Preliminary Information Package
3 Project Description, Engineering and Economics
3.1 General Information Gateway proposes to construct and operate an export oil pipeline and an import condensate pipeline between the terminalling facilities near Edmonton and a new marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia. Gateway also proposes to construct and operate marine infrastructure at tidewater to accommodate loading and unloading oil and condensate tankers. Discussion of these components, from a construction and engineering design perspective, follows. Ongoing commercial negotiations are being held with shippers and suppliers. These negotiations will eventually lead to contract specifications regarding volumes, commodity types and other factors influencing Project design. Ongoing stakeholder consultation, results of the ESA and regulatory review will also influence Project engineering design. Therefore, specific Project details (e.g., size, volume, pressure, throughput, routes, stations and sites, and construction and inspection methods) may change from those described in this document. The information in this section reflects preliminary Project design. Figure 3-1 shows the overall schedule for the Project.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-1
Activity 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Description Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Consultation u
PIP Filing Environmental Studies
NEB Act Application and ESA Filing
Supplementary Filing and Response to IRs Process
Joint Review Panel Joint Review Panel Decision Report (CPCN) Assesment Process Release
Ancillary Permits
Engineering
Procurement
Construction
In - Service
DRAFT DATE 12/10/2005
REVISION DATE ENBRIDGE GATEWAY PROJECT - PRELIMINARY INFORMATION PACKAGE Gateway Environmental Management Team 24/10/2005
FIGURE NO. PREPARED FOR 3-1 Proposed Gateway Pipeline Schedule Preliminary Information Package
3.2 Terminalling Operations
3.2.1 Location and Configuration Terminalling and tankage requirements at Edmonton are currently being evaluated. Options include constructing new terminal facilities as a part of the Project or accessing an existing facility. A decision will be made before the application is filed with the NEB. New facilities constructed as a part of the Project will be included in the NEB application and scope of the Project for the ESA.
3.3 Pipelines
3.3.1 Routing An initial feasibility assessment of the Project identified several routing corridors for a potential pipeline between Alberta and a coastal port facility in British Columbia. A preferred siting and routing option was developed for the components of the Project and is discussed as follows. The two proposed pipelines will be located in a common RoW, crossing east to west from the Edmonton area to the Gateway marine terminal at Kitimat. The terrain is varied, from level, industrial, commercial and agricultural lands in the area around Edmonton to timbered regions of the Alberta Plateau, across the primarily timbered and often rugged terrain of the continental divide south of Tumbler Ridge before crossing the central Fraser Plateau region of British Columbia. Continuing west, the pipeline route ascends and crosses the rugged Coast Mountain range before descending into the Kitimat River valley and finally terminating on the west side of Kitimat Arm. The criteria and factors used to evaluate and compare the alternative pipeline routes included: • minimizing construction and operations issues by avoiding complex and difficult terrain or areas posing reclamation difficulties • minimizing community and pipeline security concerns • avoiding or minimizing the use of areas designated as environmentally sensitive, such as parks, protected areas and special areas • minimizing, where possible, the number of river, stream, highway, road, rail and utility crossings and optimizing the crossing locations • paralleling existing pipeline rights-of-way, where appropriate • using other rights-of-way, whenever possible, as temporary working space for pipeline access and construction to minimize environmental and land use effects • practicing cost effective design, location, operations and maintenance The pipeline route will be subject to further refinement as detailed engineering continues and input from stakeholders is received and considered.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-3
Preliminary Information Package
3.3.2 Facility Details
3.3.2.1 Pipeline Specifications The pipeline systems are based on a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 11,663 kPa, but detailed engineering may justify a higher pressure rating. The oil pipeline is currently being designed with an annual throughput capacity of 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) and the condensate pipeline is currently being designed with an annual throughput capacity of 150,000 bpd (Table 3-1). The pipeline depth of cover (measured from the top of the pipe) will vary depending on location and will range between 0.6 m in bedrock to 1.2 m in agricultural lands. Depth of pipe burial at river crossings, road and rail crossings will be deeper and will be determined during the detailed engineering design phase. The cathodic protection system for the pipelines will be designed and installed according to codes and regulations and Enbridge procedures and operating practices.
Table 3-1 Preliminary Pipeline System Design Parameters
Pipelines Oil Condensate Design Parameter Pipeline Pipeline Proposed pipeline length (km) 1,150 Proposed pipeline diameter (mm OD [outside diameter]) 762 508 Maximum allowable operating pressure 11,663 kPa Annual average throughput (bpd) 400,000 150,000 Ambient design temperature -40°C to 60°C Operating temperature 5°C to 30°C
Right-of-Way Configuration The two proposed pipelines (oil and condensate) will be installed within a legally surveyed, permanent RoW, currently proposed to be approximately 30 m wide. In certain areas (e.g., aerial crossings), there may be a requirement for additional permanent RoW width to accommodate structures and supports. Where possible and without compromising the safety of the pipeline operation, a narrower permanent RoW may be acquired. During construction, approximately 15 m of temporary workspace will also be required along the entire length of the pipeline route. There will be areas where temporary extra workspace will be required (e.g., at river, road and rail crossings and areas where there are steep slopes and side hills). The specific areas requiring temporary extra workspace will be determined at a later date. The pipeline RoW during construction is required to have sufficient space for topsoil and spoil placement, pipe trench and staging (for two pipelines) and equipment movement. In some locations, pipes will be installed in a common trench. In other locations, pipelines will be in their own, separate trench. In still other specific locations (e.g.,
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-4
Preliminary Information Package
river crossings, aerial and horizontal directional drilling crossings), pipeline separation will be determined during the detailed design phase. These variations will result in other RoW configurations.
3.3.2.2 Pump Stations and Mainline Valves Table 3-2 lists the pump and initiation and pressure-reduction station locations. The location of the stations is an approximation at this stage of Project design. The majority of stations will likely be on Crown lands; however, the siting of these facilities on private lands will also be investigated. The location of these sites is dependent on both pipeline sizes and pressure ratings. If commercial requirements change, the locations of these stations may also change.
Table 3-2 Pump Stations and Power Supply – Proposed Location
Oil Pump Station Condensate Pump Station Approximate Approximate Station Identification Location Power Source Location Power Source Available Access (KP) (KP) Initiating station Existing with minor 1 0.0 Electric (25 kV) – – (oil) upgrade Existing with minor 2 Station 2 150.0 Electric (25 kV) – – upgrade Existing with minor 3 Station 3 288.0 Electric (25 kV) – – upgrade Approx. 4 km of new 4 Station 4 425.5 Electric (25 kV) 425.5 Electric (25 kV) road from west along ROW Existing with minor 5 Station 5 551.5 Electric (25 kV) – – upgrade Existing with minor 6 Station 6 690.0 Electric (25 kV) 690.0 Electric (25 kV) upgrade Existing (Hwy #27) to 7 Station 7 800.2 Electric (25 kV) – – within 1 km Existing with minor 8 Station 8 896.0 Electric (25 kV) – – upgrade Existing with minor 9 Station 9 971.0 Electric (25 kV) 971.0 Electric (25 kV) upgrade Pressure Existing access will need 10 1074.0 – – – reduction (oil) upgrading Initiation station Existing access will need 11 – – 1144.0 Electric (25 kV) (condensate) upgrading
Pump stations will need permanent, all-weather road access and electrical power for operations, workers and safety. Pump stations (Photo 3-1) will be designed to PN 150 rating. Preliminary designs indicate that each oil pump station will incorporate multiple electric powered pumps in series configuration. Estimated power for each oil pump will be 5000 hp (up to 5700 hp). The condensate pump station will also have multiple electric
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-5
Preliminary Information Package
pumps in series configuration. Estimated power for each condensate pump will be 2500 hp. For major pump station design parameters, see Table 3-3. Pipeline block (sectionalizing) valves will be installed at the pump stations, on either side of major river crossings, and at additional locations identified during detailed engineering (according to CSA Z662 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, clause 4.4.3) and environmental protection planning. Pigging facilities will be installed at both ends of the pipeline systems. Additional, intermediate pigging facilities may be installed, based on operational and inspection requirements. Electrical power for the block valves will be provided by commercial sources, if available, or by alternate power sources (such as solar panels and propane fuelled thermo-electric generators). In remote locations, valve sites and pump stations are proposed to be equipped with satellite telecommunications.
Photo 3-1 Pump Station – Example Photo Source: Enbridge
Table 3-3 Proposed Pump Station Design Parameters
Pump Stations Proposed Design Parameter Oil Condensate Number of stations 9 4 Pressure reducing stations 1 0 Pump station size (ha) 2 ha, plus additional space, as needed, for firebreak and buffer Annual average flow rate (bpd) 400,000 150,000
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-6
Preliminary Information Package
3.3.3 Construction For an aerial view of laying pipeline in a mountain landscape, see Photo 3-2. A description of the steps follows.
Photo 3-2 Pipeline – Laying
3.3.3.1 Mainline Construction It is anticipated that the pipeline portion of the Project will be divided into several segments (or spreads) to break the work into manageable sizes for the winter and summer construction periods and to produce an effective and competitive contractor bidding process. It is expected that three construction spreads will be employed in each of the four construction seasons (two summer, two winter) for a total of 12 spreads. The final number of pipeline construction spreads will be based on productivity estimates; therefore, the number (12) may change as more detailed engineering and environmental details become known. Construction spreads will range in length between 70 km and 190 km. The successful prime contractor on each spread will provide all of the necessary construction resources and will secure subcontractors for items such as blasting, specialized river crossing techniques, pipe hauling and stringing and final testing. A comprehensive project and construction management and inspection procedure will be implemented. Qualified personnel will inspect critical construction activities to confirm that the contractor’s operations comply with applicable specifications and regulations. Each spread will have a resident construction supervisor responsible for technical matters and reporting to the construction manager. An inspection team, responsible for construction, safety and relevant environmental and archaeological matters, will support the resident construction supervisor.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-7
Preliminary Information Package
Pipeline construction comprises five major parts: 1. RoW preparation 2. grading and soil handling 3. stringing, ditching, pipe welding, installation and backfilling 4. hydrostatic testing 5. clean-up and re-vegetation
Right-of-way Preparation RoW preparation generally occurs in the following order: 1. RoW boundaries are cleared, including temporary and extra workspaces. 2. Required RoW access is established. 3. Merchantable timber is salvaged and removed according to line list and approved logging plan and applicable licences. 4. Woody debris is cleared and disposed according to specifications and licences. 5. Timber and woody slash debris—in designated areas—is retained for use as access control. 6. Temporary access to and along the RoW is established, including the installation of culverts or bridges at stream crossings to accommodate construction vehicles.
