Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

14 Assessment of Effects on Land Use

The Project will affect land use, therefore land use is considered a VEC. This section includes elements of municipal and provincial interests, industrial and commercial interests, protected areas, transportation and recreational land use.

14.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

14.1.1 Temporal Boundaries for Land Use The temporal boundaries used for the assessment include:  Baseline;  Construction; and  Operations.

14.1.2 Spatial Boundaries for Land Use The PDA is the project footprint, encompassing the 32 m standard construction RoW, as well as the ancillary infrastructure (pump stations, terminal). The LAA is the area over which the effects of the Project could be measured. For land use, the LAA includes the project footprint and a 500-m buffer on either side of the RoW. The RAA is 30 km wide, centred on the RoW. The RAA reflects the general project setting and land use that could be indirectly affected by the Project, or cumulatively affected as a result of pressures over and above that found in the LAA.

14.1.3 Administrative and Technical Boundaries for Land Use Technical boundaries define various aspects of land use, as determined by political, social, cultural, and economic factors. Government departments and agencies administer land use in the RAA. The Project crosses six municipal districts in Alberta and nine rural municipalities in Saskatchewan. Municipal administration has a more direct role in governing land use than provincial or federal jurisdictions, as municipal plans and zoning laws prescribe the types of development that can take place. Federal jurisdiction is relevant for the portion of the Project in PFRA lands. Section 112 of the NEB Act specifies requirements for crossing of an NEB regulated pipeline. Section 112(1) requires leave from NEB to construct a facility across, on, along or under a pipeline or excavate using power-operated equipment or explosives within 30 m of a pipeline. Additionally Section 112(2) requires permission from the company to operate a vehicle or mobile equipment across a pipeline unless the vehicle or mobile equipment is operated within the travelled portion of a highway or public road. The National Energy Board Pipeline Crossing Regulations Part I require permission from a pipeline company if activities go below 30 cm in depth. These restrictions are in place to provide public safety and ensure integrity of the pipeline sytem. They affect what another oil and gas operator or landowner can do within the 30 m control zone. Normally, a landowner or occupant must provide notice to the RoW holder when they are proposing to undertake activities over or across the RoW and must gain permission to undertake those activities on that RoW.

Page 14-1 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

14.2 Scope of Assessment for Land Use

14.2.1 Regulatory Setting The Project is subject to the regulatory requirements under the NEBA. For requirements related to land use, see the NEB Filing manual, Table A-4.

14.2.2 Key Issues and Interactions for Land Use Potential Project interactions with land use are described in Section 7 and summarized below (see Table 7-1 and Table 14-1). During construction, the Project will affect existing land uses, including agriculture (cultivation and livestock grazing) and industrial activities near the Project. Permanent above ground ancillary facilities such as the Hardisty B Terminal, pump stations, and mainline valves will permanently change existing land uses at those specific locations.

Table 14-1 Potential Interaction of the Project with Land Use

Project Description Reference for Project Activities/Physical Works Activity Rating Construction and Commissioning Pipeline construction (clearing, top-soil stripping, Pipeline construction has the potential to 1 grading, trenching, watercourse crossings, adversely affect land use. stringing pipe, welding, lowering in, backfilling, hydrostatic testing, mainline valve instalation, cleanup and final reclamation). Hardisty B Terminal construction (clearing, top-soil Construction of the Hardisty B Terminal 1 stripping, grading, road construction, piling, has the potential to adversely affect land infrastructure, commissioning, cleanup and interim use. reclamation). Construction of pump stations (clearing, top-soil Construction of the pump stations has 1 stripping, grading, road construction, piling, the potential to adversely affect land use. infrastructure, commissioning, cleanup and interim reclamation). Operations Operation and maintenance of the Hardisty B Operation and maintenance of the 0 Terminal Hardisty B Terminal has the potential to adversely affect land use. Operation and maintenance of the pump stations Operation and maintenance of the pump 0 stations has the potential to adversely affect land use. Operation and maintenance of the pipeline Operation and maintenance of the 1 pipeline have the potential to adversely affect land use. Accidents, malfunctions and Unplanned Events1 Decommissioning and Abandonment2

February 2009 Page 14-2 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Table 14-1 Potential Interaction of the Project with Land Use (cont’d)

Project Description Reference for Project Activities/Physical Works Activity Rating Interaction with Other Physical Works and  Activities (see Project Inclusion List in Appendix B) NOTES: 0 = No interaction 1 = Either:  interaction occurs; however, based on past experience and professional judgement, the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even without mitigation  interaction would not be significant because of application of codified environmental protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects 2 = Interaction could result in an environmental effect of concern, even with mitigation. The potential environmental effects are considered further in the environmental assessment.  = Indicates cumulative environmental effects potential, which is the potential to interact with project environmental effects. Cumulative effects are ranked in the project effects matrix included in Section 7. 1 Accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events are assessed separate from the routine project effects assessment (see Section 21). 2 If decommissioning of the Project is required at some point in the future, and if that activity is not exempted from prior Board approval under the Decommissioning Exemption Order (XG/XO-100-2008), an application, pursuant to Section 44 of the OPR will be required. Likewise, if abandonment of the project facility is proposed in the future, an application will be required under Section 74 of the NEB Act.

14.2.2.1 Construction The primary land uses along the Project are agriculture, oil and gas and other industrial activities, and recreational activities. Construction might affect land use by temporarily restricting access to the land. These effects might last for the period of construction. All construction activities were ranked 1, indicating that Project interactions are not expected to result in residual effects to land use. Standard industry practices (i.e. crossing agreements, vehicle and farm livestock crossing ramps, and compensation) will mitigate any potential project effects, therefore there are no significant adverse effects. The potential direct and indirect effects on these land uses during the construction phase include:  temporary loss of land use within the PDA for agricultural crop production during pipeline construction;  temporary loss of land use within the PDA for cattle grazing until the re-establishment of vegetation along the pipeline RoW;  temporary loss of recreational land use within the PDA during pipeline construction;  potential overlap of construction activities with other adjacent industrial / oil and gas activities within the LAA;  permanent loss of land use for industrial or oil and gas activities within the PDA; and  permanent loss of land use within the PDA at all above ground ancillary facility sites (block valves, pump stations and the Hardisty B Terminal.

Page 14-3 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Agricultural Land Use Construction activities scheduled for late summer/fall will coincide with seasonal farming operations and will temporarily limit or prevent use of lands within the PDA, which might interfere with farming operations such as seeding and crop harvesting. Construction of the pipeline might require livestock to be moved and could otherwise restrict the movement of livestock. Facilty sites (pump stations, valve sites, Hardisty B Terminal) will be removed from agricultural operations but landowners are compensated through purchase or acquisition of easements.

Oil and Gas and other industrial Activities Project pipeline construction activities might affect other oil and gas activities. However, standard industry practices such road use and crossing agreements will be used to prevent Project construction activities from interfering with the operation of other oil and gas activities. It is possible that access to or use of the PDA might be impeded, and there might be conflicts with planned activities by other oil and gas tenure holders. Increased traffic resulting from the Project, in combination with adjacent industrial developments, might increase road congestion.

Recreational Activities Depending on the construction schedule, some construction activities might coincide with hunting season. Consequently there might be fewer opportunities for hunters near the pipeline RoW; however, this disruption will be temporary (only during the construction phase). The Project crosses watercourses and might temporarily disrupt angling and boating activities. However, any potential effects are associated only with the PDA, will be temporary and will not affect use of other watercourses within the LAA. If watercourses are used for boating, portages will be provided around the crossing location. Boating is most likely associated with the Red Deer and South Saskatchewan Rivers. These two crossings are planned as an HDD, therefore any disruptions will not affect recreational boaters.

14.2.2.2 Operations Operational activities along the pipeline RoW are associated primarily with routine maintenance, the integrity management program, vegetation management activities, and potentially responding to accidents or malfunctions (i.e., a leak or spill). Landowners and occupants will be advised of any opertion and maintenance activity to minimize interference with farmng operations. Facility sites (pump stations, valve sites, Hardisty B Terminal) will be removed from agricultural operations but landowners are compensated through purchase or acquisition of easements. As such, interactions between operational and maintenance activities and land use are ranked 1. Operations are not expected to cause residual effects on land use; however, should any effects occur, they can be mitigated though standard industry practices. A full environmental assessment was therefore not conducted for land use.

Agricultural Land Use Operational activities will be minimal, as the land will be reclaimed to an equivalent land capability following completion of construction.

February 2009 Page 14-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Oil and Gas and other industrial Activities Operational activities will be minimal and are expected to have little effect on adjacent oil and gas or other industrial activities. Standard industry best management practices will ensure the Project does not affect oil and gas activities during operation. The following sections outline potential Project effects on land-use, and best management practices currently used by this industry to prevent Project effects.

14.2.3 Standard Mitigation for Land Use

Agriculture It is recommended the following mitigation measures be used to eliminate effects of the Project on agricultural land use. Further details of mitigation are contained in the Environmental Protection Plan (see Appendix A).  Consult landowners and occupants to define agricultural management practices;  Provide trench plugs and gaps in the windrowed soil storage and pipe string along the RoW to facilitate movement of livestock and farm machinery across the RoW; and  Utilize temporary fencing along the RoW, where required, to assist landowners in maximizing grazing use on lands adjacent to the pipeline construction RoW.

Oil and Gas and other Industrial Activities To minimize effects on oil and gas and other industrial activities, it is recommended that the Company:  use One Call services in each province to identify foreign lines;  use crossing agreements with existing oil and gas tenure holders;  use existing access roads and RoWs, where practical; and  open lines of communication with industry Stakeholders to inform them of the Project well in advance of construction.

Recreational Activities To minimize effects on recreational activities, it is recommended that the Company:  schedule construction outside designated user periods where practical to minimize interference with recreational sites; and  use trenchless or isolated trench crossing techniques in important fisheries watercourses to minimize disruption to fish species and fishing potential.

14.3 Baseline

14.3.1 Methods Portions of the PDA have undergone previous land use assessments associated with other developments, including the TransCanada Flat Lake Lateral Pipeline, the existing Keystone Pipeline project and the existing Foothills Pipeline. Land use information for some of these projects is dated and does not encompass the entire length of the Project. These issues required the Company to complete its own land use study for the Project.

Page 14-5 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Baseline information was collected by reviewing previous assessments, studies and reports, and by researching current land uses. Information sources include:  previous assessment reports for projects in the same region;  existing relevant literature, such as government publications, land use surveys, regional studies, resource management plans, and land use plans;  government databases (e.g., Land Status Automated System) and digital data sets;  websites for government and non-government agencies and organizations; and  personal communications with land users and government agency representatives. Field surveys were not undertaken specifically for land use; however, information gathered in other discipline surveys (i.e., vegetation and wetlands) was considered in the land use assessment.

14.4 Land Uses

14.4.1 Land Ownership

14.4.1.1 Federal Land The Project intersects three PFRA Community Pastures in Saskatchewan – Big Stick, Masefield and Val Marie (see Figure 14-1). PFRA pastures were established in the 1930s to conserve prairie soil, reclaim poor quality cultivated lands and return badly eroded areas to native grassland. The primary use is cattle grazing (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2008, Internet Site).

14.4.1.2 Provincial and Freehold

Alberta About 58% of the Project within Alberta is situated on freehold land; 42% is provincial crown land (of which 6% is held by ASRD; and 36% by Special Areas) (see Table 14-2). The Province of Alberta controls all surface and mineral rights on public lands. Authority to use public land is granted by ASRD through dispositions issued under the Public Lands Act. The Project intersects Special Areas 2, 3 and 4. Special Areas were formed in 1938 under the Special Areas Act and are located in the southeastern portion of Alberta. Special Areas lands consist primarily of sparsely populated, semi-arid, undulating terrain. The Special Areas Act enables the Special Areas Board to manage rangeland, farmland and general land use of these areas.

Table 14-2 Land Ownership Percentages

Jurisdiction Alberta Saskatchewan Private (Freehold) 58% 68% Provincial (Crown) Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 6% Special Areas 36% Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food 25% Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA Lands): Saskatchewan Government 4% Federal Government 3%

February 2009 Page 14-6 Sedgewick MANITOU LAKE Cut Knife BATTLE RIVER Camp Wainwright 40 Killam Battleford Killam Sedgewick Military Reserve Sweetgrass Hardisty I.R. #6 Hardisty Redberry MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF WAINWRIGHT NO. 61 Lake

iver LAIRD R Grizzly Bear's Head MAYFIELD tle I.R. #6 at B Dillberry Lake 16 Red Pheasant Provincial Park Mosquito I.R. #6 GREAT BEND Hardisty B SENLAC ROUND VALLEY BUFFALO I.R. #6 Pump Station MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF PROVOST NO. 52 Radisson FLAGSTAFF COUNTY Langham Lakesend East Wilkie Unity Dalmeny Pump Station GLENSIDE Warman

Scott Martensville Provost Macklin TRAMPING LAKE reek e C Provost EAGLE CREEK n to REFORD s GRASS LAKE ROSEMOUNT CORMAN PARK ib EYE HILL Castor R Asquith SASKATO ON Sounding COUNTY OF PAINTEARTH NO. 18 Lake

Luseland Biggar Coronation Coronation BIGGAR PERDUE VANSCOY GRANDVIEW MARIPOSA HEART'S HILL PROGRESS 12 Delisle ek SPECIAL AREA NO. 4 e Kerrobert r Kirkpatric C r Lake ito Grassy on M Island Lake Currant Lake MONTROSE Monitor South Misty HARRIS Lake MOUNTAIN VIEW MARRIOTT ANTELOPE PARK PRAIRIEDALE OAKDALE WINSLOW Goose Pump Station eek Lake Cr le Loverna ag Loverna E Zealandia

Hanna

S Kiyiu Lake Rosetown ou k RUDY nding Cree Outlook PLEASANT VALLEY ST. ANDREWS MILTON KINDERSLEY Kindersley MILDEN FERTILE VALLEY

Oyen 9 Oyen Danielson SPECIAL AREA NO. 3 Provincial Park

Oyen South Eatonia Elrose Pump Station SPECIAL AREA NO. 2 MONET NEWCOMBE COTEAU SNIPE LAKE KING GEORGE CHESTERFIELD Eston

MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF ACADIA NO. 34

wan Riv er he tc S ka ou th S as CANAAN Leader LACADENA R VICTORY ed Deer River Kyle Lake Diefenbaker Dinosaur Provincial Park CLINWORTH SASKATCHEWAN LANDING SPECIAL AREA NO. 2 Saskatchewan Landing Bindloss South HAPPYLAND MIRY CREEK Provincial Park Pump Station DEER FORKS Burstall McNeil r Cabri e iv R an Brooks w C.F.B. Suffield he Tide Lake tc MORSE a k s EXCELSIOR a RIVERSIDE S

ASKA AN WA E H C AT K S SA h Herbert Morse t

u FOX VALLEY

o

COUNTY OF NEWELL NO. 4 S Fox Valley PITTVILLE 1 Reed Lake Pump Station

1

ALBERTA SWIFT CURRENT Bigstick SWIFT CURRENT Lake Big Stick Antelope Lake LAWTONIA ENTERPRISE COULEE GULL LAKE BIG STICK Crane Lake Swift Current Creek CYPRESS COUNTY Gull Lake WEBB Redcliff Redcliff Many Island Lake MEDICINE HAT Bitter Lake 1 Medicine Hat PIAPOT Piapot 1 Irvine Pump Station GLEN BAIN LAC PELLETIER WHISKA CREEK Irvine CARMICHAEL Bow Island Bow Island Maple Creek MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF TABER BONE CREEK Nekaneet Ponteix I.R. #4 Nekaneet MAPLE CREEK I.R. #4

Cypress Hills PINTO CREEK Cypress Hills Provincial Park WISE CREEK AUVERGNE Provincial Park ARLINGTON Shaunavon F Grassy Creek o r t Pump Station y M ile Co lee u Nekaneet GRASSY CREEK I.R. #4 Eastend Val Marie Frenchman River COUNTYKeystone OF FORTY XL Pump MILE NO. Station 8 WHITE VALLEY Cypress Pakowki Lake GLEN MCPHERSON Keystone XL PipelineLake

PFRA Community Pasture MANKOTA VAL MARIE Muncipalities RENO

Masfield LONE TREE 0 20 40 60 FRONTIER Writing-On-Stone COUNTY OF WARNER NO. 5 GrasslandsMonchy National Park Provincial Park Kilometers - 1:2,000,000

JW-1028274-144-000 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PREPARED BY

NT TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. n

MB o

AB SK PREPARED FOR pmcphers Area : of

Interest Keystone XL Municipalities Map 2008By

11, Nov.

