6 indirect effects may occur within the Project footprint. As the ground is expected to be frozen during construction, effects on soil outside the Project footprint are unlikely. Soil and Soil Productivity . The LSA extends 1,000 m on each side of the pipeline centreline (centreline). This scale is sufficient to document the soils that Regional Study Area (RSA) 1,310 occur in the area, and is suitable for accessing (equivalent to the Terrestrial LSA) effects to potential land uses that rely on soil productivity, such as forestry. No regional effects on soil and soil productivity (e.g., acid precipitation) are anticipated. Centered on the watercourses at the crossing locations and extends 100 m from each bank (to account for potential disturbance to the riparian zones). Upstream extent is 200 m from the pipeline Aquatic (i.e., Surface LSA 142 centreline at each watercourse crossing. Water Quantity and Quality, Fish and Fish . Downstream extent is 2,000 m from the pipeline Habitat) centreline at each watercourse crossing (to account for potential effects from sediment transport during construction). Fully encompasses the LSA and includes the entire RSA 5,765 drainage area of an unnamed watercourse that drains the LSA and flows into Beaver Lake. LSA 1,310 1,000 m on each side of the centreline. Groundwater Quantity and No separate RSA was considered necessary since Quality (Groundwater) RSA (equivalent to the LSA) 1,310 potential groundwater effects are only local (within 1,000 m of the centreline). June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-2 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA Table 5.1-1 Study Areas Used in the Environmental and Socio-economic Setting and Effects Assessment (continued) Area Valued Component Study Area Description / Rationale [ha] The LSA for terrestrial environmental components (vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat) extends 1,000 m on each side of the centreline. The terrestrial LSA 1,310 LSA encompasses the Project footprint. The purpose of the terrestrial LSA is to assess the potential direct Project effects and small-scale indirect Project effects on all terrestrial environmental components. The RSA for terrestrial environmental components (vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat) extends 7,000 m on each side of the centreline. Terrestrial (i.e., Vegetation, . The RSA boundary was defined based on vegetation Wetlands, Wildlife and classification boundaries and the provincially Wildlife Habitat) designated Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone. It encompasses the home range of a white-tailed 2 RSA 22,368 deer which has an average home range of 8.5 km (Lesage et al. 2000), and it also encompasses an area with the capacity to contain the home ranges of approximately two moose, each with an average of 11 km2 in Alberta (De La Mare 2012, pers. comm.). The purpose of the terrestrial RSA is to assess the contribution of the Project effects on all terrestrial environmental components within the broader regional context. The area within 5,000 m of the ROW centerline, based on LSA 12,800 the guidance provided by Alberta Environment (AENV 2009) for air assessments in Alberta Air Quality No separate RSA was considered necessary as the LSA is sized such that predicted concentrations at the study RSA 12,800 area boundary are essentially the same with or without (equivalent to the LSA) the Project emissions (i.e., Project effects on air quality are not expected to extend beyond the LSA boundary). 1,500 m on each side of the centreline based on guidance provided by Energy Resources Conservation Board LSA 2,201 (ERCB) Directive 038: Noise Control (EUB 2007) for noise assessments in Alberta No separate RSA was considered necessary. As noise Acoustic Environment attenuates with distance, potential noise effects are confined to the LSA. In the area beyond the LSA, noise RSA 2,201 emissions from Project construction are expected to (equivalent to the LSA) attenuate to a level below the ambient sound level, resulting in a negligible contribution. Noise emissions are not expected from Project operation. June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-3 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA Table 5.1-1 Study Areas Used in the Environmental and Socio-economic Setting and Effects Assessment (continued) Area Valued Component Study Area Description / Rationale [ha] . Boundary corresponds to the boundary