Grading and Soil Handling Grading will be minimized, but will be required along portions of the route to safely accommodate pipe installation and equipment travel. Grading involves: • stripping the RoW of topsoil or duff layer, which will then be windrowed to the edge of the RoW, or stockpiled in extra work areas • excavating rock by ripper-equipped crawler tractors or hydraulic excavators, and blasting, which will be done according to applicable regulations for explosives handling • storing spoils onsite and, if the spoils are acid-producing, taking measures to identify and manage any acid drainage
Stringing, Ditching, Pipe Welding, Installation and Backfilling Dedicated crews generally complete the stringing, ditching, pipe welding, installation and backfilling activities. Specialized crews will also be employed for road crossings, water crossings and construction in difficult terrain areas. The normal sequence follows: 1. Pipe is hauled from the stockpile sites to start stringing activities. 2. Pipe bending is done according to specifications. 3. Individual pipe joints are lined up, clamped in place and welded using either automated techniques or, in some areas, manual (stick welding) techniques.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-8
Preliminary Information Package
4. Hydraulic excavators or ditching machines are used for ditching depending on terrain and ground conditions (i.e., ditch depth should equal the depth-of-cover design requirements identified in the specifications, drawings and line list). 5. Welds are visually inspected during the welding process and, after completion, each weld is non-destructively examined to determine conformity with specifications. 6. After each weld is accepted, it is cleaned and coated with a field-applied coating to prevent external abrasion and possible corrosion. 7. The pipe is scanned to identify any uncoated or damaged areas in the pipe coating that require repair or recoating. 8. The ditch bottom is checked for rocks and debris to prevent damage to pipe and coatings as the pipe is lowered into the ditch (Photo 3-3). 9. In areas of blast or abrasive materials, the bottom of the trench might be padded with select backfill material or the pipe might be coated with concrete or other protective coating. 10. After the pipe has been lowered, it is shaded with select backfill material from the ditch excavation to entirely cover the pipe, following which the remaining ditch spoil is used to fill the balance of the trench. 11. The various sections of the pipeline are tied in by a tie-in crew to form continuous pipeline sections and are then tested.
Photo 3-3 Typical Pipeline Construction – Lowering Photo Source: Enbridge
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-9
Preliminary Information Package
Cleaning and Testing The completed pipeline will be cleaned and tested before the new pipeline sections are put into service. Pipeline cleaning is done with inline devices called pigs. Manifolds are installed on either end of sections of pipe and the pigs are propelled through the pipeline. Liquid and solid wastes that have collected in the pipeline during construction are directed to an open end where they are collected and disposed according to regulations. After cleaning, the pipeline will be pressure tested using hydrostatic or pneumatic methods. During hydrostatic testing, water is pumped into the pipeline, held at a high-pressure and monitored for leaks. At test completion, the pressure is released and the water is removed from the pipeline by pushing a pig through the pipe with air. Additional pig runs are made to remove any residual water from the line. The test water will be discharged according to applicable regulations and approvals. During pneumatic testing, air is pumped into the line and compressed, held at high-pressure and monitored for leaks. At test completion, the compressed air in the pipeline is released to the atmosphere or other test sections and the pipeline will be dried.
Clean-up and Revegetation Preliminary cleanup will normally proceed following pipeline testing. During this phase, the RoW is restored to a stable condition to prevent soil erosion. Excess rock from blasting and grading may be used to: • provide access control • stabilize and reinforce stream channels and banks • crib and armour slopes • provide a foundation and ballast for roads and access After testing has been satisfactorily completed, final cleanup will be done. This will include deactivating temporary construction access, replacing the topsoil or duff layer, and installing cross-berms and surface water control. Because of the remoteness of several sections of the RoW, it is expected that the Project design will include an access management plan. Project needs for access during operations will be factored into such a plan. Gateway will consult with all interested parties to address issues related to access control. At water crossings, bank restoration and revegetation will be done according to specifications developed in the environmental protection plan of the ESA. The RoW will be reseeded with native seed mixtures determined in consultation with and approved by Alberta Land and Forest and British Columbia Ministry of Forests, or with agronomic seed mixes on agricultural land determined through consultation with landowners. Seeding will start as soon as practical upon completion of cleanup. Additional cleanup might be required after the first winter following commissioning. Revegetation will be monitored and assessed following construction.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-10
Preliminary Information Package
3.3.3.2 Pipeline Water Crossings The proposed oil and condensate pipelines will cross hundreds of watercourses, the majority of which are unnamed, minor and ephemeral drainages. However, the pipeline does cross several large rivers and important watercourses. Environmental and engineering studies are currently being done for the Project’s watercourse crossings. Crossing techniques haven’t been finalized. The following criteria are being considered during this review: • fisheries, habitat and water quality issues • approvals, codes and regulations • design and constructability issues • operational requirements A variety of crossing techniques will be used during the construction of the pipeline. They include conventional trenched crossings, trenchless crossings (i.e., horizontal directional drilling, tunnelling or boring), isolated crossings and, in several unique locations, aerial crossings. Horizontal directional drilling crossings work best for large waterbodies in areas with exceptionally vulnerable (water quality, fisheries and habitat) ecosystems and where geotechnical and hydrological conditions are favourable. The criteria for selecting crossings for horizontal directional drilling include: • presence of highly sensitive fish species, life stages or habitats • exceptionally steep approach slopes in a river valley • presence of extensive existing pipeline infrastructure at the crossing Isolated crossing techniques are best suited for streams and rivers with narrow channel widths and with lower flow rates. With isolated crossing techniques, the main flow of the stream is isolated from the construction area while a trench is excavated and the pipe installed. The stream is stabilized and allowed to return to its bed. There are three main methods of diverting stream flow in an isolation- type crossing: • dam the stream and convey the water across the site by pumping • dam the stream and install a culvert (flume) • dam the stream and install a superflume for high-flow watercourses In an aerial crossing, the pipeline is installed over the watercourse, supported by an existing or new bridge structure. This method is recommended under certain conditions, including: • where there is a narrow, steeply inclined river valley that would be difficult or expensive to cross beneath the stream bed • where environmental sensitivities and engineering difficulties preclude any other crossing method • where the area is sparsely populated and risk of third-party damage is low
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-11
Preliminary Information Package
3.3.3.3 Highway, Railroad and Third Party Pipeline Crossings The Project will cross a number of highways, roads, railways and third party pipelines. Generally, major highways, paved roads and railways will either be bored or tunnelled to avoid disruption of service. Pipeline specifications may be modified in these locations to address potential load concerns related to road and rail traffic. Depending on the location and structure of certain roads, they may be open cut and backfilled to existing or better standards. Safety of the traveling public will be a goal during this crossing activity. Third party pipelines will be crossed using several techniques, including boring, tunnelling and open cut. Third party pipelines will be located and exposed before any excavation. The approximate number of crossings is listed on Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 Approximate Number of Crossings
Parameter Approximate Number Major river and watercourse crossings 50 Highway crossings 29 Minor road crossings 249 Railway crossings 15 Third party pipeline crossings 232
3.3.4 Operations Gateway will operate and maintain the pipelines for their integrity. The pipeline RoW will be monitored on a routine basis by aerial patrol and will be clearly marked with signs and post markings at public roads, watercourse crossings and other areas, as required, to reduce the possibility of damage or interference resulting from third party activity. Vehicle access may be created for maintenance activities as needed. Typical maintenance for the pipelines and RoW will include: • electronic inspections using pigs • periodic surface inspections of the RoW • cathodic protection and monitoring • valve monitoring and servicing • vegetation control • investigation and control of encroachment from third parties • encroachments and crossings from third parties • maintenance of above grade facilities
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-12
Preliminary Information Package
3.4 Gateway Marine Terminal and Marine Infrastructure
3.4.1 Location The marine terminal and infrastructure site consists of a 1500-m stretch of uplands and shoreline on the west side of the Kitimat Arm section of Douglas Channel and generally runs in a northeast to southwest direction.
3.4.1.1 Uplands The uplands area for the marine terminal site covers about 282 ha and is heavily forested with the northern portion of the site having steeper slopes than the southern portion. The hills along the water rise to an elevation of about 150 to 180 m. Tankage will be situated on relatively flat benchlands at the top of the hills and will be interconnected with the berthing facilities at shoreline via short pipelines.
3.4.1.2 Shoreline At the waterline, the shoreline is narrow and rocky. The tree line is about 20 to 30 m from the shoreline and has rock outcrops at certain locations. The bathymetric contours run approximately parallel to the shoreline and are relatively closely and evenly spaced, especially in the northern portion of the site. The contours show that the channel bottom drops off fairly steeply and consistently from the shoreline down to a level of about -40 m. Below this level, the channel bottom tends to be steeper along the northern half of the proposed site and less steep in the southern half. The bathymetry suggests that the proposed VLCC class vessels will be able to berth relatively close to shore without the need for dredging. To provide enough underkeel clearance for the “design ships,” the -25 m to -30 m contour will likely represent the fender line of the new marine berth. This contour lies about 25 m to 40 m offshore in the northern area of the site and about 50 m to 75 m in the southern area.
3.4.2 Facility Details
3.4.2.1 Terminal Design Table 3-5 provides the details of the proposed tankage. The proposed capacity considers pipeline throughput, tanker loading and unloading times and contingency spare capacity in the event of a delayed arrival or departure of a vessel and pipeline flow-through interruption.
Table 3-5 Proposed Tank Terminal Design Parameters – Kitimat
Tank Terminal Proposed Design Parameter Kitimat Total onsite tank capacity (bbl) 5,500,000 Terminal size (ha) 282.5 150,000 (Condensate) Annual average flow rate (bpd) 400,000 (Oil)
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-13
Preliminary Information Package
All tankage will be designed to standards prescribed by: • Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999 (OPR-99) (NEB) • CSA Z662-03 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems (Canadian Standards Association) • API Standard 650 Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage (American Petroleum Institute) • Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground Storage Tank Systems (AST) Containing Petroleum Products (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment [CCME]) All tanks will be equipped with a below-grade collection sump and surrounding secondary containment system to allow for localized containment and easy recovery of release of product. The terminal will be equipped with independent fire fighting systems. To the extent practical, Gateway will strive to coordinate fire fighting and emergency response planning with local resources. Tanks and piping infrastructure will be protected by an impressed cathodic protection system.
3.4.2.2 Tanker Berths At this stage in the Project design development, two separate, dedicated tanker berths are planned for the Gateway marine terminal. One berth will be used to load oil and the other will be used to offload condensate. The oil berth will be designed to handle VLCCs up to 320,000 deadweight tonnes and the condensate berth will handle Suezmax class vessels up to 160,000 deadweight tonnes. Dimensions of typical vessels in this class are shown on Table 3-6.