BC FIGURE NO. Modified:

USA Acknowledgements: Cimarron Engineering Ltd; Base Data provided by the Government of Saskatchewan t as

14-1 L USA Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Saskatchewan Provincial crown land makes up 19% (49 km) of the length of the Project within Saskatchewan (see Table 14-2). The remaining portions are comprised of 78% (202 km) freehold land and 3% (8 km) federal government (PFRA land). The Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (SMA) has jurisdiction over crown agricultural lands under The Provincial Lands Act.

Municipalities The Project crosses the municipal boundaries of six municipal Districts, Counties, and Special Areas in Alberta and nine Rural Municipalities in Saskatchewan (see Figure 14-1). For a list of these boundaries, along with the main municipal land use plans and applicable bylaws, see Table 14-3. For the socio- economic assessment of this Project, and more detailed discussions about municipal interests and influences, see Section 17.

Table 14-3 Municipalities’ Land Use Plans and Bylaws

Zoning Bylaw/Other Municipality Province Land Use Policies/Plans Bylaws Flagstaff County Alberta Flagstaff County mDP Flagstaff County Land Use Bylaw Cypress County Alberta Cypress County mDP Cypress County Land Use Bylaw Municipal District of Alberta MD of Provost mDP MD of Provost Land Provost No. 52 Use Bylaw Special Area No. 4 Alberta Operational and land Provisions of the use management policies Special Areas Land established by the Special Areas Use Order Board for special areas Special Area No. 3 Alberta Operational and land Provisions of the use management policies Special Areas Land established by the Special Areas Use Order Board for special areas Special Area No. 2 Alberta Operational and land Provisions of the use management policies Special Areas Land established by the Special Areas Use Order Board for special areas Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan Exploration/Gas/Oil/Pipeline Field N/A Deer Forks No. 232 Development Policy Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan RM of Fox Valley Pipeline Field RM of Fox Valley Fox Valley No. 171 Development Policy Zoning Bylaw Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan N/A N/A Enterprise No. 142 Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan Exhibit A: Guidelines for Oil and N/A Big Stick No. 141 Gas Development Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan N/A RM of Piapot Zoning Piapot No. 110 Bylaw Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan N/A RM of Carmichael Carmichael No. 109 Zoning Bylaw

February 2009 Page 14-8 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Table 14-3 Municipalities’ Land Use Plans and Bylaws (cont’d)

Zoning Bylaw/Other Municipality Province Land Use Policies/Plans Bylaws Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan Policy 1-92 (A policy regarding Bylaw 334 (prohibits Arlington No. 79 buried oil flow lines, natural gas obstructions adjacent lines, power cables, or telephone to certain road cables across municipal road allowances) allowances) Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan N/A RM of Grassy Creek Grassy Creek No. 78 Zoning Bylaw Rural Municipality of Saskatchewan N/A RM of Valmarie Zoning Valmarie No. 17 Bylaw

14.4.2 Agriculture Agricultural production is the primary land use in the RAA. This includes cropland, tame pasture, and native prairie. Alberta has a total of 53,652 farms and Saskatchewan has a total of 50,598 farms (Statistics Canada 2006, Internet Site). Cultivation is limited by generally arid conditions and frequent drought. Few lands crossed by the Project are irrigated. Extensive areas of native prairie remain and are managed primarily for cattle grazing. There are several large unfenced parcels in southern Alberta near Oyen, as well as in the Big Stick, Val Marie and Masefield PFRA community pastures in Saskatchewan. The Project passes through the Sounding Creek Community Pasture in Special Area 3 and the Remount Community Pasture south of the Red Deer River. Community pasture areas, which consist of provincial grazing reserves and grazing associations, are typically native prairie areas whose main purpose is to provide summer pasture and supplemental grazing areas (ASRD 2006, Internet Site). The day-to-day care, handling and management of livestock and the forage resources on these community pasture areas, are the responsibility of the grazing association. Industrial activities in community pastures require approval from ASRD. Grazing leases are the most common type of public land disposition encountered along the Project, encompassing 8% of the length of the pipeline. For lists of surface activity dispositions, including grazing leases, with implications for mitigation for the entire length of the Project, see Table 14-4.

Table 14-4 Surface Dispositions along the Length of the Pipeline by Percentage of Total Length

Protective Notation 1.10% Consultative Notation 3.20% Grazing Lease 8.00% Farm Development Lease 1.50% Trapping Area 1.30% In Alberta, the main agricultural activities within the Municipal Districts traversed by the Project include grazing and the cultivation of grain, oilseed, and other field crops. Provost, Cypress, and Special Areas 2 and 4 are dominated by cattle and beef ranching; Flagstaff and Special Area 3 are dominated by grain based agriculture (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2001, Internet Site). This type of municipal district-based information is not available for Saskatchewan.

Page 14-9 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Specific to the route, in Alberta, the majority of land traversed is native range; in Saaskatchewan a lesser extent of native range and a greater extent of hay and tame pasture are traversed (see Table 14-5).

Table 14-5 Percentage of Pipeline Length per Land Use

Type Alberta Saskatchewan Native Range 56 40 Cultivated 30 30 Hay/Tame Pasture 7 27 Riparian 7 3

14.4.3 Oil and Gas and other industrial Activities Project is largely contiguous with other projects. It parallels existing pipelines for 476 km, or 91%, of the total proposed length, and has the potential to affect oil and gas or industrial activities. About 40 km of non-contiguous RoW will be located in Alberta. The remaining 9 km will be in Saskatchewan. The Keystone Pipeline project will have completed construction and will be parallel to the Project for about 145 km of the Alberta segment. See Section 4 for a description in greater detail of the pipelines with which the Project is contiguous.

14.4.4 Commercial and Industrial Development From northwest to southeast along the Project, there is limited commercial and industrial development. Most development is restricted to existing towns including the Town of Hardisty, the Village of Consort, the Town of Oyen, and the Town of Shaunavon. A large natural gas processing plant and piping industrial development complex, known as the Hardisty Complex, is located in portions of Sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 in Township 20 Range 1 W4M within Cypress County. The Project initiates at the Hardisty B Terminal within the Hardisty Complex. Other energy companies with pipelines or facilities in this complex include Spectra Energy, BP Canada Energy, Nova Gas Transmissions Ltd., Alberta Gas Trunkline Co., InterPipeline Extraction Ltd., Foothills Pipelines Alberta Ltd., Provident Energy Ltd., Gibson Energy, and ATCO Midstream Ltd.

14.4.5 Aggregates and Minerals There are two active and one inactive aggregate resource pits along the Project. All three are owned and operated by landowners. For legal land descriptions see Table 14-6.

Table 14-6 Aggregate Resource Pit Information

Legal Land Description Resource Status S1/2 20-042-08W4M Gravel Active N1/2 26-040-07W4M Gravel Active SW 25-40-07W4M Gravel Not currently active

February 2009 Page 14-10 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

14.4.6 Parks No federal parks fall within the LAA of the Project. However, the Project route traverses an area area about 3 kmwest of at the boundary to Grasslands National Park, near Val Marie, Sakatachewan. Activities within the Park include hiking, horseback riding, bird watching, nature photography and bicycling (Parks Canada 2000, Internet Site). Grasslands National Park is under Parks Canada’s jurisdiction. The Park is divided into two blocks, covering about 907 km2. Acquisition of Park properties occurs by willing- seller/willing-buyer protocol and has resulted in a patchwork of lands held privately and by Parks Canada. As of 1999, Parks Canada had acquired 49% of lands in the East Block and 55% of lands in the West Block. Ecologically, this park is an important protected area for the northern ranges of many mixed grassland wildlife species, such as the black tailed prairie dog, and represents mixed grasslands with rolling hills, coulees, and badlands. Most human use involves cattle ranching and dryland farming (Parks Canada 2000, Internet Site). The Project does not cross through any Provincial Parks; however the Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park, located in Saskatchewan, is located within the RAA. This park contains more than 700 species of plants, including lodgepole pine, that do not grow anywhere else in Saskatchewan. There are also more than 220 species of birds, making the Park a popular recreational bird watching destination (Government of Saskatchewan 2008a, Internet Site). There are a limited number of provincially designated recreational areas in close proximity to the Project. The Gooseberry Lake Provincial Park is within the RAA in Alberta. Recreational hunting and hiking typically occur in this area. Sandy Point Municipal Recreation Area is also located within the LAA in Alberta. Recreational activities which occur here include camping, fishing and boating (Cypress County Tourism 2008, Internet Site).

14.4.6.1 Environmentally Significant Areas and Conservation Areas The Project traverses 10 Environmentally Significant Areas within the LAA of Alberta (Sounding Dunes, Neutral Hills, Grassy Island Native Prairie, Muddy Buttes, Muddy Buttes Badlands, Sounding Creek Native Prairie, Alkali Creek Moraine, Red Deer River-Alkali Creek/Dune Point, Remount, and South Saskatchewan Canyon) (Sweetgrass Consultants Ltd. 1997). Environmentally Significant Areas are defined as areas that are vital to the long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, or other natural processes at a local and regional level. The Alberta government has not developed or implemented any management guidelines for operating procedures for any of the areas. Consequently, there are no rules to follow, and the proponent works with provincial regulatory agencies to develop suitable mitigation and management practices for any activities within an environmentally significant area. There is no equivalent system in Saskatchewan. There are three Important Bird Areas (IBAs) found within the LAA of the Project; Gooseberry Lake in Alberta as well as Bigstick Lake Plain and Grassland National Park in Saskatchewan. An IBA provides essential habitat for one or more species of breeding or non-breeding birds. These sites might contain threatened species, endemic species, species representative of a biome, or highly exceptional concentrations of birds. Sites use local conservation partnerships for the stewardship of the identified important avian habitat features of their area. Gooseberry Lake is a key staging area for migrating shore birds and has been used by the nationally endangered Piping Plover. Bigstick Lake Plain is a key staging area for migrating waterfowl and is important because of the large numbers that congregate here. About 16,000 waterfowl have used this area in their fall migration. Grassland National Park has IBA designation mainly because this area includes the habitat of just over 50% of the national endangered sage grouse population (IBA of Canada 2008, Internet Site). IBAs bring tourism to the sites and provide high quality recreational bird watching.

Page 14-11 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

In Saskatchewan, Wildlife Habitat Protection Areas comprise about 4% of the land for the entire length of the Project. These areas are designated for the protection of wildlife habitat by minimizing and controlling the disturbance to the ground while allowing for traditional uses such as grazing. These lands are administered by the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment. There is one Prairie National Wildlife Area (PNWA) found within the LAA in Saskatchewan (see Figures 14-2A to 14-2C). Project routing was adjusted to avoid crossing any PNWA areas (see Section 4). The management of PNWA lands is under the National Wildlife Area Regulations of the Canada Wildlife Act and Game Preserve Regulations under the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act on portions of Unit 13. Although the Project intersects the Great Sand Hills (see Figures 14-2A and 14-2B), it is more than 15 km away from the Great Sand Hills (GSH) Ecological Reserve core area. The GSH core area is a protected area and a rare ecosystem which contains three species that are listed as species at risk in the Wildlife Act, 1998 (Saskatchewan), two species that are protected under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) and are listed by COSEWIC, and 23 other species which are listed as species of concern by the Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre (CPAWS 2008, Internet Site). The RoW crosses the southwest corner of the GSH Review Area; which has been suggested by a Regional Environmental Study (2007) as an area of importance. These sections are not governed by regulatioins, but have been noted by the Regional Environmental Study (2007). This crossing takes place at two points. The first point is about 428 meters into the GSH Review Area and is about 213 m long. The second is about 2.3 km into the Review Area and is about 1.1 km long (see Figures 14-2A and 14-2B).

14.4.7 Managed Forest Areas There are no managed forest areas intersected by the Project.

14.4.8 Registered Hunting, Trapping and Guiding Trapping in Alberta is regulated by the provincial Wildlife Act. Legislation, regulations and standards guide the management of 15 furbearer species with harvest levels determined by species management strategies. There are eight Fur Management Zones (FMZ) and 1700 Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) in Alberta; a Trapline Agreement or a Registered Fur Management License allows trapline owners to harvest in one or more of the RFMAs (ASRD 2008a, Internet Site). Hunting in Alberta is regulated by the (Alberta) Wildlife Act and Wildlife Regulation, which is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Division of ASRD. Migratory bird hunting is managed by the Canadian Wildlife Service under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Alberta is divided into Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) for the management of wildlife, including the management of hunting. There are restrictions and seasons in each WMU for hunting white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, elk, black bear, male pheasants, sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, gray partridge and waterfowl (ASRD 2008b, Internet Site). In Saskatchewan, trapping is regulated by provincial Wildlife Management Zones (WMZ) for hunting and trapping. For the Project, the relevant area the South Saskatchewan Open Trapping Area. Eligible trappers holding a valid South Saskatchewan Fur License may trap anywhere in this area. These trapping licenses are not valid in National Parks or on First Nations land. In Saskatchewan, hunting is regulated by the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act and Wildlife Regulations, which is administered by the Ministry of Environment. There are restrictions and seasons in each Wildlife Management Zone (WMZ) for hunting. Community Pasture areas might have additional regulations and restrictions. For details on hunting and trapping areas the Project traverses, see Table 14-7.