of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, in which the Project falls, and includes the communities within it. Study Area 6,647,632 . Potential social, infrastructure, economic and employment effects are typically experienced within the municipal jurisdiction in which a Project lies. Socio-economic (i.e., Human Occupancy . For hunting, trapping and fishing activities. and Resource Use, . The resource use baseline and effects assessment Quality of Life, Human Resource use LSA 1,310 LSA is the same as the terrestrial LSA (Vegetation, Health, Infrastructure and Wetlands, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) as Services, and effects on resource use are closely linked to effects Employment and on these environments and the resources therein. Economy) . For hunting, trapping and fishing activities. The resource use baseline and effects assessment Resource use RSA 22,368 RSA is the same as the terrestrial RSA (Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) as effects on resource use are closely linked to effects on these environments and the resources therein. Project footprint. LSA 15.6 . Any direct or indirect Project effects on historic resources will result from ground and soil Heritage (Historic) disturbance. Resources Extends 1,500 m on each side of the centreline and into portions of 18 sections including: Sections 19-22 and RSA 4,662 27-34 Twp 91 Rge 11 W4M and Sections 23-26 and 35-36 Twp 91 Rge 12 W4M. The TLU study areas are the same as the terrestrial LSA and RSA, as the terrestrial study areas consider plants and wildlife, which are important resources for TLU, and Project effects on these resources have the potential to affect traditional harvesting activities. Traditional fishing is also important, and is also discussed in Traditional Land and the context of the terrestrial study areas. Resource Use Refer to the Description / Rationale for the Terrestrial LSA 1,310 Valued Components Refer to the Description / Rationale for the Terrestrial RSA 22,368 Valued Components June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-4 ^_ I:\CLIENTS\TRANSCANADA\12-1334-0055\Mapping\MXD\General\StudyAreas_20130612.mxd Tp. 92 Rg. 9 Rg.14 Rg.13 Rg.12 Rg.11 Rg.10 W4M STEEPBANK RIVER TAR ISLAND^_ BEAVER LAKE RUTH LAKE ³ ATHABASCA RIVER MACKAY RIVER Ã EK Ä RE C 63 E H C L Moosa Exchange EG A GETT CREE Meter Station # Pelican Mainline Tie-in C K POPLAR CREEK Tp. 91 R E V BE R I AV E R INDEX ^_! Fort McMurray Alberta Edmonton ! B IR C ! Calgary HW O O D CRE JA E ISKEY CK K WH CR EEK SCALE 1:50,000,000 LEGEND 5 0 5 # FACILITY LOCAL STUDY AREAS (LSA) ^_ HAMLET STUDY ROUTE* ACOUSTIC LSA PRIMARY HIGHWAY SCALE 1:175,000 KILOMETRES AIR LSA LOCAL ROAD AQUATIC LSA WATERCOURSE PROJECT RESOURCE USE AND TERRESTRIAL LSA TAILINGS POND MOOSA CROSSOVER REGIONAL STUDY AREAS (RSA) WATERBODY AQUATIC RSA TITLE HISTORIC RESOURCES RSA RESOURCE USE AND TERRESTRIAL RSA BIOPHYSICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES SOILS RSA STUDY AREAS NOTE PROJECT 12-1334-0055 FILE No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume 2: Baseline, Section 13: Traditional Land Use September 2011 Volume 2: Baseline Studies Frontier Project Section 13: Traditional Land Use
    R1 R24 R23 R22 R21 R20 T113 R19 R18 R17 R16 Devil's Gate 220 R15 R14 R13 R12 R11 R10 R9 R8 R7 R6 R5 R4 R3 R2 R1 ! T112 Fort Chipewyan Allison Bay 219 T111 Dog Head 218 T110 Lake Claire ³ Chipewyan 201A T109 Chipewyan 201B T108 Old Fort 217 Chipewyan 201 T107 Maybelle River T106 Wildland Provincial Wood Buffalo National Park Park Alberta T105 Richardson River Dunes Wildland Athabasca Dunes Saskatchewan Provincial Park Ecological Reserve T104 Chipewyan 201F T103 Chipewyan 201G T102 T101 2888 T100 Marguerite River Wildland Provincial Park T99 1661 850 Birch Mountains T98 Wildland Provincial Namur River Park 174A 33 2215 T97 94 2137 1716 T96 1060 Fort McKay 174C Namur Lake 174B 2457 239 1714 T95 21 400 965 2172 T94 ! Fort McKay 174D 1027 Fort McKay Marguerite River 2006 Wildland Provincial 879 T93 771 Park 772 2718 2926 2214 2925 T92 587 2297 2894 T91 T90 274 Whitemud Falls T89 65 !Fort McMurray Wildland Provincial Park T88 Clearwater 175 Clearwater River T87Traditional Land Provincial Park Fort McKay First Nation Gregoire Lake Provincial Park T86 Registered Fur Grand Rapids Anzac Management Area (RFMA) Wildland Provincial ! Gipsy Lake Wildland Park Provincial Park T85 Traditional Land Use Regional Study Area Gregoire Lake 176, T84 176A & 176B Traditional Land Use Local Study Area T83 ST63 ! Municipality T82 Highway Stony Mountain Township Wildland Provincial T81 Park Watercourse T80 Waterbody Cowper Lake 194A I.R. Janvier 194 T79 Wabasca 166 Provincial Park T78 National Park 0 15 30 45 T77 KILOMETRES 1:1,500,000 UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 T76 Date: 20110815 Author: CES Checked: DC File ID: 123510543-097 (Original page size: 8.5X11) Acknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Territories Territoires Du Nord-Ouest British Columbia