Table 3-6 Marine, Loading and Offloading Facilities – Design Parameters
Design Parameters Oil Condensate Vessel class VLCC Suezmax Deadweight tonnes 320,000 160,000 Length (m) 343 274 Beam (m) 58 48 Loaded draft (m) 23 17 Hull type double double Cargo capacity (bbl) 2.3 million 1.1 million Number of cargo pumps 3 3 Pump capacity (tonnes/hr) 15,000 12,000
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-14
Preliminary Information Package
The proposed Gateway marine facilities include structures to safely berth and moor the vessel and structures that provide the interface between the vessel and the shore to safely and efficiently load and offload cargo. The marine loading and offloading berths will have similar features: • loading and unloading the platform • breasting dolphins (up to four, depending on range of design vessels) • mooring dolphins (up to six, depending on range of design vessels) • gangway tower (for crew access to the dock) • walkway bridges between platform and breasting dolphins • utility boat floating dock with wave protection • deployment system with storage platforms • cathodic protection • fire fighting systems The vessel characteristics described in Table 3-6 were used to develop the preliminary design parameters for the marine infrastructure.
Loading and Unloading Platform The tanker berth platform’s main function is to support the loading and unloading arm and equipment. A typical platform size is about 20 m by 30 m. About 60 percent of the platform area is taken up by piping, loading arms and equipment. The remaining 40 percent is an open area to allow for mobile crane or small truck access, parking and turnaround. Tanker berth platforms are typically accessed from shore by a pile-supported trestle. Access trestles support the piping and, usually, a single lane roadway. For the Kitimat site, with deep water so close to shore, an access trestle may not be required. Loading and unloading platforms are typically pile-supported structures; however, in areas with large tidal fluctuations, floating platforms are sometimes used. Both concepts will be studied during the design development phase of the Project.
Breasting Dolphins Breasting dolphins are usually independent structures and are located on both sides of the loading and unloading platform. The primary functions of the breasting dolphins are to absorb the energy of the berthing vessel, provide contact points for the moored vessel and provide a structure to support the hardware used to secure some of the vessel’s mooring lines. These structures are typically about 8 to 10 m2 and are usually pile supported. Where space is at a premium on the loading and unloading platform, the access gangway structure can be located on one of the breasting dolphins.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-15
Preliminary Information Package
Mooring Dolphins Mooring dolphins are used to secure the fore and aft breasting lines and the bow and stern lines from the vessel. They are equipped with mooring hardware and are set back from the berth fender line, usually about 40 m to 50 m. Similar to breasting dolphins, mooring dolphins are typically built over the water and are supported by piles. Walkway bridges from the breasting dolphins are used to access mooring dolphins. The mooring dolphins at the Kitimat site will likely be constructed on land, as a concrete foundation using conventional land-based construction equipment. The mooring dolphins will be about 5 to 10 m2.
Fire Fighting The marine terminal facilities will be equipped with independent fire fighting systems. Each vessel's fire fighting equipment, including main and emergency fire pumps, will be kept ready for immediate use with at least one fire pump maintaining pressure on the deck fire main.
3.4.2.3 Ancillary Marine Facilities
Tug Berthing Facilities The location of the tug berth will depend on whether or not the tug service will be shared among various shipping terminals in Kitimat Arm.
Anchorages Anchorages may be required for tankers calling at the Gateway marine terminal. Based on preliminary discussions with the British Columbia Pilot’s Authority, there are anchorages at Browning Entrance and an anchorage near Kitimat harbour. The requirements for anchorages will be further evaluated as part of marine transportation planning for the TERMPOL Review Process.
Ballast Water Tankers visiting the Gateway marine terminal are required to comply with the Canada Shipping Act, Guidelines for the Control of Ballast Water Discharge from Ships in Waters under Canadian Jurisdiction. These guidelines require that all ships (including tankers) must discharge 100 percent of the ballast water taken at the previous port and replace it with mid-ocean seawater in waters deeper than 2000 m. This activity is recorded in the ballast management plan, which would be available for inspection.
3.4.3 Construction
3.4.3.1 Dredging Because of the natural deep water close to shore, dredging to provide adequate underkeel clearance for the vessels will not be required. There may be a requirement to bench and sidecast spoil material in selected areas of the
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-16
Preliminary Information Package
underwater slope to provide a level base for installing piles. If this procedure is required, it will be a localized excavation of the seabed.
3.4.3.2 Marine Construction Construction of the marine terminal infrastructure for loading and unloading oil and condensate cargoes will require marine construction activities throughout the year. Specific requirements for excavation, site levelling, piling, fabrication and equipment will be determined once a final site for the Gateway marine terminal and marine infrastructure is selected.
3.4.4 Operations
3.4.4.1 Marine Tank Terminal Terminal operations will consist of custody transfer measurement of receipt and delivery volumes and non-custody transfer tank gauging. Monitoring, preventative maintenance and routine equipment upgrades will also be performed along with regularly scheduled safety and security inspections.
3.4.4.2 Tanker Loading and Unloading Facilities Marine terminal operations can be divided into four general categories: 1) berthing procedures, 2) preloading/unloading operations, 3) cargo operations, and 4) departure operations.
Arrival Manoeuvring and Berthing Operations Condensate vessels arriving full will stop some distance from the shore before being pushed port side-to on the berth (bow pointing north). Turning the vessel will occur as a departure manoeuvre. Oil tankers coming in ballasted will most likely be turned on arrival so they don’t need to be turned at departure when they are fully laden. Oil tankers will probably berth starboard side (bow pointing south). The tankers will be pushed onto breasting dolphins using two to three tugs (tug operations are likely to be a contracted service) and then all mooring lines will be secured. After mooring lines are secure, Gateway terminal personnel will deploy the hydraulic shore and ship gangway.
Preloading and Unloading Procedures The terminal will typically hold a pre-operational meeting between Gateway personnel and the ship’s master or the officer in charge (or both) of the cargo and ballast operations, including completing a safety checklist. Arrival documents (as required by the ship’s agent and terminal) will be completed before cargo operations begin. In coordination with the vessel’s cargo officer, loading arms will be manoeuvred into position and connected to the ship’s manifold. Before arrival, the tanker crew will prepare the manifold connections to match loading arm size. Vessels will be required to follow procedures as recommended in the latest version of the International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-17
Preliminary Information Package
Cargo Operations Cargo operations typically take 18 to 24 hours, depending on vessel size and flow rate. Terminal personnel will monitor cargo operations from the marine control building. A terminal employee may also be assigned to the vessel’s cargo control room. Ship-to-shore communications are maintained throughout the entire process using handheld radios. The ship will typically give terminal personnel 30-minute, 10-minute and 1-minute notices before completing loading and unloading. After loading and unloading operations are completed, terminal personnel will drain and disconnect the arms.
Departure Operations Final departure paperwork will be completed and departure procedures will be discussed and agreed on by the ship’s crew and terminal personnel. In coordination with the ship’s deck crew, the shore-side mooring crew will release the mooring hooks as directed by the vessel’s master. Mooring lines will be reeled in using the vessel’s deck winches. Tugs will then be used to assist the vessel off the berth. For oil tankers, the vessel can depart without turning around. Condensate tankers will be turned by tugs. Tugs will be used as escort vessels, as required, for the oil and condensate tankers while they are in Principe Channel, Caamano Sound, Douglas Channel and Kitimat Arm.
3.4.4.3 Ship Criteria and Consideration Ships calling on the Gateway terminal will include vessels such as VLCCs and Suezmax-class condensate tankers. It is estimated that vessel traffic will be six to seven VLCCs per month and four to six condensate tankers per month, with tugs escorting, as necessary, laden tankers, while they are in Principe Channel, Caamano Sound, Douglas Channel and Kitimat Arm. Gateway will develop and operate the berths for the vessels involved in oil and condensate transportation. Tankers will be from the worldwide fleet. Tankers are classed and certified by independent certifying agencies. Regardless of ownership, this fleet operates according to International Marine Organisation (IMO) standards and conventions, including the IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78). IMO conventions and agreements are adopted by IMO members and, in the case of Canada, are reflected in regulations and guidance pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act. In Canadian waters, regardless of flag or ownership, all vessels must comply with Canadian legislation, including the Canada Shipping Act. In addition, on April 5, 2005, amendments to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, adopted by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) by resolution MEPC.111(50) in December 2003, were entered into force for all parties to the MARPOL Convention. These amendments will see the phase-out of all single- hulled tankers by 2015. In its capacity as marine terminal operator, Gateway will develop a vetting process to accept only safe, structurally competent ships for oil and condensate
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-18
Preliminary Information Package
shipments. This process will include ship design and operational specifications required for docking privileges at the Gateway Kitimat berth. Gateway expects to establish criteria requiring double-hulled tankers for its operations.
3.5 System Protection, Control and Communication Release and leak prevention and system reliability techniques will be considered during the detailed engineering design, including: • pressure controlling or relieving valves • leak detection systems • regularly scheduled preventative maintenance programs • cathodic protection to mitigate external corrosion and corrosion inhibitor to mitigate internal corrosion • line markers to clearly define pipeline RoW crossings of roads, rivers and streams and routine aerial patrols to monitor the RoW • periodic inspections using an internal inspection tool and associated verification and investigation programs • remotely operated block valves at pump stations and at crossings of major rivers, sensitive receiving environments and other critical locations, as needed • valves to control back-flow in the event of a release In addition to prevention techniques, the pipeline, pump station, terminal tankage and marine facilities will have a 24-hour manned pipeline control centre. Pump stations will each have pressure control valves and facility monitoring and control will be facilitated by satellite and ground station communication system. A pressure reduction station will be installed at KP 1074 (see Table 3-2). The pump stations and terminal tankage will be designed to provide secondary containment and to control surface runoff and drainage. Consistent with similar Enbridge facilities, the Enbridge Gateway operations will include proactive contractor and third party awareness and education programs, as well as ongoing public awareness and emergency response preparedness programs.
3.6 Resource and Material Requirements Civil engineering activities will be required to clear, grade, install drainage control and prepare the sites (terminals, pipeline RoW, pump stations and marine facilities) for construction and handling and storing materials. The major materials that will be required for the Project include steel pipe and plate, concrete, aggregate, timber and dunnage, buildings, pumps, motors and generators, valves, machinery and switching gear. Fuel, transportation (trucks, rail, vehicles and air transport), water and electrical power will be required during the construction and operational phases of the Project. Quantities and locations for these materials will be a part of final planning and engineering design.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-19
Preliminary Information Package
3.7 Waste Management Constructing and operating the pipelines, pump stations, tank terminal sites and marine facilities will generate garbage, liquid and solid waste and minor amounts of hazardous waste. During construction, individual contractors will be responsible for disposing these wastes according to local, regional and provincial regulations and measures specified in the environmental protection plan. Gateway will develop specific procedures for managing wastes generated during operations.