February 2009 Page 14-12 TWP. 28

Danielson Oyen South Pump Station 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

Bindloss South TWP. 21 Saskatchewan Landing Pump Station Provincial Park

TWP. 20 Burstall Cabri

TWP. 19

TWP. 18 AKA HEAN EWA CH AT SASK Herbert Morse

1 TWP. 17 Fox Valley Reed Lake Pump Station

TWP. 16

ALBERTA Bigstick SWIFT CURRENT Lake TWP. 15 Antelope Lake

TWP. 14 Crane Lake Swift Current Creek Gull Lake Many Island Lake TWP. 13 Bitter Lake 1

TWP. 12 Piapot Irvine Pump Station

TWP. 11 Maple Creek

TWP. 10 Nekaneet Ponteix I.R. #4 Nekaneet I.R. #4

TWP. 9 Cypress Hills Provincial Park

TWP. 8 Shaunavon

TWP. 7 Nekaneet I.R. #4 EastendGrassy Creek PumpFrenchman Station River TWP. 6 Cypress Lake

TWP. 5

TWP. 4

KeystoneTWP. 3 XL Pump Station

Prairie National Wildlife Area TWP. 2 Grasslands National Park Keystone XL Pipeline

TWP. 1 Great Sand Hills

0 10 20 30 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Kilometers - 1:1,350,000

JW-1028274-145-000

PREPARED BY son

NT TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. her

cp

pm : :

MB PREPARED FOR By

SK 2008

AB 12, Area Great Sand Hills and Prairie National Wildlife Areas . of Nov Interest :

FIGURE NO.

odified

M

USA Acknowledgements: Cimaroon Engineering Ltd; Base Data provided by the Government of Saskatchewan 14-2A Last RGE. 27 RGE. 26 RGE. 25 RGE. 24 RGE. 23 ±

Fox Valley Pump Station ") TWP. 16

Unit 18" TWP. 15

Unit 17 "

" Unit 23

TWP. 14

TWP. 13

") Keystone XL Pump Station

" Prairie National Wildlife Areas TWP. 12 Great Sand Hills

Keystone XL Pipeline

0 2 4 6

Kilometers - 1:1,350,000

JW-1028274-150-000

n ")

PREPARED BY so NT

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. pher

c

pm : :

MB PREPARED FOR By

SK 2008

AB 14,

Area .

of Great Sand Hills and Prairie National Wildlife Areas Nov Interest :

FIGURE NO.

odified

M

USA Acknowledgements: Cimaroon Engineering Ltd; Base Data provided by the Government of Saskatchewan 14-2B Last

! Unit 15 Grasslands National Park

Unit 14

Unit 11 Unit 10

Keystone XL Pump Station

Prairie National Wildlife Areas

Keystone XL Pipeline

0 2 4 6

Kilometers - 1:1,350,000 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JW-1028274-147-000

PREPARED BY son

NT TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. her

cp

pm : :

MB PREPARED FOR By

SK 2008

AB 12,

Area .

of Prairie National Wildlife Areas Nov Interest :

FIGURE NO.

odified

M

USA Acknowledgements: Cimaroon Engineering Ltd; Base Data provided by the Government of Saskatchewan 14-2C Last Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Table 14-7 Hunting and Trapping

Alberta Saskatchewan Trapping  Fur Management Zones 7 and 8 are intersected;  South Saskatchewan Open Trapping Area. no specific quotas are in place but there are seasons for trapping particular species; specifically fisher, lynx, marten, otter and wolverine. Bobcat is closed in Zone 7 but is permitted in Zone 8 from November 1 to February 28 (ASRD 2008a, Internet Site).  RFMA 2897; fur bearing species trapped in this area include badger, beaver, coyote and red fox. Bobcat might also be occasionally trapped in this area (J. Taggart, pers. comm.). Hunting  Seven WMUs:  Four WMZs:  WMU 232 (Hardisty)  WMZ 2  WMU 202 (Neutral Hills)  WMZ 6  WMU 200 (Sounding)  WMZ 8  WMU 163 (Grassy Island Lake)  WMZ 9  WMU 162 (Berry) Most commonly hunted species include sharp-  WMU 151 (Alkali Creek) tailed grouse, Hungarian partridge, pheasant, waterfowl, coyote, beaver, red fox, pronghorn  WMU 150 (Jenner) antelope, mule deer, and white-tailed deer. Other Most commonly hunted species include sharp-tailed species that might be found and hunted in certain grouse, ruffed grouse, gray partridge, ringneck habitat include moose and elk (J. Schommer, pheasant, waterfowl, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, pers. comm.). white-tailed deer, moose and elk (J. Taggart, pers. comm.). Other species that might be found and hunted include wolf, coyote, and black bear.

14.4.9 Fishing The Project crosses 16 watercourses; the major crossings are the Red Deer River, the South Saskatchewan River, and the Frenchman River. See the Fisheries section (Section 10) for detailed information on all watercourses. Alberta is divided into three Fish Management Zones, which are further subdivided into Watershed Units. The Project intersects the Parkland Prairie Zone, including Watershed Units PP1 and PP2. Lake whitefish, yellow perch and northern pike are the most common game fish present in this zone. Walleye have been introduced into several reservoirs and rainbow trout are also present in many ponds and small reservoirs. Regulations for sport fishing are separated into Watershed Units for the Milk and South Saskatchewan rivers. This includes portions of the Oldman and Bow rivers, located in PP1, and the Red Deer, Battle and South Saskatchewan rivers, located in PP2. Most fishing areas are closed between April 1 and May 15 (Alberta Regulations 2008, Internet Site). Within Saskatchewan, there are three Fish Management Zones; the Project intersects the Southern Management Zone. During the angling season in 2000, the Southern Management Zone had a total of 1,317,654 angler-days (The Government of Saskatchewan 2008b; 2008c, Internet Sites).

February 2009 Page 14-16 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

14.4.10 Summary of Mitigation for Land Use It is recommended that a number of mitigation measures be used to minimize effects of the Project on land use. Further details of mitigation are contained in the Environmental Protection Plan (see Appendix A). To minimize effects on agricultural land use, it is recommended that the Company:  consult with landowners and occupants to define agricultural management practices;  provide trench plugs and gaps in the windrowed soil storage and pipe string along the RoW to facilitate movement of livestock and farm machinery across the RoW; and  use temporary fencing along the RoW, where required, to assist landowners in maximizing grazing use on lands adjacent to the pipeline construction RoW. To minimize effects on oil and gas and other industrial activities, it is recommended that the Company:  use One Call services in each province to identify foreign lines;  use crossing agreements with existing oil and gas tenure holders;  use existing access roads and RoWs, where practical; and  open lines of communication with industry Stakeholders informing them of the Project well in advance of construction. To minimize effects on recreational activities, it is recommended that the Company:  schedule construction outside designated user periods where practical to minimize interference with recreational sites; and  use trenchless or isolated trench crossing techniques in important fisheries watercourses to minimize disruption to fish species and fishing potential.

14.4.11 Follow-up and monitoring for Land Use No follow-up or monitoring programs are recommended.

14.5 References for Land Use

Literature Cited Sweetgrass Consultants Ltd. 1997. Environmentally Significant Areas of Alberta.

Personal Communications Jerome Schommer, Conservation Officer, maple Creek field office of Saskatchewan Environment. Conversation. September 25, 2008. John Taggart, Wildlife Technician, ASRD Fish and Wildlife Office in Medicine Hat. Conversation. September 23, 2008.

Internet Sites Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2008. Community Pasture Program. Available at: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1183491574124&lang=e. Accessed September 2008.

Page 14-17 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 14: Assessment of Effects on Land Use

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2001. Alberta municipality Profiles – 2001 Census of Agriculture. Available at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd9508. Accessed September 2008. Alberta Regulations. 2008. Alberta Guide to Sport Fishing Regulations. Available at: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/. Accessed September 2008. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2006. Provincial Grazing Reserves. Available at: http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/lands/usingpublicland/provincialgrazingreserves/introduction.aspx. Accessed September 2008. ASRD. 2008a. 2007-2008. Alberta Guide to Trapping Regulations. Available at: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/trappingregs/. Accessed September 2008. ASRD. 2008b. 2008 Alberta Guide to Hunting Regulations. Available at: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs/. Accessed on September 23, 2008. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Saskatchewan Chapter. 2008. The Great Sand Hills. Available at: http://www.cpaws-sask.org/prairie/great_sand_hills.html. Accessed September 2008. Cypress County Tourism. 2008. Cypress County Tourist Attractions. Available at: http://www.cypress.ab.ca/tourism/tourism1.html. Accessed September 2008. Government of Saskatchewan. 2008a. Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport – Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park. Available at: http://www.tpcs.gov.sk.ca/CypressHills. Accessed September 2008. Government of Saskatchewan. 2008b. Ministry of the Environment – Fishing. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=b4dd0e92-a3f6-44c1-8336-a0d1af28d64b. Accessed September 2008. Government of Saskatchewan. 2008c. Ministry of the Environment – The Recreational Fishery. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=1098,553,243,94,88,Doc uments&MediaID=521&Filename=Recreational.pdf. Accessed November 2008. Important Bird Areas (IBA) of Canada. 2008. IBA Sites. Available at: http://www.ibacanada.ca/sites.html. Accessed September 2008 National Energy Board (NEB). Filing Manual National Energy Board. Available at: http://www.one.gc.ca/ActsRegulations/NEBAct/FilingManual/FMTOC_e.htm Parks Canada. 2000. Grasslands National Park of Canada Management Plan. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/sk/grasslands/images/Grasslands-National-Park-2002-Management- Plan.pdf Accessed November 2008. Statistics Canada. 2006. Agricultural Overview, Canada and the Provinces. Available at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95-629-XIE/1/1.5.htm. Accessed September 2008.

February 2009 Page 14-18 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

15 Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Archaeological sites are non-renewable resources that are increasingly susceptible to alteration, damage or destruction by development projects. They include sites dating before European contact (precontact sites), historic period sites and more recent evidence of traditional land use practices, such as cabins and trails. These resources have value to the scientific community, Aboriginal communities and the public at large. In recognition of the importance of archaeological sites and potential for their loss as a result of development, they are protected under both provincial and federal legislation. The value of archaeological sites is not only measured in terms of the individual artifacts they contain, but in terms of the information about the past that might be obtained from studying the artifacts, their spatial relationship and context within the site and landscape. Of particular importance is the relationship of archaeological materials to the soils in which they are found. Archaeological sites are fragile and the product of unique processes and conditions of preservation. As a result, removing or mixing artifacts and soils without scientific recording results in permanent loss of critical information. The archaeological resources valued environmental component (VEC) includes archaeological resources as defined under the Alberta Historical Resources Act, the Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Palaeontological Resources are included under these Acts, and are discussed in Section 16.

15.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

15.1.1 Temporal Boundaries for Archaeological Resources The temporal boundaries used for the assessment include:  baseline;  construction; and  operations.

15.1.2 Spatial Boundaries for Archaeological Resources The relevant spatial boundaries developed for the Project relative to archaeological resources include the PDA and a LAA. Mitigation measures for identified archaeological resources are determined by provincial regulators and construction clearance is granted by them once the mitigation is completed; it is assumed that the regulatory body accepts that no environmental effects remain after mitigation. As such, cumulative effects on archaeological resources are not recognized, no cumulative effects assessment at a regional level is required, and a RAA is not defined.  PDA represents the physical footprint of the project where any direct physical effects on archaeological resources could potentially occur. It includes the RoW and extra workspace, as well as the footprint of pump stations and the Hardisty B Terminal.  LAA is the maximum area where environmental effects can be predicted or measured with a reasonable degree of accuracy or confidence. It was defined as a 52-m corridor containing the 32-m RoW and potentially up to 20-m extra workspace requirements, as well as the location of other facilities such as the pump stations and Hardisty B Terminal.

Page 15-1 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

15.1.3 Administrative and Technical Boundaries for Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources are administered by regulatory bodies specific to each province, and each province manages archaeological resources under differing prescribed guidelines. Because the Project transects two provincial jurisdictions, two separate archaeological permits were required and two separate historical/heritage resource impact assessment (HRIA) reports will be prepared and submitted to the relevant provincial agency. The results of both studies are integrated and summarized in this document.

15.2 Scope of Assessment for Archaeological Resources

15.2.1 Regulatory Setting Archaeological Resources are protected under the Alberta Historical Resources Act and the Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act. They include precontact period and historic period archaeological sites and objects (artifacts), as well as some traditional use sites with archaeological value. Under the respective Acts of the two provinces, no development related disturbance can occur to any archaeological site without the approval of the minister. The NEB Filing manual specifies that the Project should be discussed with provincial regulators and the results of discussion documented. A summary of previous archaeological studies in the region and within the LAA should be provided, HRIAs should be undertaken, and that any necessary further studies should be outlined. This information is summarized in this document, and detailed in various submissions to Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS) and the Saskatchewan ministry of Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport (SMTPCS), including historical resource overviews, permit applications and the final reports for the two HRIAs done in 2008.

15.2.2 Key Issues and Interactions for Archaeological Resources Project interactions with archaeological resources were assessed as described in Section 7 of the ESA. For the interactions between archaeological resources and the Project, see Table 15-1. The potential key issues (Effect 1 and 2) for archaeological resources are 1) change to the archaeological resource database and 2) change to the interpretive context. Information loss at the site level (archaeological resource database) can affect our current and future understanding of past cultures at both the local and regional levels of knowledge. Disruption of the contents or interpretive contexts of archaeological sites can result in primary or secondary impacts. Primary impacts result from planned disturbance factors, including topsoil handling in native vegetation, grading (which might affect surface or shallowly buried materials) and trenching (which might affect deeply buried archaeological sites). Secondary impacts are unplanned disturbance factors that might occur as a result of increased access into sensitive areas during construction or operations. Increased access, combined with public knowledge of the archaeological resource potential of an area, could lead to unauthorized collection, excavation, disturbance or vandalism of precontact or historic period archaeological sites.