    122° 121° 120° 119° 118° 117° 116° 115° 114° 113° 112° 111° 110° 109° n a Northwest Territories i d i Cr r eighton L. T e 126 erritoires du Nord-Oues Th t M urston L. h t n r a i u d o i Bea F tty L. r Hi l l s e on n 60° M 12 6 a r Bistcho Lake e i 12 h Thabach 4 d a Tsu Tue 196G t m a i 126 x r K'I Tue 196D i C Nare 196A e S )*+,-35 125 Charles M s Andre 123 e w Lake 225 e k Jack h Li Deze 196C f k is a Lake h Point 214 t 125 L a f r i L d e s v F Thebathi 196 n i 1 e B 24 l istcho R a l r 2 y e a a Tthe Jere Gh L Lake 2 2 aili 196B h 13 H . 124 1 C Tsu K'Adhe L s t Snake L. t Tue 196F o St.Agnes L. P 1 121 2 Tultue Lake Hokedhe Tue 196E 3 Conibear L. Collin Cornwall L 0 ll Lake 223 2 Lake 224 a 122 1 w n r o C 119 Robertson L. Colin Lake 121 59° 120 30th Mountains r Bas Caribou e e L 118 v ine i 120 R e v Burstall L. a 119 l Mer S 117 ryweather L. 119 Wood A 118 Buffalo Na Wylie L. m tional b e 116 Up P 118 r per Hay R ark of R iver 212 Canada iv e r Meander 117 5 River Amber Rive 1 Peace r 211 1 Point 222 117 M Wentzel L.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges and Benefits of Approaches Used to Integrate Regional Monitoring Programs
    POLICY AND PRACTICE REVIEWS published: 07 July 2021 doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.666698 Challenges and Benefits of Approaches Used to Integrate Regional Monitoring Programs T. J. Arciszewski 1*, D. R. Roberts 1, K. R. Munkittrick 2 and G. J. Scrimgeour 3 1Resource Stewardship Division, Alberta Environment and Parks, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 3Office of the Chief Scientist, Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton, AB, Canada Although challenging to develop and operate, some degree of integrated monitoring is often necessary, especially at regional scales, to address the complex questions of environmental management and regulation. The concept of integration is well- understood, but its practice across programs and studies can be diverse suggesting a broader examination of the existing general approaches is needed. From the literature, we suggest integration of monitoring can occur across three study components: interpretation, analysis, and design. Design can be further subdivided into partial and full integration. Respectively combining information, data, and designs, we further define these types of integration and describe their general benefits and challenges, such as Edited by: Juergen Pilz, strength of inference. We further use the Oil Sands Monitoring program in northern Alberta University of Klagenfurt, Austria as an example to clarify the practices common among integrated monitoring programs. Reviewed by: The goal of the discussion paper is to familiarize readers with the diverse practices of Costica Nitu, fi Politehnica University of Bucharest, integrated monitoring to further clarify the various con gurations used to achieve the wider Romania goals of a program. Paul Makar, Environment and Climate Change Keywords: environmental monitoring, integrated monitoring, oil sands, regional monitoring program, environmental Canada, Canada managemenent *Correspondence: T.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 18.0 – Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Table of Contents
    Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis In Situ Project Volume 2 – Environmental Impact Assessment February 2018 SECTION 18.0 – SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 18.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...........................................................18 -1 18.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................18 -1 18.2 Study Area ......................................................................................................18 -1 18.2.1 Temporal Boundary ..........................................................................18 -1 18.2.2 Spatial Boundary ..............................................................................18 -1 18.3 Assessment Approach ....................................................................................18 -3 18.3.1 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................18 -3 18.3.2 Socio-economic Issues Identification ................................................18 -3 18.3.3 Valued Socio-Economic Components and Key Indicators ................ 