3.8 Contingency Management Gateway’s contingency plans will include: • an environmental protection plan that addresses possible releases during construction • an emergency response plan that addresses NEB requirements to minimize risk of releases and to implement effective response procedures to mitigate environmental effects during operations • a security plan that addresses security measures for the pipelines, pump stations, terminal tankage and marine infrastructure Gateway contract specifications will specify that contractor fuel and lubricant storage be designed according to the applicable CCME code of practice for underground and aboveground tanks. The Minister of Transport designates oil handling facilities through the Canada Gazette per subsection 660.2(8) of the Canada Shipping Act. The proposed Gateway marine terminal would likely be classified as a Level 4 Oil Handling Facility, assuming it has a maximum oil transfer rate greater than 2000 m3/h. As an oil handling facility, the Gateway marine terminal will have requirements for preventing oil and condensate releases, response planning and capability development. An oil pollution emergency plan and oil pollution prevention plan will be required per the Canada Shipping Act. The marine terminal will have the necessary equipment onsite to respond to a release of oil and condensate at the terminal, assuming designation as a Level 4 Oil Handling Facility by Transport Canada. Under the Canada Shipping Act, the requirement for having equipment onsite is dictated by the volumes handled and trajectory models of release scenarios. The terminal will be required to provide details of its operational response plan for approval by Transport Canada, including on-site clean-up equipment to be available for use. In addition, Transport Canada may designate the area as a Primary Area of Response, if it determines that the oil handling volume is greater than 500,000 tonnes per year plus vessel traffic convergence. Therefore, it is expected that Gateway, in its capacity as terminal operator, would need to demonstrate the capability to respond to larger releases of oil, either through additional equipment or through a contract arrangement with a certified Response Organization, which would be required to undertake additional planning work in a Primary Area of Response. All tankers transiting in Canadian waters are required to have a contract in place with a certified Response Organization.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-20
Preliminary Information Package
3.9 Project Costs and Opportunities, Economics, Construction and Operations
3.9.1 Capital Costs The project has an estimated capital cost of approximately $4 billion (2005 Canadian dollars) and will generate substantial economic benefits at the local, regional, provincial and national levels during both construction and operations.
3.9.2 Employment Requirements Once the Project has received regulatory approval, it is expected to create new direct jobs during the peak construction period, expected to occur between 2008 and 2010. Gateway expects over 75 long-term employee jobs focused on pipeline and related facilities operations once construction is complete. Local maintenance and construction support service contractors (such as excavators, brushers and welders) may also be required. Project construction and operations will deliver economic and social benefits to local communities in Alberta and British Columbia. Gateway is committed to working with stakeholders (including First Nations and Métis in Alberta and British Columbia) so that local individuals, communities and businesses have an opportunity to benefit from this Project. Figure 3-2 is an approximate forecast of peak labour requirements during construction. Actual requirements will be determined as more detailed engineering work progresses. Labour and service requirements and their associated influence on communities and infrastructure will be greatest during construction of the pipeline and the Gateway marine terminal and marine facilities. Pipeline activity will proceed rapidly over the two years of construction, with peak requirements for goods and services during summer and winter months. About 600 to 1400 workers will be required for each construction spread. There will be up to 12 spreads of work over the two-year construction period, or three spreads working concurrently during the year (three summer and three winter spreads). There will be up to 40 people working throughout the year on each of the pump stations when initial access and site clearing is complete. It is currently estimated that terminal construction will require a work force of about 300 people and that the marine infrastructure construction will employ about 150 people.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-21
Preliminary Information Package
Gateway Pipeline Project - Peak Construction Manpower Estimate
6000
5000
4000
3000 Peak Construction Manpower
2000
1000
0 Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter 2008 2009 2010 Construction Period - Year and Season
Figure 3-2 Forecast of Peak Labour Requirements
3.9.3 Community Supply and Services Opportunities Local and regional business opportunities (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) for pipeline-related work are estimated to be about $150 million. Additional opportunities associated with pump stations and terminal construction are estimated to be about $15 million. Local and regional business opportunities are expected to include: • civil works • electrical and mechanical contracting • transportation, including: • air charters • trucking • services, including: • camps and catering • hotel and motel accommodation • restaurant purchases • fuel (gasoline, diesel, propane) and lubricants
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 3-22
Preliminary Information Package
• supplies, including: • concrete products • gravel supply • skids and swamp mats • building materials and supplies • heavy equipment supplies and services • small engine and equipment supply and service • industrial rental supplies and services • clearing, logging and salvage • site restoration • security In addition to supply and service opportunities, the Project may create short-term demands on community and regional services and infrastructure such as: • health services • police and public safety services • roads (access to and from the Project and logistic support for equipment and materials) • railway infrastructure • airports • regional landfills The Project crosses a combination of rural and remote areas. Therefore, personnel will use: • commercial accommodations in local communities, where commuting distances are manageable • accommodations in camp settings, where long commute distances would be required. Transportation from camps to the work site will be by crew buses on existing provincial, municipal and resource roads. The Project is not expected to noticeably affect medical personnel and facilities or cause delays or disruptions to the level of medical service presently available to area residents because there will be trained personnel, equipment and vehicles at the pipeline work sites to provide emergency medical treatment and transportation to the nearest doctor and medical facility. Community interactions will be experienced during operations, but at a lower level. Inspection and maintenance during Project operations typically involve fewer people and demands on community services and infrastructure are usually less.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 3-23
Preliminary Information Package
4 Consultation
4.1 Introduction Gateway is implementing a consultation and communication program (the program) for the Project. The program provides a framework for developing and distributing information as well as the basis on which engagement with stakeholders is and will be undertaken. This program has been updated and expanded several times since 2002, when Enbridge began initial discussions with key stakeholders and interested parties regarding the Project. Enhancements to the program will be made, as required, based on stakeholder input and as new information comes available. Enhancements will also be made to ensure alignment with the NEB’s filing requirements. Stakeholder involvement will be integral to Project planning and for planning, developing and implementing the ESA. Stakeholders will be involved with data collection and verification, issues scoping, impact assessment, mitigation and management planning and follow-up. Their involvement will be undertaken in the context of overall project public disclosure and communications. Stakeholder engagement opportunities will provide opportunities to consider the potential effects of the Project on traditional Aboriginal land and on resource use. There will also be focused opportunities for the general public and other stakeholder groups, including non-governmental and community-based organizations, to identify their concerns and provide input to the ESA. Public and stakeholder concerns and comments and how they are being addressed by the Project will be documented and reported.
4.2 Program Goals The consultation and communication program reflect Gateway’s corporate commitment to stakeholder engagement.
4.2.1 Corporate Vision Gateway is committed to implementing practices that comply with legislated requirements and respond to the social, economic and environmental needs of the communities where it operates. Social responsibility—ensuring the safety of employees and the public, preserving a clean and healthy environment, and contributing to strong, vibrant communities—is a core value of Gateway. Enbridge’s 2004 Strategic Plan4 and Corporate Social Responsibility Policy5 dictate how the company (including Gateway as an Enbridge subsidiary) does business and realizes its commitments to sustaining values through socially responsible operations and community involvement. These commitments guide the approach to public consultation.
4 Strategic Plan is available as a PDF at http://www.enbridge.com/about/pdf/04-strategicPlan.pdf 5 Corporate Social Responsibility Policy is available at http://www.enbridge.com/csrReport2005/index.php
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 4-1
Preliminary Information Package
4.2.2 Consultation and Communication Principles The consultation and communications expectations of regulators and stakeholders continue to evolve and expand. Recognizing that the Project will entail many challenges, the consultation and communication program is comprehensive. All stakeholders6 and their views will be treated with respect. As such, the engagement program for the Project is formed around the following core principles: • Stakeholders will be informed in a timely and accurate way about Gateway’s business activities. Gateway will seek stakeholder dialogue on business decisions that affect them. • Stakeholders will be engaged early in the development planning process so that community goals and perspectives can be taken into account in decision- making. • Affected stakeholders will be encouraged to help define the desired elements and approach of the public involvement process. • Stakeholder consultation and public participation processes will be transparent and open. • As part of the ESA and planning, Gateway and its consultants will respect local and traditional knowledge. • Gateway and its consultants will develop and maintain ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to: • increase knowledge of the effects of Project activities • develop balanced requirements and expectations • seek resolution of issues • Accountability will be a key characteristic, including written commitments to stakeholders. • All interactions and information sharing with stakeholders will be done according to ethical, legal and regulatory standards.
6 The term stakeholder is used to refer to persons or groups affected or potentially affected by the Project.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 4-2
Preliminary Information Package
4.2.3 Goal and Objectives of Involvement
Objectives Stakeholder involvement in Gateway will be guided by the following objectives: • provide affected and interested stakeholders with Project information in a timely and sensitive manner so they can be engaged in a knowledgeable and comfortable manner • provide opportunities appropriate to the interests and experiences of stakeholders so they can contribute to the identification of potential Project effects • provide opportunities that facilitate the development, articulation and registration of a variety of stakeholder perspectives • generate support among stakeholders for the fairness and results of the assessment process The program will: • meet or exceed the prescribed consultation expectations • provide multiple points of access to stakeholders for input and discussion about the Project • provide opportunity for issue resolution, where possible
4.2.4 Definition of “Stakeholder” There is a range of stakeholders who may be interested in participating in Project consultation. They can be defined as those: • individuals or groups who reside or work near the Project and will be physically affected by the construction or operation (or both) of the Project and its associated activities • individuals or groups that have established environmental, cultural, social or economic interests in, or particular knowledge of, defined spatial areas or activities that might be potentially affected by the Project • individuals or groups that have a mandate to manage areas or activities that might be potentially affected by the Project There are seven general audiences of stakeholders that need to be involved throughout the process: • Aboriginal communities and organizations • non-Aboriginal communities and municipalities • landowners • environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) • non-government and community based organizations (NGOs and CBOs) • regulators • resource users
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 4-3
Preliminary Information Package
4.2.5 Regulatory Requirements for Consultation Program The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s document Public Involvement Guide to the Preparation of a Comprehensive Study outlines ten advisory guidelines for stakeholder involvement. The National Energy Board Filing Manual also outlines the role of the stakeholder during an ESA. It also indicates the components to include in the engagement process, including principles, types of stakeholders to involve and how to present the outcomes in the ESA. Gateway’s plan for stakeholder involvement for the Project respects the directives in the CEAA and NEB documents.
4.3 General Consultation
4.3.1 Consultation Before June 2005 For the preceding three years, consultation activity had primarily consisted of relationship building with Aboriginal communities and organizations in Alberta and British Columbia. This was done through a series of visits. For more information, see Section 4.5.