February 2009 Page 15-2 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-1 Interaction of the Project with Archaeological Resources

Project Description Reference Project Activities/Physical Works for Activity Rating Construction and Commissioning Pipeline construction (clearing, topsoil stripping, The Project has potential to alter 1 grading, trenching, watercourse crossings, stringing or remove the contents and pipe, welding, lowering in, backfilling, hydrostatic contexts of individual testing, mainline valve instalation, cleanup and final archaeological sites in the PDA. reclamation). Archaeological sites can occur Hardisty B Terminal and pump station construction on the ground surface or below 1 (clearing, topsoil stripping, grading, road the surface. They are highly construction, piling, infrastructure, commissioning, susceptible to damage or loss cleanup and interim reclamation). caused by illegal artifact collection, compaction or Construction of mainline pump stations (clearing, displacement of soil caused by 1 topsoil stripping, grading, road construction, piling, increased vehicle traffic, or infrastructure, commissioning, cleanup and interim construction activities such as reclamation). grading and trenching. Operations Operation and maintenance of the No additional effects will occur 0 Hardisty B Terminal and pump station. during operations. Operation and maintenance of the mainline pump 0 stations. Operation and maintenance of the pipeline. 0 Interaction of Other Projects and Activities (see No project interactions will 0 Project Inclusion List in Appendix B) occur. Decommissioning and Abandonment1 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events2

NOTES: 0 = No interaction 1 = Either:  interaction occurs; however, based on past experience and professional judgement, the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even without mitigation  interaction would not be significant because of application of codified environmental protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects 2 = Interaction could result in an environmental effect of concern, even with mitigation. The potential environmental effects are considered further in the environmental assessment.  = Indicates cumulative environmental effects potential, which is the potential to interact with project environmental effects. Cumulative effects are ranked in the project effects matrix included in Section 7. 1 Accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events are assessed separate from the routine project effects assessment (see Section 21). 2If decommissioning of the Project is required at some point in the future, and if that activity is not exempted from prior Board approval under the Decommissioning Exemption Order (XG/XO-100-2008), an application, pursuant to Section 44 of the OPR will be required. Likewise, if abandonment of the project facility is proposed in the future, an application will be required under Section 74 of the NEB Act.

Page 15-3 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Project activities ranked “0” will not have any interaction with archaeological resources (see Table 15-1). All remaining project activities are ranked “1.” Although interaction might occur between the activity and archaeological resources, the interaction is viewed by the regulatory body at the individual site level and would not be considered scientifically significant by the regulatory body after implementing standard practices to mitigate the predicted environmental effects at the individual site. Currently, there are no formally established thresholds for archaeological resource and contextual loss at the VEC level. Historical Resources Act clearance and Heritage Property Act clearance are issued at the discretion of the respective ministers, with the provision that mitigation measures at specific sites required by the minister are completed to the satisfaction of the regulatory body. On this basis, it is assumed that Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS) and Saskatchewan Ministry of Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport (TPCS) accept that if all perceived environmental effects on archaeological resources are effectively mitigated, no environmental effects will occur and consequently, no cumulative effects on archaeological resources are recognized. Those activities ranked as 1 in Table 15-1 will result in ground disturbance that could disturb archaeological resources. These activities are ranked as 1, rather than 2, as disturbance and mitigation of effects is regulated by a government agency (i.e., ACCS and TPCS), and no residual effects are recognized after mitigation.

15.2.3 Standards or Thresholds for Determining Significance for Archaeological Resources Archaeological sites, including precontact period sites and historic period sites or structures, are protected and regulated under provincial acts in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Any disturbance to archaeological resources must be approved by the respective minister. There are currently no formal thresholds for determining heritage value of archaeological resources as a single, comprehensive VEC. In Alberta, ACCS assigns a Historical Resource Value (HRV) to individual sites, based on perceived scientific significance and the requirement for avoidance or additional work (such as mitigation and Aboriginal engagement) in the event that all or part of the site will be affected. In Saskatchewan, TPCS determines classification of archaeological resources as either sites or Sites of a Special Nature (SSN) and requirements are issued for additional work or avoidance based on heritage value. Although site-specific recommendations for clearance and additional work are formulated by the Senior Archaeologist in the HRIA permit report submitted to provincial regulators, the final requirements are stipulated by the minister, based on regulatory review. Heritage values as outlined in the permit reports are considered on a site by site basis, but there are no guidelines or standards for loss as defined by the entire VEC as a single entity. Mitigation requirements and clearance are determined by the regulators, based primarily on the individual site integrity and its perceived scientific value based on data collected during the HRIA. Public or ethnic concerns reflecting value can potentially influence or alter the final dispensation of individual sites within this VEC, but are unlikely to affect decisions as to the scientific value of the VEC.

15.2.4 Influence of Consultation on the Assessment Before initiating the HRIA in each province, an Historical Resources Overview (HRO) was completed and submitted to ACCS and TPCS to assist their review of the project. Following submission of the HRO and discussion of the project with the Regional Archaeologist (Alberta) and Senior Archaeologist (Saskatchewan), a permit application was submitted. These permit applications resulted in issuance of a HRIA permit for each province (see Table 15-2). Following the 2008 field program, final permit reports were completed according to the guidelines in each province. These reports are currently under provincial regulatory review; this review will result in site clearance or additional site-specific requirements being

February 2009 Page 15-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources issued. Requirements will vary depending on site value but could include (but not be limited to) the following:  avoidance;  site or feature mapping;  artifact collection;  additional shovel testing or assessment-level testing;  mitigation archaeological excavation;  deep testing with a backhoe; and  Aboriginal community engagement or monitoring during construction.

Table 15-2 Communication Relative to the Project

Permit Date of Issue Project File Number Topic April 30, 2008 199307-HI08SK N/A Heritage Resources Overview, TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. Potential Pipeline Project, Saskatchewan June 17, 2008 199307-HI08AB N/A Historical Resources Overview, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. Potential Keystone XL Pipeline Project, Alberta May 23, 2008 N/A 2008-132 Archaeological Resource Investigation Permit, HRIA, TCPL Keystone XL Pipeline Project, SK June 27, 2008 4780-08-016 2008-217 Archaeological Research Permit, HRIA, TCPL Potential Keystone XL Pipeline Project, AB In production 199307-HI08SK 2008-132 Heritage Resources Impact Assessment, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. Keystone XL Pipeline Project, Final Report, Permit 2008-132 In production 4780-08-016 2008-217 Historical Resources Impact Assessment, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd., Keystone XL Pipeline Project, Final Report, Permit 2008-217 Review pending N/A 2008-132 Heritage Property Act Clearance and additional mitigation requirements Review pending N/A 2008-217 Historical Resources Act Clearance and additional mitigation requirements

NOTE: N/A not applicable

Though Aboriginal engagement was not specifically required as a condition of the archaeological permit in either province, engagement was undertaken relative to Canadian Environmental Assessment Act guidelines. On the existing Keystone Pipeline project, the Siksika Nation requested that no shovel testing be done within or adjacent to stone features such as cairns or stone circles until Elders had visited the locations and made recommendations regarding their ethnic and spiritual significance. Some sites might be of sufficient value to require avoidance, and if avoided, there would be no need for archaeological shovel testing. Following the lessons learned from the existing Keystone Pipeline project, this approach was discussed with provincial regulators during the permit applications. The regulators agreed that testing would not be required if sites were to be avoided, based on the results of the Aboriginal engagement program. That is, if no impact was to occur as a result of reroutes arising from Aboriginal concerns, complete archaeological assessment would not be required (Unfreed 2008, pers. comm.; Ebert 2008, pers.

Page 15-5 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources comm.). Thus, assessment-level testing of sites in the PDA would occur after the sites are viewed by the Aboriginal community members and avoidance options discussed, providing the review took place with sufficient lead time to complete the assessment and eventual mitigation requirements.

After the HRIA was completed and the location of all newly discovered archaeological sites was known, the location of the sites and their contents was communicated to Aboriginal communities conducting the Traditional Knowledge studies for the Project. Each site was visited by community members with an archaeologist to point out the features, discuss the findings and record any recommendations. The program is ongoing, but slated for completion in 2009 (see Section 18). During the Traditional Knowledge study, Aboriginal communities recorded a number of additional traditional land use sites or sites that were believed to be archaeological in nature within and adjacent to the LAA. These sites will be subject to archaeological evaluation in 2009, to determine whether they contain archaeological components. Additional Aboriginal consultation will also be conducted at that time.

15.3 Baseline Conditions for Archaeological Resources Archaeological studies relating to earlier developments have been done in the Project area, beginning in the late 1970s and extending until 2008. For previous archaeological studies that resulted in identification of archaeological sites that comprise the baseline conditions, see Table 15-3. In Alberta, 125 archaeological sites were recorded previously within a 1-km radius of the PDA, including 124 precontact sites and a single historic site. In Saskatchewan, 133 archaeological sites were recorded previously, including 123 precontact sites and 10 historic period sites. In both provinces, the precontact sites are dominated by stone feature sites, primarily stone circles and cairns. Historic sites are primarily homestead related.

Table 15-3 Previous Archaeological Studies in the Project Area Permit Reference Study Title N/A Lifeways 1979 Environmental Overview, The Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Project (Saskatchewan Segment) N/A ARESCO 1980a HRIA Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Zone 9 – The Saskatchewan Section N/A ARESCO 1980b HRIA Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Stockpile Sites Zone 9 – The Saskatchewan Section N/A ARESCO 1981 Heritage Resource Impact Evaluation and Mitigation Zone 9 – The Saskatchewan Section N/A ARESCO 1982 The Archaeology of the Alaska Highway Pipeline Zone 9 – Southwestern Saskatchewan 89-15 Saylor and Thomas 1989 Site forms available, report unavailable 93-68 Johnson 1993 HRIA Bow Valley Energy Inc. 1993 Hatton Area Drilling and Pipeline Program 96-51 Clark and Hjermstad 1996 HRIA Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Prebuild – Saskatchewan Segments 98-88 Clark 1998 HRIA Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Prebuild – South of Compressor Station 392 02-35 McKeand 2002 Site forms available, report unavailable 02-104 Novecosky 2002 HRIA City of Medicine Hat Gas Big Stick Lake Pipeline Construction Project

February 2009 Page 15-6 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-3 Previous Archaeological Studies in the Project Area (cont’d)

Permit Reference Study Title 75-4 Adams 1975 Prehistoric Survey of the Lower Red Deer River 76-03 Reeves 1976 Historical Site Impact Assessment Dome Petroleum Ltd. Proposed Empress-Red Deer Ethane Pipeline 76-25 Quigg 1976 Tipi Rings in Southern Alberta : Lazy Dog Tipi Ring Site 76-27 Adams 1976 Survey and Excavation on the Lower Red Deer River, Alberta 77-81 Brumley 1977 An Inventory and Assessment of Archaeological Resources Within Proposed Energy Development Locations Near Buffalo 80-56 Pollock 1980 HRIA Shorncliffe Lake Estates NE 35-40-7 W4M 90-120 McCullough 1990 HRIA Bow River Pipe Line Ltd. McNeill to Jenner Condensate Pipeline Project 91-92 Head 1991 HRIA NOVA Corp. of Alberta NPS 8 and 10; NPS 48; NPS 24 Programs 91-104 VanDyke 1991 HRIA American Trading and Production Corp. ATAPCO Pipeline Right-of-Way Project 94-35 Amundson 1994 HRIA Enron Oil Canada Ltd. Empress Hubstorage Project 94-114 VanDyke 1994 HRIA NOVA Corp. of Alberta NPS 4 Sedalia North Lateral Loop Project 95-103 VanDyke 1995 HRIA NOVA Gas Transmissions Ltd. NPS 6 Monitor Creek West Lateral Project 97-129 Dau 1997 HRIA Northstar Energy Corp. Provost 2-8-37-5-W4M Wellsite and Access Road Project 98-73 Ramsay 1998 HRIA Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Well Lease and Access 11-15- 35-5-W4M 98-99 Wondrasek 1998 HRIA Centurion Gas Liquids Inc. Empress Pipeline Project 99-35 Clark 1999 HRIA AMOCO Canada Alberta Ethane Gathering System Projects 99-40 Gorham 1999 HRIA Enbridge Pipeline Inc. Terrace Phase 2 Expansion Program 04-36 Wondrasek 2004 HRIA EOG Resources Canada Inc. Atlee-Buffalo to Bindloss Projects 04-393 Goldsmith 2004 HRIA Penn West Petroleum Ltd. 15-35-5-W4M Pipeline Tie-In 06-152 Tischer and Neal 2006 HRIA TransCanada PipeLine GP Ltd. Canadian Portion of Keystone Pipeline Project 06-158 Wondrasek 2006 HRIA EOG Resources Canada Inc. Blindloss 2006 Drilling Program 07-298 Leyden and Neal (pending) HRIA TransCanada PipeLine GP Ltd. 2007 Reroutes Keystone Pipeline Project 08-89 Leyden (pending) HRIM TransCanada PipeLine GP Ltd. Keystone Pipeline Project 08-122 Leyden (pending) HRIA TransCanada PipeLine GP Ltd. 2008 Reroutes Keystone Pipeline Project

NOTE: N/A not applicable

Page 15-7 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Most of the archaeological sites identified during previous studies received Historical Resources Act or Heritage Property Act clearance, and have since been disturbed by development. Other previously recorded sites fall largely or completely outside the PDA for the Project. The level of concern for the previously recorded sites thus varies considerably depending on site status, location, size, value and integrity. A total of 38 previously recorded archaeological sites identified during the baseline review were revisited and re-evaluated during the HRIAs for the Project. These include 10 precontact archaeological sites and 2 historic period sites in Saskatchewan and 25 precontact and 1 historic period site in Alberta. During the 2008 field survey in Saskatchewan a total of 30 previously unknown archaeological sites were found, including 22 precontact sites and 8 historic sites. During the 2008 field survey in Alberta a total of 20 previously unknown sites were found, including 9 precontact and 11 historic sites. Thus, 88 sites were assessed during the HRIAs. During the 2008 HRIA, the entire LAA through Saskatchewan and 57% of the LAA in Alberta was field assessed. Portions of the Project in Alberta that were not assessed will be examined in spring 2009, together with any reroutes, as the subject of a supplemental filing. Results of the desktop overview and comparison with the findings of the existing Keystone Pipeline project suggest that additional sites of similar heritage value to those identified in 2008 will be recorded in 2009.