18-3 18.3.4 Assessment Cases ...........................................................................18 -4 18.3.5 Assessment Criteria .........................................................................18 -5 18.3.6 Constraints Planning ........................................................................18 -6 18.4 Methods ..........................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Zone a – Prescribed Northern Zones / Zones Nordiques Visées Par Règlement Place Names Followed by Numbers Are Indian Reserves
    Northern Residents Deductions – Places in Prescribed Zones / Déductions pour les habitants de régions éloignées – Endroits situés dans les zones visées par règlement Zone A – Prescribed northern zones / Zones nordiques visées par règlement Place names followed by numbers are Indian reserves. If you live in a place that is not listed in this publication and you think it is in a prescribed zone, contact us. / Les noms suivis de chiffres sont des réserves indiennes. Communiquez avec nous si l’endroit où vous habitez ne figure pas dans cette publication et que vous croyez qu’il se situe dans une zone visée par règlement. Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories / Yukon, Nunavut et Territoires du Nord-Ouest All places in the Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories are located in a prescribed northern zone. / Tous les endroits situés dans le Yukon, le Nunavut et les Territoires du Nord-Ouest se trouvent dans des zones nordiques visées par règlement. British Columbia / Colombie-Britannique Andy Bailey Recreation Good Hope Lake Nelson Forks Tahltan Liard River 3 Area Gutah New Polaris Mine Taku McDames Creek 2 Atlin Hyland Post Niteal Taku River McDonald Lake 1 Atlin Park Hyland Ranch Old Fort Nelson Tamarack Mosquito Creek 5 Atlin Recreation Area Hyland River Park Pavey Tarahne Park Muddy River 1 Bear Camp Iskut Pennington Telegraph Creek One Mile Point 1 Ben-My-Chree Jacksons Pleasant Camp Tetsa River Park Prophet River 4 Bennett Kahntah Porter Landing Toad River Salmon Creek 3 Boulder City Kledo Creek Park Prophet River Trutch Silver
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta, 2021 Province of Canada
    Quickworld Entity Report Alberta, 2021 Province of Canada Quickworld Factoid Name : Alberta Status : Province of Canada Active : 1 Sept. 1905 - Present Capital : Edmonton Country : Canada Official Languages : English Population : 3,645,257 - Permanent Population (Canada Official Census - 2011) Land Area : 646,500 sq km - 249,800 sq mi Density : 5.6/sq km - 14.6/sq mi Names Name : Alberta ISO 3166-2 : CA-AB FIPS Code : CA01 Administrative Subdivisions Census Divisions (19) Division No. 11 Division No. 12 Division No. 13 Division No. 14 Division No. 15 Division No. 16 Division No. 17 Division No. 18 Division No. 19 Division No. 1 Division No. 2 Division No. 3 Division No. 4 Division No. 5 Division No. 6 Division No. 7 Division No. 8 Division No. 9 Division No. 10 Towns (110) Athabasca Banff Barrhead Bashaw Bassano Beaumont Beaverlodge Bentley Black Diamond Blackfalds Bon Accord Bonnyville Bow Island Bowden Brooks Bruderheim Calmar Canmore Cardston Carstairs Castor Chestermere Claresholm Coaldale Coalhurst Cochrane Coronation Crossfield Crowsnest Pass Daysland Devon Didsbury Drayton Valley Drumheller Eckville Edson Elk Point Fairview Falher © 2019 Quickworld Inc. Page 1 of 3 Quickworld Inc assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this document. The information contained in this document is provided on an "as is" basis with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness. Quickworld Entity Report Alberta, 2021 Province of Canada Fort MacLeod Fox Creek Gibbons Grande Cache Granum Grimshaw Hanna Hardisty High Level High Prairie High River Hinton Innisfail Killam Lac la Biche Lacombe Lamont Legal Magrath Manning Mayerthorpe McLennan Milk River Millet Morinville Mundare Nanton Okotoks Olds Oyen Peace River Penhold Picture Butte Pincher Creek Ponoka Provost Rainbow Lake Raymond Redcliff Redwater Rimbey Rocky Mountain House Sedgewick Sexsmith Slave Lake Smoky Lake Spirit River St.