4.3.2 General Project Communications Since June 2005 Since June 2005, consultation and communication activities have increased, with stakeholders becoming significantly involved. In June 2005, a toll free telephone number was established. It allows people to phone free of charge and, through a series of prompts, leave a recorded message describing the information they are seeking and contact information. Messages are checked twice a day. In July 2005, about 1000 brochures entitled Enbridge Gateway Project were mailed to municipalities, provincial and federal governments, Aboriginal communities, industries, businesses, landowners and special interest groups near to or with a potential interest in the Project. The brochure provided an overview of the Project and the expected timeline. It invited people to learn more about the Project and to offer comments. Reference was made to community open houses and future informational meetings. Reference was also made to the Project’s toll free telephone number and website, which became operational in July. Since the initial mailing, the brochures have been handed out at all stakeholder events. In July 2005, a public announcement was made about the inclusion of a condensate line as part of the Project. The media reported the message throughout western Canada. Requests registered through the Project website and toll free number will be answered for the duration of the Project. It is likely that meetings with individual groups of stakeholders will be held, by request, on an ongoing basis throughout the project.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 4-4
Preliminary Information Package
4.3.3 Non-Aboriginal Communities and Municipalities In August and September 2005, meetings were held with political and administrative representatives of municipalities in which community open houses for the general public were being planned. These meetings provided Gateway representatives and their communications and ESA consultants the opportunity to: • introduce the Project and ESA-related studies • gather initial feedback about issues of concern to the municipalities • discuss details regarding open houses Introductory meetings were held in the municipalities of: • in Alberta — Strathcona County, Morinville, Mayerthorpe, Fox Creek, Whitecourt and Grande Prairie • in British Columbia — Dawson Creek, Tumbler Ridge, Fort St. James, Burns Lake, Houston, Prince George, Smithers, Terrace, Kitimat and Prince Rupert
4.3.4 Community Open Houses Community open houses are scheduled for mid-October 2005 to early November 2005 in these same communities. They are being advertised through local and regional newspapers and radio as well as highlighted by Gateway consultants during advance visits to the municipalities. Representatives of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities are being invited and encouraged to attend. Where requested—and in addition to engagement efforts—informational meetings are being held with Aboriginal communities and representatives of regional municipalities during the day. While the same information is being reviewed at these meetings as at the open houses, emphasis is being placed on discussing and gathering information about issues of interest to stakeholders.
4.3.5 Environmental Non-government Organizations Environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) are being engaged early in the ESA process to express Gateway’s commitment to undertaking a comprehensive assessment and to express Gateway’s intent to address ENGO input in an inclusive a manner as possible. The ENGOs most likely to be interested in the Project and its assessment were identified according to: • publicly stated mandates • previous experience of Project personnel
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 4-5
Preliminary Information Package
During August and early September 2005, approximately 50 telephone calls were made to ENGO representatives. The purpose of these calls was to: • introduce the Project • determine the level of ENGO interest in the project • invite ENGOs to participate in technical project ESA workshops planned for November 2005 • solicit input for workshop planning to ensure the workshops are as accessible as possible It was indicated during these conversations that other representatives of organizations with environmental interests were also being invited to participate. Those included were representatives from government management agencies as well as representatives from Aboriginal communities and municipalities responsible for dealing with environmental issues within their jurisdictions. Subsequent to these initial calls, it was decided that workshops would be offered in Vancouver, Terrace, Prince George, Dawson Creek, Grande Prairie, Whitecourt and Edmonton. Telephone contact has and is being maintained with ENGO representatives throughout September and October 2005, to keep them apprised of updated Project information and possible workshops. As well, meetings are being held with some ENGO representatives to discuss other aspects of the Project. These meetings are attended by Gateway representatives, with assistance provided, as required, by consultants.
4.3.6 Non-government and Community Based Organizations Non-government and community-based organizations (e.g., regional and local business associations, service clubs and social interest groups situated in municipalities near the corridor) were identified during August and September 2005. This was done while preparing the socio-economic database and the first round of community open houses for October to November 2005. Specifically, groups and organizations that were significant sources of social and economic data, as well as those interested in providing input to the assessment, were identified. Subsequent to this, consultation was initiated in two ways. The first was through direct contact by members of Gateway’s socio-economic consulting team to request specific information. The second was through invitation. Invitations were sent to the groups to attend the open house in the community nearest them. These groups will be encouraged to stay involved throughout the Project. This will be done in a number of ways. First, they will be put on the Project’s mailing list so that they will receive general information about the Project’s status. There are a number of established committees and associations in Alberta and British Columbia that already work as a group to address economic and community development issues. In Alberta, these include inter-municipal planning committees and, in particular, the Northern Alberta Development Council (NADC). In British Columbia, the regional districts, regional economic development associations, Municipal Officers Association, and the Northern
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 4-6
Preliminary Information Package
Corridor Development Corporation (NCDC) address this function, including the production of Land and Resource Management Plans. In September 2005, these groups were contacted to determine if representatives of Gateway and its consultants could use their offices while collecting data and scoping issues of regional concern and for verifying compiled information. It is intended that these meetings will continue throughout the assessment.
4.4 Regulatory Consultation Meetings between Gateway and federal regulators to discuss the Project began in 2004. They were held with CEA Agency representatives in Ottawa, Edmonton and Vancouver and with National Energy Board staff, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The purpose of these meetings was to introduce the Project, review regulatory procedures and discuss issues that might arise during the planning, development and operation. In spring 2005, contacts with federal departments and agencies were re- established as well as established with others, such as Indian and Northern Affairs and other federal departments that might be involved with the ESA review process as RAs or FAs pursuant to CEAA or the TERMPOL Review Process. Meetings were held to discuss the Project sites and routing, preliminary issues scoping and to review the proposed applications and timelines. Meetings involving Gateway, its consultants and government representatives have continued through the summer and fall. As the Project progresses, more meetings will be held to discuss baseline studies and assessment methodologies, with personnel assigned from RAs and FAs. Gateway’s consultants initiated meetings with regional and headquarters staff of federal and provincial agencies in September 2005 to obtain and review baseline data, discuss field study and assessment methods and to secure work permits. Representatives of many of these agencies have been kept informed of the Project’s consultation activities, asked to provide relevant agency data and have been advised of upcoming events. These invitations will continue to be made for the duration of the Project, particularly as the ESA activities ramp up in late 2005 and into 2006.
4.5 Aboriginal Engagement Gateway and Enbridge have been introduced to the majority of the potentially affected Aboriginal communities and organizations since 2002. Because of this early engagement, Gateway has been able to establish agreements with some communities to hire residents to participate in biophysical field studies being done as a part of the assessment process. It has also enabled Gateway to discuss Memoranda of Understanding or similar agreements with Aboriginal communities, which would address the preparation of Traditional Knowledge studies, local skill surveys, training initiatives and employment opportunities.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 4-7
Preliminary Information Package
4.5.1 Relations with Aboriginal Peoples Maintaining positive relationships with Aboriginal peoples who may be affected by a new or existing pipeline project is an important corporate goal for Enbridge. To assist in achieving that goal, Enbridge employs an Aboriginal affairs manager and staff and has instituted a company-wide indigenous people’s policy that states key principles for relations with indigenous peoples (e.g., respect for traditional ways and land, heritage sites, the environment and traditional knowledge). The policy is also designed for a consistent and thorough approach to consultation and engagement with Aboriginal communities.
4.5.2 Gateway Approach to Aboriginal Engagement From the outset of Project development, it has been recognized that Aboriginal engagement would be an important part of Project activity before, during and after construction. A team comprising Gateway employees, consultants and advisors is responsible for: • implementing the Gateway Aboriginal engagement program • adhering to the basic principles of the Gateway Indigenous Peoples policy • following Gateway’s general principles and goals for Aboriginal and public consultation and communication In applying these principles and goals to Aboriginal involvement, Gateway has been mindful to properly respect cultural differences between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal communities, varying levels of capacity between Aboriginal communities along the proposed pipeline route, and the need for fairness of treatment, in respect of issues such as Project benefits. The principles and goals of the Aboriginal engagement program are similar to those for the general consultation program. Gateway is committed to working with Aboriginal communities to provide information about the Project, answer questions, solicit issues and obtain input for Project planning and the ESA. In addition, Aboriginal communities will be asked to share their traditional knowledge of land potentially affected by the Project to assist with Project planning. The Aboriginal engagement program is a community-based program. Gateway’s focus is to meet with individual communities to understand their specific views, interests and concerns and to align opportunities for benefits with the specific aspirations of each community. However, Gateway will respect the wishes of communities that would like to be represented by their Tribal Council. Those Aboriginal communities that, at this time, have requested to be represented by a regional or tribal council are noted in Table 4-1.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 4-8
Preliminary Information Package
4.5.2.1 Agreements Agreements proposing a framework for discussion have been and continue to be presented for the consideration of interested First Nations and Métis communities along the pipeline. These agreements do not bind Aboriginal communities to support the Gateway Project, nor do they commit Gateway to provide any specific type or amount of benefits. Rather, they set out the framework for: • sharing information on the Project • understanding the nature and extent of Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project • describing the types of benefits that might be provided should the Project proceed • providing a measure of capacity funding to facilitate discussions To date, some Aboriginal communities have expressed interest in pursuing discussions in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding or discussion protocol approach. Others have indicated a preference for different forms of agreements and some have elected to enter into collective negotiations with Gateway through mechanisms such as a tribal council. Discussions are actively proceeding.
4.5.2.2 Activities Enbridge has been actively engaged with Aboriginal communities since 2002. This first stage of Aboriginal engagement was designed to establish communication between Enbridge and Aboriginal communities interested in the Project. At the feasibility analysis stage, these contacts were general in nature because the decision to proceed with the Project had not been made. The purpose of the early engagement was to introduce Enbridge to the communities, build relationships and scope issues and concerns early in the Project. The second and more active stage of Aboriginal engagement was initiated in spring 2005, when Project development activity ramped up and a specific Project was defined. Gateway is continuing this stage of engagement with a smaller number of Aboriginal communities that could be potentially affected by the route from Edmonton, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. On a preliminary basis, Gateway has identified potentially affected communities within an 80-km radius of the RoW with traditional territory that is traversed by the route and/or could be affected by the Project. As Project engagement proceeds, this community listing (Table 4-1) may change as new information becomes available. In addition to ongoing meetings with community Elders and the elected leadership, the Aboriginal communities and agencies have received or will receive invitations to participate in community open houses. Offers are also being made to hold meetings in Aboriginal communities in conjunction with the open house meeting schedule, therefore providing everyone similar opportunities to learn about the ESA and offer their input. Gateway has also had discussions with broadly based regional organizations representing northern and coastal First Nations (e.g., the Turning Point initiative and the Northwest Tribal Treaty Association).