15.4 Project Environmental Effects Assessment for Archaeological Resources Site-specific mitigation of project environmental effects on archaeological resources is regulated provincially. The regulatory agencies independently assess the scientific value of archaeological sites, determine the need for, and scope of, mitigation measures and issue clearance under the Historical Resources Act. As project-specific environmental effects on archaeological resources are continually mitigated to the standards established by the provinces, after implementation of the required mitigation measures issued by the regulatory agency, there will be no residual environmental effects from the Project on this VEC. With the application of regulatory agency-approved mitigation, there will be no significant effects of the Project on archaeological resources. For a summary of sites identified, the site value (as reflected in recommendations for further study) and site effects, see Table 15-4. Additional sites will be added as the survey is completed in Alberta during spring 2009, under a second HRIA permit. For the site locations, see Figure 15-1 and Figure 15-2.

15.4.1 Precontact Period Archaeological Sites The PDA in Alberta could potentially affect 21 precontact sites; the remaining precontact sites lie outside the PDA and will not be affected. The 21 precontact sites of concern include 16 stone feature sites, 2 artifact scatters and 3 isolated finds. The isolated finds and artifact scatters are judged to have low heritage value and no further work is recommended at these sites. However, avoidance or additional assessment is recommended at the 16 stone feature sites before final clearance is recieved, because these sites potentially have moderate heritage value. Additional assessment is only necessary for stone features that will not be avoided by development. The PDA in Saskatchewan could potentially disturb 27 precontact sites; the remaining precontact sites are outside the PDA and will not be affected. The 27 precontact sites of concern consist of 4 artifact scatters, 6 artifact finds and 17 stone feature sites. Of the 2 artifact scatters, 2 are of moderate heritage value and 2 of potentially high heritage value. Avoidance or further assessment and mitigation have been recommended for these sites. Four of the six artifact finds were assessed as having low heritage value, and no further work is recommended. Monitoring during pipeline construction is recommended for the remaining two artifact finds with moderate heritage value. Additional assessment is recommended at all 17 stone feature sites.

February 2009 Page 15-8 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Figure 15-1 Archaeological Site Locations by Borden Block – Alberta

Page 15-9 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Figure 15-2 Archaeological Site Locations by Borden Block – Saskatchewan

February 2009 Page 15-10 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

15.4.2 Historic Period Archaeological Sites The PDA has potential to affect six of the identified historic sites in Alberta. The remaining historic sites are outside the PDA and are of no further concern. These sites include three farmsteads, two refuse piles and one historic marker for the Hills School Division. These sites are judged to have moderate heritage value and avoidance or additional assessment is recommended before final clearance. In Saskatchewan, the PDA has potential to affect four historic sites, including one windmill, one standing structure, one foundation and one isolated find. The isolated find and foundation were assessed as having low heritage value, and no further work is recommended. Avoidance or additional assessment is recommended for the other two historic sites.

15.5 Summary of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources Effects on archaeological resources changes site contents or site context. Loss of this information hinders the reconstruction of past human activities at the site-specific level, and at the level of broader cultural and temporal reconstruction. Over time, the loss of additional site contents and site context could potentially preclude accurate and holistic interpretation of human history. However, under the Alberta Historical Resources Act and the Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act, the minister is responsible for issuing HRIA requirements, additional site-specific mitigation recommendations and issues clearance for the Project. Because ACCS and TPCS are responsible for managing the threshold of loss to archaeological resources, there are no perceived residual effects on historical resources as a result of the Project and the Project will not contribute to cumulative effects. A total of 58 of the 88 archaeological sites of concern will potentially be disturbed by the Project. From this total, additional work has been recommended at 47 sites determined to have moderate to high heritage value. The detailed descriptions and site-specific recommendations for this Project will be contained in the HRIA reports for each province. Additional or final mitigation requirements are pending. For a summary of the sites requiring clearance under provincial legislation, additional assessment or mitigation, see Table 15-4.

Table 15-4 Summary of Archaeological Site Impacts

Location Site Heritage Relative to Number Site Type Legal Description Value Project Recommendations FdOs 5 Historic NE 24-42-9-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (farmstead) FdOs 6 Historic NW 19-41-7-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or (farmstead) additional assessment FdOr 14 Historic NW 17-41-7-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or (refuse pile) additional assessment FcOr 6 Historic NE 24-40-7-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (farmstead) FcOq 20 Stone feature SW 26-39-6-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work

Page 15-11 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-4 Summary of Archaeological Site Impacts (cont’d)

Location Site Heritage Relative to Number Site Type Legal Description Value Project Recommendations FcOq 3 Artifact scatter SW 14-39-6-W4M Low Outside LAA No further work

FbOq 82 Historic SE 35-38-6-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (farmstead) FbOq 73 Stone feature SE 24-38-6-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work

FbOq 83 Historic NW 24-38-6-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (farmstead) FbOq 84 Historic NW 31-37-5-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (farmstead) FbOq 81 Isolated find NW 31-37-5-W4M Low Within LAA No further work

FaOq 123 Isolated find NE 6-37-5-W4M Low Within LAA No further work

FaOq 115 Stone feature NE 6-37-5-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment FaOq 124 Stone feature SE 6-37-5-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment FaOq 125 Stone feature SE 6-37-5-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EjOp 2 Artifact scatter NW 32-30-4-W4M Low Within LAA No further work

EjOp 3 Campsite NW 32-30-4-W4M Low Outside LAA No further work

EjOp 4 Stone feature NW 29-30-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EjOp 5 Stone feature NW 29-30-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EjOp 18 Stone feature NW 20-30-4-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work

EjOp 6 Stone feature SW 20-30-4-W4M High Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EjOp 7 Stone feature NW 17-30-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment

February 2009 Page 15-12 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-4 Summary of Archaeological Site Impacts (cont’d)

Location Site Heritage Relative to Number Site Type Legal Description Value Project Recommendations EjOp 23 Artifact scatter NW 17-30-4-W4M Low Outside LAA No further work

EjOp 19 Historic NW 17-30-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or (farmstead) additional assessment EjOp 10 Artifact scatter NW 8-30-4-W4M Low Outside LAA No further work

EjOp 17 Isolated find SW 8-30-4-W4M Low Outside LAA No further work

EjOp 22 Stone feature NE-5-30-4-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work

EjOp 11 Artifact scatter NW 5-30-4-W4M High Outside LAA No further work

EjOp 21 Isolated find SW 5-30-4-W4M Low Within LAA No further work

EjOp 16 Stone feature SW 32-29-4-W4M High Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment Hills #1 Historic SE 17-26-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or SD (marker) additional assessment EgOp 10 Stone feature NE 29-25-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EgOp 12 Historic NE 5-25-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or (refuse pile) additional assessment EgOp 14 Historic SW 28-24-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or (farmstead) additional assessment EgOp 11 Stone feature NW 16-24-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EgOp 13 Historic NE 9-24-4-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (farmstead) EgOp 9 Stone feature NE 9-24-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EgOo 2 Stone feature NE 4-24-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment

Page 15-13 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-4 Summary of Archaeological Site Impacts (cont’d)

Location Site Heritage Relative to Number Site Type Legal Description Value Project Recommendations EgOp 8 Stone feature SE 4-24-4-W4M Moderate Outside LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EgOp 7 Stone feature SE 4-24-4-W4M Moderate Outside LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EgOp 6 Stone feature SE 4-24-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EgOp 5 Stone feature NE 33-23-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EgOo 7 Stone feature NW 34-23-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EfOo 164 Stone feature SE 33-23-4-W4M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment EfOo 43 Stone feature NW 23-22-4-W4M Moderate Outside LAA No further work

EeOm 49 Artifact scatter NE 20-20-1-W4M Low Within LAA No further work

EdOl 3 Historic NW 22-19-29-W3M Moderate Outside LAA no further work (multiple feature) KXL-SK01 Historic NE 13-15-26-W3M Moderate Outside LAA no further work (multiple feature) EaOh 2 Artifact scatter NW 11-14-25-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or (buried) additional assessment EaOh 23 Artifact scatter NW 11-14-25-W3M High Within LAA Mitigation (30 sq m) (buried) KXL-SK02 Historic NE 36-13-25-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or (multiple additional feature) assessment EaOg 22 Artifact find NW 30-12-23-W3M Low Within LAA No further work (buried) EaOg 23 Artifact scatter NW 20-12-23-W3M High Within LAA Mitigation (10 sq m) (buried) DlOg 25 Artifact find SE 1-12-23-W3M Low Within LAA No further work (buried)

February 2009 Page 15-14 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-4 Summary of Archaeological Site Impacts (cont’d)

Location Site Heritage Relative to Number Site Type Legal Description Value Project Recommendations DlOf 3 Recurrent NE 31-10-21-W3M Moderate Outside LAA No further work stone feature KXL-SK03 Historic SW 22-10-21-W3M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (multiple feature) DkOe 18 Artifact find SW 28-9-20-W3M Low Within LAA No further work (buried) KXL-SK04 Historic NW 12-8-19-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or (single feature) additional assessment DjOc 4 Artifact find SW 12-8-19-W3M Low Outside LAA No further work

DiOb 62 Recurrent NE 18-6-17-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DiOb 63 Recurrent SW 17-6-17-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DiOb 52 Recurrent SW 17-6-17-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DiOb 105 Recurrent SE 8-6-17-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DiOb 47 Recurrent SE 8-6-17-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DiOb 104 Artifact find SE 34-5-17-W3M Moderate Within LAA Monitoring (buried) DiOb 103 Artifact find SW 35-5-17-W3M Moderate Within LAA Monitoring (buried) DiOa 36 Single stone NE 24-5-17-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or feature additional assessment DiOa 37 Single stone NW 18-5-16-W3M Moderate Outside LAA No further work feature DiOa 17 Single stone NE 18-5-16-W3M Moderate Outside LAA No further work feature DiOa 38 Single stone SW 17-5-16-W3M Moderate Outside LAA No further work feature

Page 15-15 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-4 Summary of Archaeological Site Impacts (cont’d)

Location Site Heritage Relative to Number Site Type Legal Description Value Project Recommendations DhNx 20 Recurrent SE 17-4-15-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DhNx 54 Recurrent SE 17-4-15-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DhNx 23 Recurrent SW 16-4-15-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DhNx 56 Multiple stone SW 10-4-15-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or feature additional assessment DhNx 57 Multiple stone NW 3-4-15-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or feature additional assessment DhNx 53 Recurrent NW 3-4-15-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DhNx 51 Recurrent SW 2-4-15-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DhNx 52 Artifact find NE 35-3-15-W3M Low Within LAA No further work

NWMP Historic - single SW 36-3-15-W3M Low Outside LAA No further work marker feature DhNx 12 Recurrent NE 19-3-14-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DhNx 55 Recurrent SE 19-3-14-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment KXL-SK05 Historic SE 17-3-14-W3M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (multiple feature) DgNw 2 Recurrent SW 9-2-13-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or stone feature additional assessment DgNv 477 Single stone SW 35-1-13-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or feature additional assessment DgNv 3 Historic NE 26-1-13-W3M Moderate Outside LAA No further work (single feature)

February 2009 Page 15-16 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-4 Summary of Archaeological Site Impacts (cont’d)

Location Site Heritage Relative to Number Site Type Legal Description Value Project Recommendations DgNv 476 Historic SE 25-1-13-W3M Low Within LAA No further work (single feature) DgNv 475 Artifact Scatter SW 9-1-12-W3M Moderate Within LAA Avoidance or additional assessment KXL-SK06 Historic NW 4-1-12-W3M Low Within LAA No further work (artifact find)

15.5.1 Summary of Mitigation for Archaeological Resources

15.5.1.1 Data Gaps and Outstanding HRIA Requirements Some data gaps remain to be addressed through further HRIA during spring and summer 2009. According to the permit requirements issued in both provinces, stone feature sites that will experience direct project-related disturbance require mapping and small-scale test excavations to sample the stone feature contents. The test excavations will determine whether larger, full-scale archaeological excavations are required before starting project activities. In both provinces, stone circles are examined with 2 m2 of test excavation and stone cairns are sampled with 1 m2 of test excavations. However, based on the lessons learned from the existing Keystone Pipeline project, Aboriginal communities requested that stone features not be subject to test excavation until avoidance options were assessed and community members had a chance to view the sites. For the existing Keystone Pipepline Project, Aboriginal programs to view the sites were conducted in each province after the field inventory was completed. At sites judged to have moderate to high heritage value and high ethnic and cultural significance, avoidance is the preferred mitigation strategy for regulatory agencies and Aboriginal communities. Depending on the specific location of the individual stone features relative to the project footprint, avoidance of stone features might sometimes be achieved through temporary fencing, restriction of the RoW during construction and relocation of extra workspace. In other instances, stone features can only be avoided through rerouting. If avoidance is not practical, project environmental effects on archaeological resources can be mitigated through controlled larger-scale archaeological excavation. In spring 2009, accurate survey plans showing the location of each identified stone feature relative to the project footprint will be prepared to assess different avoidance options. After consultation with project engineers and Aboriginal communities, unavoidable stone features will be assessed according to provincial requirements and additional mitigation recommendations made. Portions of the RoW in Alberta were not investigated in 2008 because landowner access was not obtained until late in the year. For a list of the quarter sections that still require assessment, see Table 15-5. Based on the results of the HRIA for the existing Keystone Pipeline project and the portions examined for the Project in 2008, a number of additional stone feature sites are predicted in areas situated in native prairie. Any subsequent reroutes arising as a result of engineering needs or site-avoidance measures since the HRIA was completed in 2008 will also require assessment in 2009.