    [Show full text]
  • Metis Settlements and First Nations in Alberta Community Profiles
    For additional copies of the Community Profiles, please contact: Indigenous Relations First Nations and Metis Relations 10155 – 102 Street NW Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4G8 Phone: 780-644-4989 Fax: 780-415-9548 Website: www.indigenous.alberta.ca To call toll-free from anywhere in Alberta, dial 310-0000. To request that an organization be added or deleted or to update information, please fill out the Guide Update Form included in the publication and send it to Indigenous Relations. You may also complete and submit this form online. Go to www.indigenous.alberta.ca and look under Resources for the correct link. This publication is also available online as a PDF document at www.indigenous.alberta.ca. The Resources section of the website also provides links to the other Ministry publications. ISBN 978-0-7785-9870-7 PRINT ISBN 978-0-7785-9871-8 WEB ISSN 1925-5195 PRINT ISSN 1925-5209 WEB Introductory Note The Metis Settlements and First Nations in Alberta: Community Profiles provide a general overview of the eight Metis Settlements and 48 First Nations in Alberta. Included is information on population, land base, location and community contacts as well as Quick Facts on Metis Settlements and First Nations. The Community Profiles are compiled and published by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations to enhance awareness and strengthen relationships with Indigenous people and their communities. Readers who are interested in learning more about a specific community are encouraged to contact the community directly for more detailed information. Many communities have websites that provide relevant historical information and other background.
    [Show full text]
  • TREATY 8 FIRST NATIONS of ALBERTA to Protect, Promote, Bring to Life, Implement and Sustain the True Spirit and Intent of Treaty No
    ACFN Advice to Alberta Regarding LARP November 22, 2010 Appendix 1: October 19, 2010 Joint Submission of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation, Mikisew Cree First Nation Regarding Comments on the Lower Athabasca Regional Advisory Council’s Advice to the Government of Alberta Regarding a Vision for the Lower Athabasca Region Appendix 1 Joint Submission of ACFN, CPFN and MCFN on the RAC Vision A1-1 Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Mikisew Cree First Nation Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation Industry Relations Corporation Government and Industry Relations Industry Relations Corporation 110B -9816 Hardin Street Suite 208, 9715 Main Street Suite 205, 10020 Franklin Avenue Fort McMurray, AB T9H 4K3 Fort McMurray, AB T9H 1T5 Fort McMurray, AB T9H 2K6 October 19, 2010 Dave Bartesko Land Use Secretariat 9th Floor, 10035‐108 Street Centre West Building Edmonton, AB T5K 2G8 [email protected] Dear Mr. Bartesko: Re: Comments on the Lower Athabasca Regional Advisory Council’s Advice to the Government of Alberta Regarding a Vision for the Lower Athabasca Region (“the RAC Document”) This letter sets out some of the Mikisew Cree First Nation, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Chipewyan Prairie Dene First NNation’s (“First Nations”) comments on the RAC Document and Cabinet’s powers in respect of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (“LARP”). We have also attached an appendix to this letter which provides a chart showing all of the references to “aboriginal peoples” in the RAC Document, the RAC vision for each item, and the problems with the vision. Please note that the First Nations will be providing additional information to the Government of Alberta, including their respective visions for the LARP, on or before November 11, 2010, as per Melody Lepine’s discussion with Dave Bartesko on October 15, 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Download/2014-Ghg-Emissions-From-Oil-Sands-Tailings-Ponds-Overview- And-Modelling-Based-On-Fermentable-Sub.Pdf (Accessed on 14 May 2021)
    minerals Review Geochemical Stability of Oil Sands Tailings in Mine Closure Landforms Heidi L. Cossey 1, Anya E. Batycky 1 , Heather Kaminsky 2 and Ania C. Ulrich 1,* 1 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, Canada; [email protected] (H.L.C.); [email protected] (A.E.B.) 2 Centre for Oil Sands Sustainability, Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT), Edmonton, AB T5G 0Y2, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-780-492-8293 Abstract: Oil sands surface mining in Alberta has generated over a billion cubic metres of waste, known as tailings, consisting of sands, silts, clays, and process-affected water that contains toxic organic compounds and chemical constituents. All of these tailings will eventually be reclaimed and integrated into one of two types of mine closure landforms: end pit lakes (EPLs) or terrestrial landforms with a wetland feature. In EPLs, tailings deposits are capped with several metres of water while in terrestrial landforms, tailings are capped with solid materials, such as sand or overburden. Because tailings landforms are relatively new, past research has heavily focused on the geotechnical and biogeochemical characteristics of tailings in temporary storage ponds, referred to as tailings ponds. As such, the geochemical stability of tailings landforms remains largely unknown. This review discusses five mechanisms of geochemical change expected in tailings landforms: consolidation, chemical mass loading via pore water fluxes, biogeochemical cycling, polymer degradation, and surface water and groundwater interactions. Key considerations and knowledge gaps with regard Citation: Cossey, H.L.; Batycky, A.E.; Kaminsky, H.; Ulrich, A.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012 - 2022
    Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012 - 2022 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Land-use Planning in Alberta ................................................................................................................... 3 Informing Land-use Decisions ................................................................................................................. 5 Plan Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Regulatory Details Plan Part 1 General ....................................................................................... 7 Strategic Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 13 The Region Today .................................................................................................................................... 14 Economic Development .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Cold Lake MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN January 2021 | Draft
    City of Cold Lake MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN January 2021 | Draft En Table of Contents Part 1: Current Reality and Aspirations 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Plan Purpose 1 1.2 Interpretation 1 1.3 Enactment 2 1.4 Duration 2 1.5 Preparing the Municipal Development Plan 2 1.6 Structure of the Plan 3 2.0 Community Profile ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Location 4 2.2 Population and Land Supply 4 2.3 Infrastructure 6 3.0 Engagement Summary and Community Capabilities ................................................... 9 3.1 Challenges 10 3.2 Strengths and Assets 11 3.3 Opportunities 11 4.0 Vision and Guiding Principles ..................................................................................... 13 4.1 Vision 13 4.2 Guiding Principles 13 4.3 Big Moves 15 Part 2: Policy Framework 5.0 Land Use Development .............................................................................................. 17 5.1 Introduction 17 5.2 Land Use Concept 17 5.3 City Form 19 5.4 Nodes 20 5.5 Growth Management Strategy 20 5.6 Statutory Plans and Development Instruments 22 5.7 Residential Neighbourhood Design 23 5.8 Commercial Area Design 28 5.9 Industrial Area Design 29 5.10 Lakeshore Area Design and Development 30 5.11 Downtown Area Design and Development 32 5.12 Institutional and Civic Uses and Facilities 35 5.13 Parks and Open Spaces 36 5.14 Urban Design 38 6.0
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts, Benefits, and Participatory Processes Around the Oil Sands Industry in Northern Alberta
    Taking Research Off the Shelf: Impacts, Benefits, and Participatory Processes around the Oil Sands Industry in Northern Alberta Final Report for the SSHRC Imagining Canada’s Future Initiative, Knowledge Synthesis Grants: Aboriginal Peoples September 11, 2017 Tara L. Joly, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Archaeology & Anthropology and School of Environment & Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK [email protected] Clinton N. Westman, Associate Professor (Environmental Anthropologist), Department of Archaeology & Anthropology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK [email protected] Acknowledgements: For their guidance, the authors thank our research partners who contribute to the Cultural Politics of Energy partnership, including Bigstone Cree Nation, Kee Tas Kee Now Tribal Council, Keepers of the Athabasca, Loon River Cree First Nation, Lubicon Lake Nation, the McMurray Métis, Mikisew Cree First Nation, Peerless Trout First Nation, and Woodland Cree First Nation. We extend our gratitude to library and archival support provided at the University of Alberta, the Government of Alberta library, Athabasca University, and the University of Calgary. Thanks to Josie Auger, Melanie Dene, Marley Duckett, Patricia McCormack, Jacinthe Messier, Mary Richardson, Glenn Stuart, Jim Waldram, and Katherine Wheatley who provided thoughtful comments on drafts of this report. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada through a Knowledge Synthesis Grant (KSG) and a Partnership Development Grant (PDG) held by Westman. We also acknowledge intellectual contributions from collaborators on the PDG, particularly co- applicants Colin Scott and Dwight Newman. Finally, we are all grateful to have been guided by Elders in prayer and ceremony during this knowledge mobilization process. i Key Messages • Social science (i.e., research, assessment, and monitoring on social impacts) in the oil sands region has been woefully inadequate, even as the region has undergone transformational change.
    [Show full text]