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 4-9
Preliminary Information Package
Table 4-1 Aboriginal Communities Alberta British Columbia Alexander First Nation Burns Lake Indian Bandd Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Cheslatta Carrier Nation Aseniwuche Winewak Nation Fort George Métis Association Driftpile First Nationb Kelly Lake Cree Nation Duncan’s First Nationa Kelly Lake First Nation Enoch Cree Nation #440 Kitamaat Village Council (Haisla First Nation) Grande Cache Métis Local #1994c Kitselas Indian Band Horse Lake First Nationa Kitsumkalum Indian Band Kapawe’no First Nationb Lake Babine First Nation Métis Regional Council – Zone IV Lheidli T’enneh Nation Paul First Nation McLeod Lake Indian Band Sawridge Bandb Nadleh Whut’en Bandd Sturgeon Lake Cree Nationa Nak’azdli Indian Bandd Sucker Creek First Nationb Nee Tai Buhn First Nation Swan River First Nationb New Caledonia Métis Association Northwest BC Métis Association Office of the Wet’suwet’en (Wet’suwet’en Nation) Saik’uz First Nationd Saulteau First Nation Skin Tyee First Nation Stellat’en First Nation Takla Lake First Nationd Tl’atz’en Nationd West Moberly First Nation Wet’suwet’en First Nationd Yekooche First Nation
NOTES: aThese communities have asked to be represented by the Western Cree Tribal Council (Valleyview, Alberta). bThese communities have asked to be represented by the Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council (Slave Lake, Alberta). cThis Métis Local has asked to be represented by the Métis Regional Council – Zone IV. dThese communities have requested to be represented by the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (Prince George, British Columbia).
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 4-10
Preliminary Information Package
4.5.3 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) Gateway has contacted the potentially affected Aboriginal communities by letter to invite them to share their ATK in relation to the pipeline and associated activities. Subsequent to these letters, meetings are being planned with each interested community to discuss how Gateway and the community can collaborate in the collection of the ATK. ATK studies will focus on understanding potential Project effects on traditional territories and practices of Aboriginal people. Effects may occur at a primary level (i.e., direct effects such as construction) or through secondary effects that occur as the by-product of construction or operations. ATK Project personnel are facilitators who work collaboratively with potentially affected Aboriginal people to provide opportunities to collect information about traditional land use, cultural practices and the perceived effect of the development on their lives and the land. Alternatively, where such information has already been assembled for the area of interest, it might be purchased by Gateway subject to negotiated terms and conditions regarding purchase price, copyright and confidentiality. These results will be incorporated in the ESA.
4.5.3.1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Components Two components of ATK will be collected: Traditional Land Use (TLU) information and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). TLU focuses on locations of cultural importance that may be identified in areas potentially affected by the pipeline RoW. Traditional Ecological Knowledge consists of wisdom and understanding of the natural environment that may aid in the analysis of Project environmental effects. The TLU portion of the studies will concentrate on the area of the physical footprint, its ancillary facilities and, minimally, a 1-km corridor width with the pipeline in the approximate centre. As part of the TEK information collection, however, the study will also include communities that have expressed concern about secondary effects of the Project in a larger regional area.
4.5.3.2 Carrier Sekani Tribal Council Aboriginal Interest and Use Study Recently, seven Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTS) affiliated communities have indicated a desire to conduct their own Aboriginal Interest and Use Study (AIUS) as an appropriate tool for addressing Aboriginal interests with respect to the Project. The First Nation communities that will be involved in this independent AIUS include: • Burns Lake Indian Band • Nadleh Whut’en Band • Nak’azdli Indian Band • Saik’uz First Nation • Takla Lake First Nation • Tl’atz’en Nation • Wet’suwet’en First Nation Gateway has agreed to provide financial support for the preparation of the AIUS on the basis that it will be conducted in a timely manner and will be available for preparation of the ESA.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 4-11
Preliminary Information Package
4.5.4 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment and Crown Agencies The Gateway Aboriginal participation program will have three goals. The first is to provide information to First Nations communities about the Project. The second is to provide opportunities for First Nations communities to constructively contribute to the ESA through programs (e.g., by providing field assistants) and traditional knowledge and input on matters such as scope of the assessment and route selection. The third is to provide opportunities for that input to be communicated to ESA and regulatory decision makers. Those opportunities will take different forms, including incorporating input received into the ESA and direct interfacing between First Nations communities who choose to participate in the ESA process and government representatives and tribunals. Aboriginal groups who choose to participate in the ESA process will be afforded the opportunity to: • make submissions for consideration to Gateway during Project design • make submissions for consideration to government decision makers • formally participate in the decision-making process (through submissions to the Gateway Joint Review Panel) • review how Aboriginal concerns were considered and the influence Aboriginal concerns have had on decisions The ESA will contain a complete review of the Aboriginal engagement program, including a description of the contacts made up to date of filing, the steps taken to offer opportunities to Aboriginal communities to engage in the ESA process and, subject to any confidentiality concerns, the results of those discussions and negotiations.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 4-12
Preliminary Information Package
5 Scope of the Assessment The purpose of an assessment scope is to improve the quality of the ESA by focusing the assessment on the Project and the relevant topics. The scope of the assessment included in this PIP reflects the matters that are pertinent to the Project as identified by the proponent through analysis and initial public consultation. This proposed scope has been developed to be consistent with published guidance from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the NEB. In the case of a joint review panel process, the scope of the assessment will be determined by the federal Minister of the Environment when setting the Terms of Reference for the Joint Review Panel to be established by agreement with the NEB (as described in Section 1.2.3). In setting the scope of the assessment in consultation with the NEB, the Minister will determine the scope of the project, the factors to be considered and the scope of those factors.
5.1 Scope of the Project The “scope of the project” refers to the physical works and activities that comprise the Project and that are the basis for an environmental assessment. Generally, the scope of the project includes all of the physical works and activities proposed by the proponent and may include other related physical works and activities. For the purposes of the ESA, the scope of the project will include the construction, operations, decommissioning and abandonment of pipeline and terminals.
5.1.1 Pipeline and Terminals The Project includes the following pipeline and terminal components: • an oil pipeline between the terminalling facilities near Edmonton and the Gateway marine terminal and a condensate pipeline between the Gateway marine terminal and Edmonton terminalling facilities. There will be a common 30-m wide RoW for the two pipelines plus extra temporary workspace required for construction. • six single service (oil), including one oil initiation station, and three dual service (oil and condensate) pump stations, a single pressure letdown station (oil), and a pressure initiation station (condensate) • all-weather road access and electrical power requirements for the pump stations and all-weather road access to the Gateway marine terminal. There will be temporary access roads, campsites, and other support facilities (e.g., borrow pits, stockpile sites) required for construction • block valves to be situated at the pump stations, selected watercourse crossings, and other locations along the route, as appropriate
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 5-1
Preliminary Information Package
• pigging facilities at either end of the pipeline system and in selected intermediate locations • cathodic protection system for pipelines and tanks, including anode beds at selected locations along the pipeline route • terminals and infrastructure for the inland terminalling facilities, constructed as part of the Project • two marine loading and unloading berths (one each for oil and condensate) that have the following common features: • loading and unloading platforms • breasting dolphins • mooring dolphins • gangway tower • walkway bridges between platform and breasting dolphins • utility boat floating dock • oil contingency deployment system with storage platforms • fire fighting systems • offshore anchorages in Kitimat Arm or elsewhere • pipeline interconnects between the berths and the tankage • tanker(s) (both oil and condensate), only when these are connected to the manifold at the terminal berth The scope of the project will also include restricted zones around the marine terminal berths and anchorages, which will be established to increase safety and minimize potential conflicts. These zones will be defined as the Project design process and the TERMPOL Review Process (described in Section 1.2.4) continues.
5.2 Factors to be Considered To the extent possible, the ESA for the Project will consider a range of factors, including factors that are mandatory for all assessments pursuant to the CEAA and other factors that are specific to the Project and deemed to be relevant to the assessment.
5.2.1 Mandatory Factors The ESA for the Project will address the following mandatory factors listed in the CEAA: • the environmental effects7 of the Project, including Project-related malfunctions or incidents and any cumulative environmental effects that might result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out
7 Subsection 2(1) of the CEAA defines environment as the components of the Earth, including: (a) land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere; (b) all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms; and (c) the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 5-2
Preliminary Information Package
• the significance of the environmental effects • comments from the public, including ensuring that these comments are received according to the CEAA and its regulations • measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the Project • the purpose of the Project • alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible, including the environmental effects of those alternative means • the need for, and the requirements of, any follow-up program for the Project • the capacity of renewable resources, likely to be significantly affected by the Project, to meet present and future needs
5.2.2 Other Factors Other factors may be included in the scope of the assessment that are specific to the Project, the potential environmental effects arising from it, and related public concerns, or deemed by the regulators to be relevant. These other factors may include the need for the Project and alternatives to the Project.
5.2.3 Socio-Economic Factors • mandatory factors listed (see Section 5.2.1) include direct environmental effects of the Project on the natural or biophysical environment and indirect environmental effects (i.e., those that may arise from the direct environmental effects) on • health • socio-economic conditions • physical and cultural heritage • traditional land and resource use • historical, archaeological, paleontological and architecturally significant resources
Further, subsection 2(1) of the CEAA defines environmental effect, in respect of a project, as: (a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as those terms are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act; (b) any effect of any change referred to in paragraph (a) on: (i) health and socio-economic conditions; (ii) physical and cultural heritage; (iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons; or (iv) any structure, site, or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance; or (c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change or effect occurs within or outside Canada.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 5-3
Preliminary Information Package
This list reflects CEAA ‘s focus on the natural and biophysical environment. The National Energy Board, however, has a broad mandate to determine the public convenience and necessity of the Project, and therefore must also consider socio-economic matters that it deems to be relevant to the Project subject to assessment. Therefore, it is anticipated that socio-economic environmental effects of the Project will be a factor to be considered in the assessment.
5.2.4 Shipping The Project will include marine infrastructure and Gateway will implement a vetting process governing ships calling on the terminal (as described in Section 3). The Project does not include shipping. However, it is recognized that there will be public (and regulatory) interest related to shipping and navigation. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to include some of the potential environmental effects of shipping and navigation as additional factors to be considered in the assessment.
5.2.5 Matters Not Considered The assessment will not include a consideration of the environmental effects of physical works or activities that are not included in the scope of the Project, unless such environmental effects directly overlap in space and time with environmental effects related to the Project or if they are specified by the Minister as an additional factor to be considered.
5.3 Scope of the Factors to be Considered Once it’s determined what the factors to be considered in the assessment are, additional specification is usually required regarding the scope of certain factors. Specifying the scope further clarifies what’s to be included and, in some cases, excluded from the assessment. Determining the scope of the factors is most often focused on specifying which elements of the biophysical and human environments are to be considered when assessing environmental effects and temporal and spatial boundaries. (This is the scope of the first mandatory factor [see Section 5.2.1]). Section 5.3.1 discusses the environmental (including both biophysical and socio-economic) elements likely to be considered in the assessment. For other necessary scoping clarifications, see Section 5.3.2 to Section 5.3.7.