Page 15-17 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Table 15-5 Land in Alberta Requiring HRIA

Site ID Legal Description Site ID Legal Description Site ID Legal Description 1 S1/2-02-042-08W4 33 W1/2-34-034-05W4 65 E1/2-08-026-04W4 2 NE-35-041-08W4 34 NE-35-033-05W4 66 NE-17-026-04W4 3 W1/2-35-040-07W4 35 W1/2-36-033-05W4 67 E1/2-20-026-04W4 4 NW-07-037-05W4 36 E1/2-06-033-04W4 68 E1/2-29-026-04W4 5 N1/2-18-037-05W4 37 SE-07-033-04W4 69 E1/2-32-026-04W4 6 SE-18-037-05W4 38 W1/2-07-033-04W4 70 E1/2-08-025-04W4 7 W1/2-30-037-05W4 39 SW-19-033-04W4 71 E1/2-20-025-04W4 8 E1/2-05-036-05W4 40 NE-06-032-04W4 72 S1/2-16-024-04W4 9 N1/2-08-036-05W4 41 E1/2-07-032-04W4 73 W1/2-03-023-04W4 10 SE-08-036-05W4 42 E1/2-18-032-04W4 74 W1/2-10-023-04W4 11 W1/2-17-036-05W4 43 E1/2-19-032-04W4 75 SW-15-023-04W4 T12 W1/2-20-036-05W4 44 E1/2-30-032-04W4 76 NE-16-023-04W4 13 SW-29-036-05W4 45 E1/2-31-032-04W4 77 E1/2-21-023-04W4 14 E1/2-30-036-05W4 46 W1/2-05-031-04W4 78 E1/2-28-023-04W4 15 E1/2-31-036-05W4 47 NW-08-031-04W4 79 N1/2-13-022-04W4 16 E1/2-03-035-05W4 48 W1/2-17-031-04W4 80 SW-24-022-04W4 17 E1/2-10-035-05W4 49 W1/2-20-031-04W4 81 SW-15-022-03W4 18 NW-15-035-05W4 50 W1/2-29-031-04W4 82 N1/2-16-022-03W4 19 S1/2-15-035-05W4 51 E1/2-31-031-04W4 83 SE-16-022-03W4 20 E1/2-21-035-05W4 52 SW-32-031-04W4 84 N1/2-17-022-03W4 21 W1/2-28-035-05W4 53 E1/2-05-029-04W4 85 N1/2-18-022-03W4 22 E1/2-32-035-05W4 54 E1/2-08-029-04W4 86 NW-01-021-02W4 23 SW-33-035-05W4 55 NE-17-029-04W4 87 S1/2-01-021-02W4 24 SW-01-034-05W4 56 SE-20-029-04W4 88 W1/2-15-021-02W4 25 E1/2-02-034-05W4 57 W1/2-20-029-04W4 89 NE-16-021-02W4 26 N1/2-11-034-05W4 58 W1/2-29-029-04W4 90 NE-20-021-02W4 27 SE-11-034-05W4 59 E1/2-05-028-04W4 91 S1/2-29-021-02W4 28 W1/2-14-034-05W4 60 E1/2-29-028-04W4 92 E1/2-30-021-02W4 29 NE-22-034-05W4 61 E1/2-32-028-04W4 93 E1/2-31-021-02W4 30 W1/2-23-034-05W4 62 E1/2-17-027-04W4 94 NE-30-020-01W4 31 E1/2-27-034-05W4 63 E1/2-20-027-04W4 95 SE-31-020-01W4 32 SE-34-034-05W4 64 NE-32-027-04W4 96 W1/2-31-020-01W4

February 2009 Page 15-18 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

15.5.1.2 Recommended Mitigation The recommended mitigation for each site with heritage value depends on the location of the archaeological features relative to the final development footprint and the opportunities to avoid disturbance (i.e., through temporary fencing, restriction of the RoW width, relocation of additional temporary workspace and pipeline deviations). For stone feature sites and features that cannot be avoided, additional assessment, including detailed feature mapping, controlled surface collection of artifacts and assessment excavation to provincial standards are recommended to determine site contents and context. For two buried precontact campsites in Saskatchewan, avoidance or controlled excavation of samples of 10 m2 and 30 m2 is recommended. At two deeply buried artifact scatters, monitoring of the trenchline during construction is recommended. During the traditional knowledge field program, Aboriginal communities identified a number of additional sites that might be of archaeological significance. It is recommended that an archaeologist assess these sites during the HRIA in spring and summer 2009, to determine whether they contain precontact archaeological materials of heritage value. This assessment should be undertaken in consultation with Aboriginal communities. Mitigation recommendations are detailed on a site-specific basis in the HRIA reports submitted to ACCS and TPCS. The review of these reports is pending, and on its completion, a schedule of mitigation requirements will be issued. The additional HRIA and test assessment excavation of stone feature sites will also lead to the issuance of additional mitigation requirements. Mitigation will occur during summer 2009 to permit adequate time for report review and issue of final clearance under the Alberta Historical Resources Act and the Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act.

15.5.2 Followup and Monitoring for Archaeological Resources The field program will be completed during spring and summer 2009. Using information from the field program, final permit reports will document the results of mitigation and recommend any additional study. Recommendations for monitoring construction activities near sites with high heritage value, or in areas with good potential for unknown, deeply buried sites, such as river valley crossings and parts of the Great Sand Hills are already available, and this program will be developed. A program for fencing stone features and historic features for avoidance during construction will be outlined. Sites with heritage value remaining after mitigation, especially those that were fenced for avoidance during construction, will need to be maintained on the permanent GIS database for future management. Final clearance under the Alberta Historical Resources Act and Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act will be issued, conditional on avoidance of specific identified sites and features. Notwithstanding the results of the mitigation programs and issuance of construction clearance, should any significant unknown archaeological resources be discovered during construction, the finds must be reported immediately to ACCS and TPCS to determine the mitigation response. A worker education program should be developed to limit illegal collection of artifacts and educate regarding the correct protocol for dealing with unexpected archaeological finds during construction and operations.

Page 15-19 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

15.6 References

Literature Cited Adams, G. 1975. Prehistoric Survey of the Lower Red Deer River Valley, 1975. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Adams, G. 1976. Survey and Excavation on the Lower Red Deer River, Alberta. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Amundsen, L. 1994. HRIA, Enron Oil Canada Ltd. Empress Hubstorage Project. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. ARESCO Ltd. 1980a. HRIA, Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Zone 9 – The Saskatchewan Segment. Volume I and II. Report prepared for Alaska Project Division, Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company Limited, acting as agents for Foothills Pipe Lines (Saskatchewan) Ltd. Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina, SK. July 1980. ARESCO Ltd. 1980b. HRIA, Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Stockpile Sites, Zone 9 – The Saskatchewan Segment. September 1980 report prepared for Alaska Project Division, Nova, An Alberta Corporation, agents for Foothills Pipe Lines (Saskatchewan) Ltd. Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina, SK. ARESCO Ltd. 1981. Heritage Resources Impact Evaluation and Mitigation, Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Zone 9 – The Saskatchewan Segment. Volume I. Report prepared for the Alaska Project Division, Nova, An Alberta Corporation, agent for Foothills Pipe Lines (Saskatchewan). Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina, SK. ARESCO Ltd. 1982. The Archaeology of the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline (Zone 9) Southwestern Saskatchewan. Volume I and Volume II. Report prepared for Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd. January 1982 Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina, SK. Brumley, J. 1977. An Inventory and Assessment of Archaeological Resources Within Proposed Energy Development Locations Near Buffalo. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Clarke, G. and B. Hjermstad. 1996. HRIA of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Prebuild – Saskatchewan Segments. Permit 96-051. Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch, Regina, SK. Clarke, G. 1998. HRIA of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Prebuild – South of Compressor Station 392. Permit 98-088. Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina SK. Clarke, G. 1999. HRIA Amoco Canada Alberta Ethane Gathering Systems Projects. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Dau, B. 1997. HRIA Northstar Energy Corp. Northstar et al. Provost 2-8-37-5 Wellsite and Access Road Project. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Goldsmith, S. 2004. HRIA Penn West Petroleum Ltd. 15-35-5-W4M Pipeline Tie in. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Gorham, L. 1999. HRIA Enbridge Pipeline Inc. Terrace Phase 2 Expansion Program. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Head, T. 1991. HRIA NOVA Corp. of Alberta NPS 8 and10; NPS 48; NPS 24 Programs. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB.

February 2009 Page 15-20 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Johnson, E. 1993. HRIA Bow Valley Energy Inc. 1993 Hatton Area Drilling and Pipeline Program. Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina, SK. Leyden, J. In prep. HRIA, TransCanada PipeLines GP Ltd. Keystone Pipeline Project. Permit 2007-279. FMA Heritage Inc. Calgary, AB. Leyden, J. In prep. HRIM, TransCanada PipeLines GP Ltd. Keystone Pipeline Project, Permit 2008-89. FMA Heritage Inc. Calgary, AB. Leyden, J. and B. Neal. In prep. HRIA, TransCanada PipeLines GP Ltd. 2007 Reroutes Keystone Pipeline Project. FMA Heritage Inc. Calgary, AB. Lifeways of Canada Ltd. 1979. Environmental Overview, The Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Project (Saskatchewan Segment). Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina SK. McCullough, E. 1990. HRIA Bow River Pipe Line Ltd. McNeill to Jenner Condensate Pipeline Project. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. McKeand, M. 2002. Title unavailable. Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina SK. Novecosky, B. 2002. HRIA City of Medicine Hat Gas Big Stick Lake Pipeline Construction Project. Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina, SK. Pollock, J. 1980. HRIA Shorncliffe Lake Estates NE 35-40-7-W4M. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Quigg, M. 1976. Tipi Rings in Southern Alberta: The Lazy Dog Tipi Ring Site. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Ramsay, A. 1998. HRIA Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Well Lease and Access Road 11-15-35-5-W4M. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Reeves, B.O.K. 1976. Historical Site Impact Assessment Dome Petroleum Ltd. Proposed Empress–Red Deer Ethane Pipeline. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Saylor, S. and Thomas. 1989. Report title unavailable. Report on file. Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch. Regina, SK. Tischer, J. and B. Neal. 2006. HRIA TransCanada PipeLines GP Ltd. Canadian Portion of Keystone Pipeline Project. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. VanDyke, S. 1991. HRIA American Trading and Production Corp. ATAPCO Pipeline Right-of-Way Project. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. VanDyke, S. 1994. HRIA NOVA Corp. Of Alberta NPS 4 Sedalia North Lateral Loop Project. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. VanDyke, S. 1995. HRIA NOVA Gas Transmissions Ltd. NPS 6 Monitor Creek West Lateral Project. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Wondrasek, R. 1998. HRIA Centurion Gas Liquids Inc. Empress Pipeline Project. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Wondrasek. 2004. HRIA EOG Resources Canada Inc. Atlee-Buffalo to Bindloss Projects. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB. Wondrasek, R. 2006. HRIA EOG Resources Canada Bindloss 2006 Drilling Program. Report on file. Historic Resources Management Branch. Edmonton, AB.

Page 15-21 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 15: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Archaeological Resources

Personal Communication Ebert, Dave. 2008. Saskatchewan Ministry of Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport (TPCS). Personal Communication. Unfreed, Wendy. 2008. Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS). Personal Communication.

February 2009 Page 15-22 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

16 Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

Palaeontology provides information on ancient forms of animals and plants, past ecosystems, evolution, natural climate change and extinction. Palaeontological resources—or fossils—comprise any evidence of past multicellular life, including body fossils (e.g., bones, shells and plant stems), impressions (e.g., leaf imprints) and trace fossils (e.g., dinosaur trackways). They are thousands to hundreds of millions of years old and are often the remains of extinct species. Palaeontological sites are non-renewable and are susceptible to alteration, damage and destruction by development projects. The value of these resources cannot be measured in terms of individual fossils; rather, the value of palaeontological resources lies in the integrated information derived from the interrelationships of the individual specimens, associated features, spatial relationships (distribution) and context. Interpretation of fossil material is based on an understanding of the nature of the relationship between fossils and the sediments and surrounding strata. Removal or mixing of these strata results in the permanent loss of information basic to the understanding of these resources. As a result, palaeontological resources are increasingly susceptible to destruction and depletion through disturbance. Preservation of palaeontological sites was identified as an important concern through the Alberta Historical Resources Act, Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Therefore, palaeontological resources were selected as a valued environmental component (VEC) because of regulatory requirements protecting fossil sites and the known and predicted palaeontological potential of subsurface horizons in the Project area. Specific issues relating to the Project are the loss of site contents (i.e., fossils) and the loss of site context. Loss of these elements precludes interpretation and appreciation of palaeontological sites and materials. This loss could potentially occur during project construction.

16.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

16.1.1 Temporal Boundaries for Palaeontological Resources The temporal boundaries used for the assessment were baseline and construction.

16.1.2 Spatial Boundaries for Palaeontological Resources The spatial boundaries for palaeontological resources defined for the Project include the project development area (PDA) and a local assessment area (LAA). Mitigation measures for identified palaeontological resources are determined by provincial regulators, who then grant construction clearance once mitigation is completed; it is assumed that the regulators accept that no environmental effects remain after mitigation. As such, cumulative effects on palaeontological resources are not recognized, a cumulative effects assessment at a regional level is not required and a regional assessment area (RAA) for palaeontological resources was therefore not defined.

Page 16-1 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

The spatial boundaries for the assessment of effects on palaeontological resources are the:  PDA, which is represented by the physical project footprint. The PDA comprises the 52–m-wide assessment area, which consists of a 21–m wide right-of-way (RoW) and up to 20–m extra workspace where Project activities and potential direct effects on palaeontological resources will occur.  LAA, which is a 1–km-wide corridor centred on the PDA used to evaluate the palaeontological potential of the strata in each target area and collect stratigraphic information. Field studies were done in this corridor.

16.1.3 Administrative and Technical Boundaries for Palaeontological Resources Palaeontological resources are administered by regulatory bodies specific to each province (see Section 16.2.2). Each province manages palaeontological resources under differing prescribed guidelines. Because the Project transects two provincial jurisdictions, two separate palaeontological permits were required and two separate historical/heritage resource impact assessment (HRIA) reports will be prepared and submitted to the relevant provincial agency. The results of both studies were integrated and summarized in this document.

16.2 Scope of Assessment for Palaeontological Resources

16.2.1 Regulatory Setting Environmental effects on palaeontological resources must be addressed under:  CEAA  The Alberta Historical Resources Act, which is administered by the Heritage Resource management Branch (HRMB) of Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS). Under ACCS, the Royal Tyrrell museum of Palaeontology (RTMP) issues permits, reviews permit reports and determines any additional work or mitigation measures needed for the project. Final clearance and requirements for palaeontology are issued via the HRMB.  The Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act, which is administered by the Heritage Resources Branch (HRB) of the ministry of Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport (TPCS). The Royal Saskatchewan museum (RSM) reviews permit applications and reports. Permits, final clearance and requirements for palaeontology are issued via the HRB. Because of the fragile and non-renewable nature of palaeontological resources, inventory, assessment and mitigation must precede initiation of construction activities. Therefore, the results of the effects assessments, as presented in the final permit reports, must be reviewed and accepted by the Alberta RTMP and Saskatchewan HRB.

16.2.2 Key Issues and Interactions for Palaeontological Resources An adverse effect on palaeontological resources involves the destruction or disturbance of all or part of a fossil site. This effect, if not controlled through mitigation investigation and documentation, results in the permanent loss of part of the non-renewable palaeontological record. Depending on the heritage value of the specific fossil site, a significant adverse effect could be identified. A positive effect on palaeontological resources increases the knowledge of palaeontological resources through inventory, documentation, protection, interpretation or other means.

February 2009 Page 16-2 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

Palaeontological resources can be adversely affected by any activities that include surface and subsurface disturbance. Potential project effects will be restricted to the construction phase (see Table 16-1) and include:  direct effects, which result in disturbance of palaeontological resources or loss of site context through construction activities; and  indirect effects, which result in disturbance of palaeontological resources or loss of site context through increased human presence (e.g., project workers collecting fossils). Loss of palaeontology resources and loss of site context are closely linked. As these effects are difficult to separate, they will be discussed together as a single effect. Activities ranked as 1 in Table 16-1 will result in ground disturbance that could disturb fossiliferous strata. These activities are ranked as 1, rather than 2, as the disturbance and resulting mitigation of effects is regulated by a government agency and therefore, once the site has been disturned and then mitigated to regulatory requirements, there are no further residual effects.

Table 16-1 Interaction of the Project with Palaeontological Resources

Project Activities and Physical Works Project Description Reference for Activity Rating Construction and Commissioning Pipeline construction (clearing, topsoil Palaeontological sites can be directly affected 1 stripping, grading, trenching, watercourse by project activities wherever ground crossings, stringing pipe, welding, lowering disturbance will affect strata with high in, backfilling, hydrostatic testing, mainline palaeontological potential. The likelihood of valve instalation, cleanup and final project effects on palaeontological resources reclamation). is greatest at watercourse crossings—where Hardisty B Terminal construction (clearing, surficial cover is typically thin and bedrock is 1 topsoil stripping, grading, road construction, exposed at or near the surface. piling, infrastructure, commissioning, A secondary project effect on palaeontological cleanup and interim reclamation). resources could result from project workers collecting fossils. The construction phase will Construction of pump stations (clearing, increase human presence in some remote 1 topsoil stripping, grading, road construction, areas and will provide access into private piling, infrastructure, commissioning, lands. Ethical collecting, site documentation cleanup and interim reclamation). and reporting of finds could have a positive effect. However, not all fossil collecting by the public is done ethically, and some fossils could be removed and never recorded, resulting in a loss of palaeontology materials, context and information. Operations Operation and maintenance of the No additional effects will occur during 0 Hardisty B Terminal. operations. Operation and maintenance of the pump 0 stations. Operation and maintenance of the pipeline. 0

Page 16-3 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

Table 16-1 Interaction of the Project with Palaeontological Resources (cont’d)

Project Activities and Physical Works Project Description Reference for Activity Rating Interaction of Other Projects and 0 Activities (see Project Inclusion List in Appendix B) Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events1

NOTES: 0 = No interaction 1 = Either:  interaction occurs; however, based on past experience and professional judgement, the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even without mitigation  interaction would not be significant because of application of codified environmental protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects 2 = Interaction could result in an environmental effect of concern, even with mitigation. The potential environmental effects are considered further in the environmental assessment.  = Indicates cumulative environmental effects potential, which is the potential to interact with project environmental effects. Cumulative effects are ranked in the project effects matrix included in Section 7. 1 Accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events are assessed separate from the routine project effects assessment (see Section 21). 2If decommissioning of the Project is required at some point in the future, and if that activity is not exempted from prior Board approval under the Decommissioning Exemption Order (XG/XO-100-2008), an application, pursuant to Section 44 of the OPR will be required. Likewise, if abandonment of the project facility is proposed in the future, an application will be required under Section 74 of the NEB Act.

16.2.3 Standards or Thresholds for Determining Significance for Palaeontological Resources Any effects on palaeontological resource sites must be approved by the Minister of Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS) or the Minister of Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport (TPCS) in Saskatchewan. There are currently no formal thresholds for determining the significance of an effect. Although significance values are considered when ACCS assigns Historical Resource Value to each site and the need for mitigation/further work at each site, there are no guidelines or standards for loss of a site as defined by the entire VEC. Recommendations for mitigation and historical resource clearance are formulated by the palaeontological consultant and included in the Project HRIA, which is submitted for review to the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Alberta or Heritage Resources Branch (HRB) in Saskatchewan. Mitigation requirements and any conditions for historical resource clearance are determined in Alberta by the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology and issued through ACCS or determined by the Royal Saskatchewan Museum and HRB and issued through TPCS in Saskatchewan. As such, the threshold for determining significance is site specific and identified by the provincial regulators during the approvals process, based primarily on the scientific data collected during the HRIA.

February 2009 Page 16-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

16.2.4 Influence of Consultation on the Assessment No palaeontological issues were raised during consultation with Stakeholders, community members and Aboriginal organizations. Landowners interested in palaeontology were informally interviewed for their local knowledge of fossils found on their land and the surrounding area. Researchers at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Royal Saskatchewan Museum and the Eastend T-rex Discover Centre were also informally interviewed for their local knowledge of fossils from the project area and surrounding lands. These informal interviews contributed baseline data and helped direct the project field studies. Formal consultation with the provincial regulators (Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Alberta and HRB in Saskatchewan) occurred during the permit application process, when the proposed field program was reviewed and additional direction for the field studies was provided. Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology and HMB will also review the HRIA documents and set any required followup work or mitigation measures.

16.3 Baseline Conditions for Palaeontological Resources

16.3.1 Summary of Previous Work and Gap Analysis

Alberta In Alberta, the route is contiguous with the existing Keystone Pipeline RoW for much of its length. Palaeontology studies completed for the existing Keystone Pipeline (FMA 2006, 2008) found three fossiliferous areas:  Sounding Creek area;  Red Deer River crossing; and  South Saskatchewan River crossing. Sufficient data have been collected in the Sounding Creek area and Red Deer River crossing during previous Keystone studies to allow effects predictions and recommend mitigation measures for the Project. Additional field studies were completed for two areas of palaeontological sensitivity where the Project route deviates from the existing Keystone Pipeline RoW: South Saskatchewan River crossing and the Neutral Hills area. All other Project areas in Alberta have low palaeontological potential.

Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, the Project route is contiguous with the existing Foothills Pipeline RoW for most of its length. Construction of the existing Foothills Pipeline predated any requirements for palaeontology assessments in Saskatchewan. Therefore, there are no data available from previous palaeontology studies along the existing Foothills Pipeline RoW. A gap analysis identified eight areas of palaeontological sensitivity in Saskatchewan, which were subsequently assessed in the field in 2008:  Skull Creek area;  Black Jack Lake Area;  Swift Current Creek area;  Shaunavon area;  Mule Creek area;  White Creek area;  Gunn Creek area; and  Frenchman River area.

Page 16-5 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

16.3.2 Approach and Methods Baseline conditions were characterized using existing data and field assessment data. A detailed literature review was completed and the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology and Royal Saskatchewan Museum were consulted for records of previously recorded fossil sites in the area. With this information, the palaeontological potential of the strata along the Project route was established. Palaeontological potential is the likelihood of encountering fossils of high heritage value in a particular geological unit. Heritage value is a measure of the relative importance of a palaeontological resource, collection or site as determined by the palaeontological consultant during the HRIA. The following criteria were used to evaluate heritage value:  abundance of material;  quality of preservation;  diversity;  rarity of taxa;  aesthetic value;  taxonomic value; and  geographic or stratigraphic value. Areas of palaeontological sensitivity are places where the Project will encounter bedrock or surficial deposits with high palaeontological potential. On the Canadian plains, where glaciation left behind a thick layer of poorly fossiliferous surficial material, these areas are limited to:  watercourse crossings where surficial cover has eroded away leaving bedrock exposed or near the surface;  blowout areas, where postglacial erosion, such as breaching of a dammed-up glacial lake, has resulted in an area of thin glacial cover; and  topographic highs, such as the Hand Hills (Alberta) or the Cypress Plateau (Saskatchewan). Field surveys were done in the areas of palaeontological sensitivity (see Section 16.3.1). Surveys included a regional assessment of exposures in the LAA and a local assessment of conditions in the PDA. Lithology, sedimentary features, and amount and nature of overburden and fossil content were noted for each exposure.

16.3.3 Baseline Conditions for Palaeontological Resources – Overview

Alberta In Alberta, the Project will encounter four formations with high palaeontological potential: the Oldman, Dinosaur Park, Bearpaw and Empress formations. For the geology and palaeontology of each unit, see Table 16-2. Palaeontological resources of high heritage value were found in the PDA and LAA in the South Saskatchewan River crossing and Sounding Creek areas. Many of the palaeontological sites will be avoided. However, some lie directly on the RoW and site mitigation will be recommended to the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology (see Section 6.4.1.3). Topography and extent of surficial cover in the PDA were also examined during field investigations. Pipeline construction is predicted to disturb strata with high palaeontological potential in the Sounding Creek, Red Deer River crossing and South Saskatchewan River crossing areas, where construction monitoring by a professional palaeontologist will be recommended to the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology.

February 2009 Page 16-6 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

Table 16-2 Geology and Palaeontology of Strata in Alberta

Stratum Age Lithology Fossil Content Select References Surficial deposits Quaternary Gravel, sand and Volumetrically rare Harrington 1978 to recent fine-grained glacial to early sediments postglacial mammals deposited in glacial to early postglacial environments Empress Quaternary Bedded sand and Diverse Stalker 1971; Formation gravel Quaternary mammals Harrington 1971, 1978; Churcher 1972 Bearpaw Upper Marine shale with Abundant and diverse Russell 1965; Formation Cretaceous bentonite and fossils including Ward et al. 1982; sandstone beds ammonites, other Glass 1997 deposited in an invertebrates, inland sea fish, marine reptiles, turtles, sharks and birds Dinosaur Carbonaceous Common plant Kwasniowski and Park sandstone and and microfossil sites, Eberth 1994; Formation shale, coal seams rare dinosaur Koster et al. 1987 and bentonitic skeletons beds; major p

u resistant sandstone o r unit in lower part of G

r unit (i.e., e v

i Comrey member) R

y

l Oldman Grey and brown Abundantly Glass 1997; l

e Formation sandstone and fossiliferous including Kwasniowski and B claystone; overall dinosaurs, non- Eberth 1994 lighter in colour than dinosaurian reptiles, the overlying amphibians, mammal Dinosaur Park s, fish, invertebrates Formation and plants

Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, the Project will encounter five formations with high palaeontological potential: the Bearpaw, Frenchman, Ravenscrag, Cypress Hills and Empress formations. It will also encounter one formation with moderate palaeontological potential (Eastend Formation) and two formations with low palaeontological potential (Whitemud and Battle formations). For the geology and palaeontology of each unit, see Table 16-3. No palaeontological resources of high heritage value were found in the PDA. Palaeontological resources of moderate to high heritage value occur in the LAA in the Gunn Creek area and Frenchman River valley.

Page 16-7 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

Table 16-3 Geology and Palaeontology of Strata in Saskatchewan

Stratum Age Rock Type Fauna Select References Quaternary Mixed clay, silt, sand Occasional mammals Harrington 1978, to recent and minor gravel, and fish 2003; Glass 1997; mostly of glacial origin Morlan et al. 2001 Empress Quaternary Dark-coloured Glacial and quartzite pebble interglacial mammals gravel and dark-coloured coarse sand matrix Cypress Mid-Tertiary Quartzite pebble to Abundant mammals Leckie and Hills boulder conglomerate; including Cheel 1989; unconsolidated gravel multituberculates, Bryant 1992, 1993; in some locations; insectivores, carnivores, Holman 1972; minor beds of ungulates, rodents, Skwara 1988; coarse-grained primates and creodonts Storer 1975, 1984, crossbedded 1996; Storer and sandstone; rare units Bryant 1993; of mudstone and Tokaryk 1992 limestone Ravenscrag Paleocene Interbedded grey and Abundant mammals Fox 1990; green shale and including multituberculat Gardner 2003; siltstone and yellow es, condylarths, McIver and Basinger sandstone (lower primates, carnivores, 1993; Scott 2006; facies); interbedded pantodonts; rare fish, Wilson 1980 red, yellow and amphibians, reptiles, yellow-green shale clams, snails and plant and siltstone and buff fossils coloured sandstone (upper facies), lignitic coal and minor bentonite, ironstone and concretionary siltstone Frenchman Cretaceous Crossbedded, grey to Abundant Braman et al. 1999; yellow sandstone bivalves; moderate McIver 2002; interbedded with numbers of plants, Storer 1991; siltstone and clay-rich sharks, fish, amphibians Tokaryk 1997a, layers of and lower reptiles; rare 1997b; Tokaryk and organic material; dinosaurs, birds Bryant 2004; greenish-grey to and mammals Vavrek 2004 brownish-grey bentonitic clay and shale with minor interbeds of sandstone

February 2009 Page 16-8 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

Table 16-3 Geology and Palaeontology of Strata in Saskatchewan (cont’d)

Stratum Age Rock Type Fauna Select References Battle Cretaceous Brown to purplish silty Rare spores, vertebrate Braman 1988; shale with an upper bone fragments and Braman et al. 1999 thin bed of “tuff” fossilized wood Whitemud Grey to white Rare plants Braman 1988; sandstone (lower and molluscs Braman et al. 1999; unit), brown shale and Glass 1997 claystone (middle unit) and multicoloured siltstone and claystone (upper unit) Bearpaw Dark grey to rusty Abundant bivalves, Bullard and Caldwell brown weathering gastropods, 2002; Furnival 1946; siltstone, silty ammonites; moderate He et al. 2005; dolostone and silty, numbers of sharks, Holmes 1996; carbonaceous shale, turtles, marine reptiles; Reiskind 1975; calcareous rare dinosaurs Russell 1943 concretions Eastend Yellowish sandstone Occasional bivalves and Braman et al. 1999; and silty shale gastropods; one Government of interbedded with grey vertebrate locality with Saskatchewan 2001; and brown shale, fish, turtle, marine reptile Russell 1965, 1943 carbonaceous shale and dinosaur material and coal; bentonite beds near the base. The field investigations also examined the topography and extent of surficial cover in the PDA. Pipeline construction is predicted to disturb strata with high palaeontological in five areas. Most of these areas also yielded unidentifiable bone fragments and some plant and invertebrate fossils indicating that buried palaeontological resources of high heritage value could occur in the PDA. For the following areas, construction monitoring by a professional palaeontologist will be recommended to HRB:  Skull Creek area (edge of Cypress Plateau);  Black Jack Lake area;  Swift Current Creek area;  Gunn Creek area (Frenchman River valley); and  Frenchman River area.

Hardisty B Terminal and Mainline Pump Stations Topographic and surficial geology maps were reviewed for the areas around the Hardisty B Terminal and mainline pump stations. These areas are on relatively flat terrain underlain by surficial deposits with low palaeontological potential. No effects on palaeontology resources are expected from construction of the Hardisty B Terminal or the pump stations.