5.3.1 Environmental Elements The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency does not provide a specific list of environmental elements to be considered in an assessment. The information requirements of the NEB with respect to the ESA of applied-for facilities are documented in Guide A.2 of the NEB’s Filing Manual. This guide lists biophysical and socio-economic elements to be included in the assessment. Likely relevant environmental elements can be identified from past projects and assessments, through stakeholder consultation, and by professional judgement, based on the likely interactions between the Project and the environment.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 5-4
Preliminary Information Package
Based on the elements specified by the NEB, the findings of stakeholder consultations to date, and the professional judgement of the proponent’s assessment practitioners, the following preliminary list of biophysical and human environmental elements likely to be included in the scope of the assessment was identified: • air quality and acoustic environment • surface water quantity and quality and groundwater • terrain and soils and vegetation diversity • wildlife abundance and diversity, freshwater fish and fish habitat, and marine environment • demographics • education, health and social conditions • protection services (e.g., fire, police and other emergency services), infrastructure • labour, income, local and regional economy and provincial and national economy • land and resource use, traditional land and resource use, traditional culture and historical and archaeological resources Selection and refinement of valued components, on which the assessment will be focused, will be based on: • ongoing consultation and issues scoping with regulators and other stakeholders • the findings of ongoing baseline and assessment studies • relevant scientific matters, such as special conservation status and vulnerability of Valued Components to Project environmental effects In addition to specifying the elements to be included in the assessment, determining the scope of the factors might also specify other pertinent matters (e.g., issues related to each element that should be addressed in the assessment). It’s expected that, for all environmental elements, the positive environmental effects arising from the Project will be included within the scope of the assessment. A summary of the likely scope of the factors to be considered in the assessment has been prepared for the preliminary elements listed previously (Appendix B). This summary highlights aspects during construction and operations that may result in a potential environmental effect on the above-listed elements. It is important to note that the appendix presents a preliminary list of potential assessment issues and that some issues may be subsequently dropped while others may be added, following further advances in project design and further public and regulatory consultation. It should also be recognized that many of the potential assessment issues can and will be addressed through best construction and operational practices and site-specific mitigation measures designed to avoid, eliminate or reduce the effects being hypothesized for the purpose of analysis. The ESA will address the information requirements listed in the NEB’s Filing Manual. Given the NEB’s typical focus on pipelines, the information requirements
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 5-5
Preliminary Information Package
listed in the Filing Manual are largely focused on the terrestrial environment. In consultation with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the NEB staff in relation to the Project, Gateway has offered to include an equivalent list of information requirements pertinent to the marine environment within a Confined Channel Assessment Area (see Section 5.3.6.2 and Appendix C). This should prevent any requirement for the development of Project-specific ESA guidelines by the joint review panel.
5.3.2 Effects of the Environment on the Project The definition of environmental effect included in subsection 2(1) of the CEAA includes “any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment.” The assessment must, therefore, consider these potential effects. At this time, it is expected that such effects could include effects on the physical integrity of Project facilities arising from geotechnical considerations, groundwater discharge, seismic activity, tide, current, wind, waves and climate change (including sea level change). Potential effects of the environment on the Project will be confirmed and considered in the assessment.
5.3.3 Malfunctions and Accidents The assessment must consider the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that could occur in connection with the project (see Section 5.2.1). The assessment will describe reasonable potential malfunctions and accidents. Currently, it is expected that these might include: • small-scale releases from equipment and vehicles • release of oil or condensate from pipelines or tankage • release of oil or condensate during cargo loading and unloading operations between the marine terminal and tankers • human-caused fire The assessment will generally describe and take into account proposed measures to prevent these malfunctions and accidents and to minimize consequences should they occur. The effectiveness of such prevention and response measures will be considered. The assessment will consider the risk of these malfunctions and accidents, including the likelihood of occurrence and predicted magnitude. Recognizing that there will be public (and regulatory) interest in release prevention and response related to shipping and navigation to and from the project, the environmental effects from several oil release scenarios from the tankers will also be assessed within the CCAA (see Section 5.3.6). In addition, the probability of an event involving the release of oil or condensate will be evaluated for Hecate Strait.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 5-6
Preliminary Information Package
5.3.4 Significance Criteria As noted in Section 5.2.1, the assessment must consider the significance of the environmental effects of the Project. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the NEB provide guidance with respect to the criteria to consider when evaluating the significance of potential residual environmental effects. It is also standard practice to define, for each Valued Component, the threshold of significance, which is the level beyond which a Project-specific or cumulative residual environmental effect would be considered significant. The criteria and threshold definitions will likely differ among and between biophysical and human environmental components, to reflect characteristics specific to these components.
5.3.5 Alternative Means The assessment will consider alternative means for carrying out the Project (see Section 5.2.1) that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of these alternative means. At this time, it is expected that the scope of this factor will include: • a description of the pipeline route alternatives and terminal site alternatives that were considered during Project planning and design • for those alternatives that are technically and economically feasible: • a general description of (biophysical and human) environmental and land- use constraints • an identification of the evaluation criteria used in the route- and site- selection process • a ranking of the alternatives • identification of the preferred alternative
5.3.6 Boundaries The assessment will consider factors (see Section 5.2) within temporal and spatial boundaries that encompass the periods and areas during and within which the Project is expected to interact with the biophysical and human environment. The temporal and spatial boundaries specific to the Project are addressed in the following sections. These boundaries will vary with the factors considered.
5.3.6.1 Temporal Boundaries As discussed under the Scope of Project topic, the ESA will address all major phases of the Project, including construction, operations, decommissioning and abandonment. Typically, peak activity levels associated with these phases will be selected for the assessment to ensure that Project-related effects are conservatively evaluated.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 5-7
Preliminary Information Package
5.3.6.2 Spatial Boundaries The spatial boundaries of the assessment will encompass the area(s) potentially affected by the Project and the area(s) within which a population or environmental component functions, and within which a Project environmental effect may be felt (e.g., an airshed). Three study areas will be used for the baseline studies and the ESA: • the Potential Development Area (PDA) • Project Effects Assessment Area (PEAA) • Confined Channel Assessment Area (CCAA) The PDA includes the: • any inland terminalling facilities constructed as part of the Gateway Project • pipeline and associated ancillary facilities • Gateway marine terminal and marine infrastructure • temporary workspace and support facilities used during construction • restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure The PEAA is the area over which the Project effects of the terminals and pipeline could be measurable. For several of the biophysical disciplines (e.g., soils and terrain and vegetation), the PEAA includes the PDA plus a 500-m buffer. However, in most cases, the boundaries selected for the PEAA will be discipline- specific, based largely on the extent of the direct environmental effects of the Project for the discipline in question, and the degree to which these environmental effects contribute measurably to cumulative pressures over a broader regional area. The PEAA will be sufficiently large to address the more far-reaching effects of this Project. For the marine infrastructure, the PEAA will encompass the PDA plus the area potentially affected by an accidental release from an oil or condensate tanker when it is moored at the marine terminal; this area will be defined by trajectory modelling for oil and condensate release. In addition to the environmental effects from the Project, the ESA will include an assessment of the environmental effects of shipping and navigation within the CCAA, which is the marine area where measurable environmental effects of shipping are most likely to occur. Gateway considers it reasonable for the assessment area to include the portion of the shipping route that brings oil and condensate carriers near land and other resource uses, and where navigation to and from the Project will be escorted. Therefore, the CCAA includes the marine and shoreline area of Kitimat Arm, Douglas Channel to Caamano Sound, and Principe Channel to Browning Entrance.
5.3.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects Considerations As described in Section 5.3.1, potential environmental effects of the Project will be assessed on selected Valued Components. In some cases, where there are residual environmental effects, Valued Components affected by the Project may also be affected by other projects and human activities, referred to as actions. These cumulative environmental effects will be seamlessly assessed along with Project-specific environmental effects through the use of three assessment cases that each examines cumulative environmental effects at different points in time.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 5-8
Preliminary Information Package
The assessment cases are: • Base Case: an assessment of the cumulative environmental effects of all past, existing and approved actions on the Valued Component in question. • Project Case: an assessment of the cumulative environmental effects of all past, existing and approved actions, plus the environmental effects of the Project on the Valued Component in question. • Future Case: an assessment of the cumulative environmental effects of all past, existing and approved actions, plus the environmental effects of the Project and future actions on the Valued Component in question. Such future actions, also referred to as reasonably foreseeable actions, include projects that are publicly disclosed and are in regulatory review. The Project extends over a considerable geographical distance and includes components that interact with the biophysical and human environment differently. To assess such a large Project, each component will be examined separately to address their unique aspects. The Project components considered in the cumulative environmental effects assessment are: • inland terminalling facilities constructed as part of the Project • pipeline corridor, which includes: • the RoW • associated infrastructure (e.g., pump stations, roads and power transmission lines) • Gateway marine terminal and associated marine infrastructure The environmental effects of marine shipping in the CCAA near the terminal and in Kitimat Arm, Douglas Channel, and Principe Channel will be considered as an additional factor. A description of the cumulative environmental effects assessment approach for each component follows.
5.3.7.1 Inland Terminal Any new terminalling facilities constructed as a part of the Project would be situated in an urban industrial landscape. As a result, many of the biophysical issues that would be pursued for other Project components (e.g., habitat fragmentation) might not be relevant for the terminal. Project contributions to air emissions and to local socio-economic pressures (e.g., traffic) will be primary cumulative environmental effects consideration for this Project component.
5.3.7.2 Pipeline Corridor Long pipelines often encounter highly variable ecological and land use settings and, as a result, these pipelines interact with the environment very differently from area to area. The requirements to assess a pipeline’s contribution to cumulative environmental effects will likewise vary. In addition, pipelines and their infrastructure have a localized footprint of disturbance in any given area, limiting their potential to contribute to cumulative environmental effects.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page 5-9
Preliminary Information Package
Regional Cumulative Effects Study Areas (CESAs) will be centred around certain points or lengths of pipeline where Project contributions to cumulative environmental effects are probable. Examples of such potential locations that may “trigger” cumulative environmental effects include sources of noise and emissions, stream crossings and remote parts of the RoW that may contribute to new access potential. Each CESA will be sized for the particular resource of concern to adequately quantify Project contributions to regional cumulative environmental effects. To assist in the identification of other land uses contributing to regional cumulative environmental effects, a database of existing and future planned land disturbances and resource activities will be developed within a 30-km wide corridor centred along the preferred pipeline alignment. For each discipline- related cumulative environmental effects assessment that is required for the Project, a project-inclusion list will be developed that identifies other land uses that have overlapping effects with the Project.