Page 16-9 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

16.4 Project Environmental Effects Assessment for Palaeontological Resources

16.4.1 Assessment of Loss of Palaeontological Resources or Site Context

16.4.1.1 Loss of Palaeontological Resources and Site Context – Summary After any required project mitigation is completed, the Ministers of ACCS and TPCS give approvals for the project and no residual project effects or cumulative effects are recognized. While ground disturbance and unauthorized collecting of fossils during construction could lead to the loss of fossils and their site context, mitigation measures are recommended to minimize the likelihood of negative effects. Recommended mitigation measures include avoidance, excavation, construction monitoring of areas of high palaeontological potential, palaeontological education program, a ban on fossil collecting and a review of any subsequent pipeline route changes. No followup or compliance monitoring is recommended.

16.4.1.2 Project Environmental Effects Mechanisms on Palaeontological Resources Palaeontological resources can be adversely affected by any activities that include surface and subsurface disturbance. Indirectly, they might be affected by increased access and increased human presence. Direct adverse effects on these sites can occur through pipeline construction (grading, trenching and watercourse crossing) and terminal and pump station construction (grading, cut and fill operations, excavation and road construction). These activities have the potential to alter or remove fossil sites. Indirect effects resulting from unauthorized disturbance or collection are associated with increased human presence and provision of access into private lands. The potential for effects on palaeontological resources is restricted to the construction phase of a pipeline, which is when new ground disturbance occurs and the number of project workers is at its peak. Data and knowledge of palaeontological resources increase as a result of intensive field surveys, documentation, analyses and recording. Because of legislated requirements for inventory and assessment, planned projects contribute to current palaeontological knowledge. Palaeontological resource inventories are compiled as a result of effects assessments of proposed projects. Consequently, past, present and likely future projects generate new palaeontological information. Other projects can also cause the disturbance or loss of this information as a result of construction and through provision of increased access. Assessment of the cumulative effects of developments on palaeontological resources can be measured only in the broadest of terms as these effects also accrue from non-development-related effects such as agricultural activities and increased human presence, through clandestine collection, disturbance and vandalism of sites.

16.4.1.3 Mitigation for Palaeontological Resources The goal of palaeontological mitigation is to minimize the loss of fossils or site context caused by project activities. Wherever practical, the preferred mitigation measure is to avoid known palaeontological sites in the PDA. Where avoidance is not practical, known sites of high heritage value are excavated before construction. Where trenching will occur through strata with high palaeontological potential, a professional palaeontologist will monitor construction activities. A palaeontological education program will be developed to teach project workers what to do in the event of the chance discovery of palaeontological resources during construction. As effect predictions are based on localized conditions in the PDA, any route changes must be re-evaluated by a palaeontologist.

February 2009 Page 16-10 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

With mitigation, positive effects on palaeontological resources can be expected through discovering sites, recovering fossils and recording the site context. The project can make a positive contribution to the scientific knowledge base for palaeontological resources. Site-specific mitigation measures are provided in the Environmental Alignment Sheets (see Appendix C) and will be updated pending regulatory review before construction. All recommended mitigation measures are subject to review and approval by ACCS (Alberta) and TPCS (Saskatchewan). Recommended mitigation measures are outlined in the subsections following.

Avoidance and Excavation of Known Palaeontological Sites Where palaeontological resources are discovered in the PDA, the heritage value of the site will be evaluated. If the heritage value is high, options to avoid the site will be considered. Where avoidance is not practical because of construction constraints or if the heritage value is low or moderate, consultation will occur with ACCS or TPCS to determine site-specific mitigation. Mitigation could include:  detailed surface collecting of the site;  site sampling through spot excavations; and  full site excavation.

Monitoring in Areas of High Palaeontological Potential Construction monitoring for palaeontological resources in areas of high palaeontological potential will be done by a professional palaeontologist following the standard investigation protocol (see Appendix A: Environmental Protection Plan). A final report of monitoring activities and any fossil discoveries will be provided to the provincial regulatory agencies.

Palaeontological Education Program The Project is a large-scale development where ground disturbance will occur over a long distance for an extended period. Monitoring by a professional palaeontologist is only practical in areas with the highest palaeontological potential. It is possible that palaeontological resources could also be discovered in other areas. A palaeontological education program is recommended to:  teach construction workers and supervisors how to recognize a fossil;  inform construction supervisors of the legal requirements of reporting discovery of fossils in Alberta and Saskatchewan; and  provide construction workers and supervisors with procedures to follow should a fossil be found.

Project Ban on Fossil Collecting To reduce the indirect effects of a large number of project personnel in areas of high palaeontological potential, a ban on fossil collecting by project personnel is recommended.

Evaluation of Route Changes The pipeline route will continue to be refined up to the time of construction. As effect predictions and site-specific mitigation measures depend on the local conditions in the PDA, a palaeontologist must evaluate all route changes to ensure that no effects on palaeontological resources occur. This evaluation and any changes in mitigation recommendations must be submitted to ACCS and TPCS.

Page 16-11 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

16.4.1.4 Characterization of Residual Project Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources As palaeontological resources are protected and regulated under the Alberta Historical Resources Act and the Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act, any effects on palaeontological resource sites must be approved by the Minister of ACCS or the Minister of TPCS. The minister determines the significance of the effect and any required mitigation. ACCS and TPCS do not recognize any residual effects after mitigation.

16.4.1.5 Followup and Monitoring for Effects on Palaeontological Resources No followup or compliance monitoring is required for palaeontological resources. Construction monitoring is proposed as a mitigation measure.

16.5 Summary of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources After the required project mitigation is completed, the Minister of ACCS and the Minister of TPCS provide approval for the project and no residual project effects or cumulative effects are recognized. While ground disturbance and unauthorized fossil collecting during construction could lead to the loss of fossils and their site context, mitigation measures are expected to minimize the likelihood of negative effects. Mitigation measures will include:  avoidance, excavation and construction monitoring of areas of high palaeontological potential;  a palaeontological education program;  ban on fossil collecting; and  palaeontological review of any route changes. No followup or compliance monitoring is recommended for palaeontological resources.

16.6 References for Palaeontological Resources

Literature Cited Braman, D. (ed.). 1988. Palaeontology and Geology of the Edmonton Group (Late Cretaceous to Early Paleocene), Red Deer River Valley, Alberta, Canada. Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology. 48th Annual Meeting. Field Trip C, October 16, 1988. Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology Occasional Paper 8. Braman, D.R., A.R. Sweet and J.F. Lerbekmo. 1999. Upper Cretaceous–Lower Tertiary lithostratigraphic relationship of three cores from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 36: 669–683. Bryant, H.N. 1992. The carnivores of the Lac Pelletier Lower Fauna (Eocene: Duchesnean), Cypress Hills Formation, Saskatchewan. Journal of Palaeontology 66: 847–855. Bryant, H.N. 1993. Carnivora and creodonta of the Calf Creek local fauna (Late Eocene, Chadronian), Cypress Hills Formation, Saskatchewan. Journal of Palaeontology 67: 1032–1046. Bullard, T.S. and M.W. Caldwell. 2002. A new North American record of the giant tylosaurine Hainosaurus (Reptilia: Mosasauria) from Saskatchewan. Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 22: 40A. Churcher, C.S. 1972. Imperial mammoth and Mexican half-ass from near Bindloss, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 9: 1562–1567.

February 2009 Page 16-12 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

FMA Heritage Resources Consultants Ltd. (FMA). 2006. Palaeontological assessment. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline Project – Alberta: 2006 Field Studies. September 2006. FMA. 2008. Palaeontological assessment. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline Project – Alberta: 2007 Reroutes. February 2008. Fox, R.C. 1990. The succession of Paleocene mammals in western Canada. In: T.M. Bown and K.D. Rose (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Mammals in the Northern Part of the Rocky Mountain Interior, North America. Geological Society of America Special Paper 243: 51–70. Furnival, G.M. 1946. Cypress Lake Map-Area, Saskatchewan. Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 242. Includes 1:250,440 bedrock geology map. Gardner, J.D. 2003. The fossil salamander Proamphiuma cretacea Estes (Caudata; Amphiumidae) and relationships within the Amphiumidae. Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 23: 769–782. Glass, D.J. 1997. Lexicon of Canadian Stratigraphy. Volume 4: Western Canada. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. Calgary, AB. Government of Saskatchewan. 2001. Annual Report 2000–2001. Saskatchewan Culture, Youth and Recreation, and Saskatchewan Municipal Affairs and Housing. Harrington, C.R. 1978. Quaternary Vertebrate Faunas of Canada and Alaska and Their Suggested Chronological Sequence. Syllogeus No. 15. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, ON. Harrington, C.R. 1971. A Pleistocene lion-like cat (Panthera atrox) from Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 8: 170–174. Harrington, C.R. 2003. Annotated Bibliography of Quaternary Vertebrates of Northern North America with Radiocarbon Dates. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, ON. He, S., T.K. Kyser and W.G.E. Caldwell. 2005. Paleoenvironment of the Western Interior Seaway inferred from δ18O and δ13C values of molluscs from the Cretaceous Bearpaw marine cyclothem. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 217: 67–85. Holman, J.A. 1972. Herpetofauna of the Calf Creek Local Fauna (Lower Oligocene: Cypress Hills Formation) of Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 9: 1612–1631. Holmes, R. 1996. Plioplatecarpus primaevus (Mosasauridae) from the Bearpaw Formation (Campanian, Upper Cretaceous) of the North American Western Interior Seaway. Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 16: 673–678. Koster, E., P.J. Currie, D. Eberth, D. Brinkman, P. Johnston and D. Braman. 1987. Sedimentology and Palaeontology of the Upper Cretaceous Judith River/Bearpaw Formations at Dinosaur Park, Alberta. Field Trip Guidebook: Trip 10. Geological Association of Canada and Mineralogical Association of Canada. The University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. Kwasniowski, S. and D.A. Eberth. 1994. The Judith River Group (Belly River Equivalent) of Southern Alberta. Field Trip for PanCanadian. September 29, 30 and October 1, 1994. Leckie, D.A. and R.J. Cheel. 1989. The Cypress Hills Formation (Upper Eocene to Miocene): A semi-arid braidplain deposit resulting from intrusive uplift. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 12: 1918–1931. McIver, E.E. 2002. The paleoenvironment of Tyrannosaurus rex from southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 39: 207–221.

Page 16-13 February 2009 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

McIver, E.E. and J.F. Basinger. 1993. Flora of the Ravenscrag Formation (Paleocene), Southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada. Palaeontographica Canadiana 10. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and Geological Association of Canada. Morlan, R.E., R. McNeely, S.A. Wolf and B.T. Schreiner. 2001. Quaternary Dates and Vertebrate Faunas in Saskatchewan. Geological Survey of Canada. Open File 3888. 139 p. Reiskind, J. 1975. Marine Concretionary Faunas of the Uppermost Bearpaw Shale (Maestrichtian) in Eastern Montana and Southwestern Saskatchewan. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper Number 13. Russell, L.S. 1965. Micropalaeontology of the Surface Formations, Cypress Hills Area, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta Society of Petroleum Geologists 15th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, Part 1: Cypress Hills Plateau. 131–136. Russell, L.S. 1943. Marine fauna of the Eastend Formation of Saskatchewan. Journal of Palaeontology 17: 281–288. Scott, C.S. 2006. A new Erinaceid (Mammalia, Insectivora) from the Late Paleocene of western Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 43: 1695–1709. Skwara, T. 1988. Mammals of the Topham Local Fauna: Early Miocene (Hemingfordian), Cypress Hills Formation, Saskatachewan. Museum of Natural History, Natural History Contributions Number 9. Saskatchewan Parks, Recreation and Culture. Stalker, A.M. 1971. Quaternary Studies in the Southwestern Prairies. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 71-1, Part A: 180–181. Storer, J.E. 1975. Middle Miocene mammals from the Cypress Hills, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 12: 520–522. Storer, J.E. 1984. Fossil mammals of the Southfork local fauna (early Chadronian) of Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 21: 1400–1405. Storer, J.E. 1991. The mammals of the Gryde Local Fauna, Frenchman Formation (Maastrichtian: Lancian), Saskatchewan. Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 11: 350–369. Storer, J.E. 1996. Eocene-Oligocene faunas of the Cypress Hills Formation, Saskatchewan. In: D.R. Prothero and R.J. Emry (ed.). The Terrestrial Eocene–Oligocene Transition in North America. Cambridge University Press. Storer, J.E. and H.N. Bryant. 1993. Biostratigraphy of the Cypress Hills Formation (Eocene to Miocene), Saskatchewan: Equid types (Mammalia: Perissodactyla) and associated faunal assemblages. Journal of Palaeontology 67: 660–669. Ward, G., R. Vendervelde and P. Pare. 1982. Macro-Paleo Bearpaw Formation, Southern Alberta. Field Trip Guidebook. Sponsored by The Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. Tokaryk, T.T. 1992. Additions to the Cenozoic Avian Fauna of Saskatchewan. Government of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Museum of Natural History Occasional Short Notes Number 4. Tokaryk, T.T. 1997a. First evidence of juvenile ceratopsians (Reptilia: Ornithischia) from the Frenchman Formation (Late Maastrichtian) of Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 34: 1401–1404. Tokaryk, T.T. 1997b. Preliminary review of the non-mammalian vertebrates from the Frenchman Formation (Late Maastrichtian) of Saskatchewan. In: L. M. McAnally. Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary Stratigraphy and Palaeontology of Southern Saskatchewan. Canadian Palaeontology Conference Field Trip Guidebook No. 6. University of Saskatchewan.

February 2009 Page 16-14 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 16: Assessment of Environmental Effects on Palaeontological Resources

Tokaryk, T.T and H.N. Bryant. 2004. The fauna from the Tyrannosaurus rex excavation, Frenchman Formation (Late Maastrichtian), Saskatchewan. In: Summary of Investigations 2004, Volume 1. Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Sask. Industry Resources Misc. Rep. 2004-4.1, CD-ROM, Paper A-18. Vavrek, M. 2004. Palaeoenvironmental implications of fossil salamander taxa from the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrictian) Frenchman Formation of Southwestern Saskatchewan. Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 24: 125A. Ward, G., R. Vendervelde and P. Pare. 1982. Macro-Paleo Bearpaw Formation, Southern Alberta. Field Trip Guidebook. Sponsored by The Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. Wilson, M.V.H. 1980. Oldest known Esox (Pisces: Esocidae), part of a new Paleocene teleost fauna from western Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 17: 307–312.

Page 16-15 February 2009