5.3.7.3 Gateway Marine Terminal and Marine Infrastructure The Gateway marine terminal and marine infrastructure will interact with existing activities in Kitimat Arm. It is anticipated that Project contributions to air emissions and to local socio-economic pressures (e.g., increased pressures on local services) will be primary cumulative environmental effects consideration for this component of the Project. In addition, Project-related effects on the marine ecosystem in Kitimat Arm (e.g., effects of noise on marine birds) will be evaluated within the context of overlapping existing and future effects from other operations in the area.
5.3.7.4 Shipping and Navigation in Confined Channel Assessment Area Shipping and navigation in Kitimat Arm, Douglas Channel and Principe Channel associated with the Project will be included as a factor to be assessed in the ESA. Contributions to shipping-related effects on the biophysical and human environment will be evaluated within the context of existing and future effects from other unrelated shipping in the defined CCAA.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page 5-10
Preliminary Information Package
Appendix A Information Regarding Species of Special Conservation Status
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005
Preliminary Information Package
A.1 Ranking Systems The Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada was signed in 1996 by most provincial, territorial, and federal government Ministers responsible for wildlife (including Alberta and British Columbia). The Accord commits signatories to preventing species in Canada from becoming extinct as a consequence of human activity. It requires that all provincial and territorial signatories have a general status evaluation system that is similar and comparable. An international ranking system developed by NatureServe (formerly the Association for Biodiversity Information) incorporates spatial considerations into the ranking of species at risk. In this system, each species is assigned a global rank (G) that applies across its entire range, a national (N) rank for each nation in its range, and a sub-national (S) rank for each province or state in its range. Numerical modifiers are then used to rank species. This ranking system applies to all provinces, and each province separately determines how to incorporate this information into its own ranking system. For the terms used in the international ranking system, see Table A-1.
Table A-1 Risk Ranking System – Terms Used for International Species Ranking Definition 1 = Critically Imperilled Because of extreme rarity or some other factor(s) making it especially susceptible to extirpation or extinction. Typically, five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals. 2 = Imperilled Because of extreme rarity or some other factor(s) making it very susceptible to extirpation or extinction. Typically, six to 20 existing occurrences or very few remaining individuals. 3 = Vulnerable Because rare and local, found only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of some other factor (s) making it susceptible to extirpation or extinction. Typically 21-100 existing occurrences. 4 = Apparently Secure Because uncommon but not rare, and usually widespread in the province. Possible cause for long-term concern. Typically, more than 100 existing occurrences. 5 = Secure Because common to very common, typically widespread and abundant, and not susceptible to extirpation or extinction under present conditions. For the terms used in the provincial ranking systems for Alberta, see Table A-2. Terms for British Columbia follows in text.
Table A-2 Risk Ranking System – Terms Used for Alberta Species Status Definition At Risk Any species known to be At Risk after formal detailed status assessment and designation as endangered or threatened in Alberta. May be at Risk Any species known to be May Be At Risk of extinction or extirpation, and is therefore a candidate for detailed risk assessment. Sensitive Any species that is not at risk of extinction or extirpation but might require special attention or protection to prevent it from becoming at risk. Secure A species that is not At Risk, May Be At Risk, or Sensitive.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page A-1
Preliminary Information Package
In Alberta, as indicated in the At Risk rank, threatened means a species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed, and endangered means a species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. In British Columbia, the S rank is used to further sort species rankings into groups with similar conservation risks, using three lists: • the Red List includes species that are legally designated as Endangered or Threatened under the provincial Wildlife Act (e.g., species with S ranks of 1, 2, 1-2, 1-3) • the Blue List includes species not immediately threatened, but of concern because of characteristics that make them vulnerable or sensitive to human activities or natural events (e.g., species with S ranks of 2-3, 3, 3-4) • the Yellow List includes common or all species not on the Red or Blue Lists (species with S ranks of 4, 4-5, or 3-4 (plants only) See Table A-1 for a description of the S ranks. The Red, Blue, and Yellow lists of British Columbia are comparable to Alberta’s At Risk, May be at Risk and Secure rankings, respectively. Federally, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) is the newest of several federal laws implemented to preserve and protect Canada’s wildlife. The purpose of the SARA is to: • prevent wildlife species from becoming extinct or extirpated • secure the recovery of extirpated, endangered, and threatened species • manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened The SARA applies to wildlife species at risk nationally, as well as their critical habitat on federal lands and in aquatic environments. The SARA is applied alongside other federal legislation, including the Migratory Bird Convention Act, the Canada Wildlife Act, the Fisheries Act and the CEAA. Under the federal system, species at risk are identified by COSEWIC. COSEWIC carries out an assessment of a species’ status using the best available scientific knowledge, community knowledge, and traditional knowledge of the biology of the species. For the terms COSEWIC applies in the international ranking system, see Table A-3.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page A-2
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-3 Risk Ranking System – Terms Used for Federal Species
Term Definition Species Any indigenous species, subspecies, variety, or geographically defined population of wild fauna and flora Extinct (X) A species that no longer exists Extirpated (XT) A species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere Endangered (E) A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction Threatened (T) A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed Special Concern (SC) A species of special concern because of characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human activities and natural events Not at Risk (NAR) A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk
The following tables (A-4 to A-11) provide information regarding species of special conservation status that might occur along the proposed pipeline RoW.
Table A-4 Waterbirds of Conservation Concern Along the Proposed Pipeline Route
British Columbia Alberta Federal Common Provincial Provincial COSEWIC a Scientific Name Name G Rank S Rankb Statusc S Rankb Statusd Statuse Aechmophorus Western G5 S1B, S3N R S3B Sensitive – occidentalis grebe
Pelecanus American erythrorhynchos white G3 S1B, SZN R S2B Sensitive NAR pelican
Phalacrocorax Double- auritus crested G5 S2B, SZN R S3B Secure NAR cormorant Phalacrocorax Pelagic G5 S4B, SZN Y – – – pelagicus cormorant Pelagic cormorant, P. p. pelagicus G5TU S2B, SZN R – – – subsp. Pelagicus Botaurus American G4 S3B, SZN B S3S4B Sensitive – lentiginosus bittern Ardea herodias Great blue G5T4 S3B, S4N B S3B, S1N Sensitive SC fannini heron
Nycticorax Black- nycticorax crowned G5 SAB, S1N Y S2B Sensitive – night heron Cygnus Trumpeter G5 S4B, S4N Y S3B At Risk NAR buccinator swan Branta Dusky canadensis Canada G5T2T3 S1N B – _ – occidentalis goose Lophodytes Hooded G5 S5B, SZN Y S1B, S1N Secure – cucullatus merganser
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page A-3
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-4 Waterbirds of Conservation Concern Along the Proposed Pipeline Route (cont’d)
British Columbia Alberta Federal Common G Provincial Provincial COSEWIC a Scientific Name Name Rank S Rankb Statusc S Rankb Statusd Statuse Sandhill Grus canadensis G5 S3S4B, SZN B S4B Sensitive – crane
Pluvialis American dominica golden- G5 S3S4B, SZN B SNA Secure – plover Recurvirostra American G5 S2B, SZN R S5B Secure – americana avocet Heteroscelus Wandering G5 S3S4B, SZN B – – – incanus tattler Bartramia Upland G5 S1S2B, SZN R S3B Sensitive – longicauda sandpiper Forster's Sterna forsteri G5 S1B, SZN R S3B Sensitive DD tern Chlidonias niger Black tern G4 S4B, SZN Y S4B Sensitive NAR Common Uria aalge G5 S2B, S4N R – – – murre Brachyramphus Marbled G3G4 S2B, S4N R – – T marmoratus murrelet
NOTES: – Species does not have a ranking or listing aG Rank = global rank, see Table A-1. T = infraspecific (subspecies) U = unrankable b S Rank = subnational (provincial) rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: B = indicates breeding status for a migratory species N = indicates non-breeding status for a migratory species Z = ranking not applicable (e.g., migrants only) NA = conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities 1 = Critically imperiled 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable 4 = Apparently Secure 5 = Secure cBritish Columbia Status Ranks are as follows: R = red-listed B = blue-listed Y = yellow-listed dSee Table A-2 for definitions. eSee Table A-3 for definitions. DD = data deficient
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page A-4
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-5 Songbirds and Upland Game Birds of Conservation Concern Along the Proposed Pipeline Route
British Columbia Alberta Federal Scientific Common G Provincial Provincial COSEWIC a Name Name Rank S Rankb Statusc S Rankb Statusd Statuse Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed G4T3 S2S3 B S4 Sensitive – (columbianus grouse subspecies) Columba Band-tailed S3S4B, G4 B – – – fasciata pigeon SZN Calliope S4S5B, Stellula calliope G5 Y S2B Secure NAR hummingbird SZN Picoides Black-backed G5 S5B, SZN Y S2S3 Sensitive NAR arcticus woodpecker Myiarchus Great-crested G5 – – S2B Sensitive NAR crinitus flycatcher Certhia S4S5B, Brown creeper G5 Y S3S4 Undetermined – americana SZN Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren G5 – – S2B Sensitive – Catharus Gray-cheeked G5 S4S5B Y S1B Undetermined – minimus thrush Vireo Philadelphia G5 S3S4B B S4B Secure – philadelphicus vireo Dendroica Chestnut- G5 SNA – S2B Secure – pensylvanica sided warbler Dendroica Cape May G5 S2B, SZN R S2B Sensitive – tigrina warbler Dendroica Black-throated G5 S3B, SZN B S3S4B Sensitive – virens green warbler Dendroica Blackburnian G5 – – S2B Sensitive – fusca warbler Dendroica Bay-breasted G5 S2B, SZN R S3B Sensitive – castanea warbler Connecticut Oporornis agilis G4 S2B, SZN R S4B Secure – warbler Wilsonia Canada G5 S3S4B B S4B Sensitive – canadensis warbler
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page A-5
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-5 Songbirds and Upland Game Birds of Conservation Concern Along the Proposed Pipeline Route (cont’d)
British Columbia Alberta Federal Scientific Common G Provincial Provincial COSEWIC a Name Name Rank S Rankb Statusc S Rankb Statusd Statuse Ammodramus Le Conte's S3S4B, G4 B S5B Secure – leconteii sparrow SZN
Ammodramus Nelson's nelsoni sharp-tailed G5 S2B, SZN R S3B Secure NAR sparrow Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink G5 S3B, SZN B S2S3B Sensitive –
NOTES: – Species does not have a ranking or listing aG Rank = global rank, see Table A-1. T = infraspecific (subspecies) b S Rank = subnational rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: B = indicates breeding status for a migratory species N = indicates non-breeding status for a migratory species Z = ranking not applicable (e.g., migrants only) NA = Not Applicable 1 = Critically imperiled 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable 4 = Apparently Secure 5 = Secure cBritish Columbia Status Ranks are as follows: R = red Y = yellow B = blue dSee Table A-2 for definitions. eSee Table A-3 for definitions.
Table A-6 Raptors of Conservation Concern Along the Proposed Pipeline Route
British Columbia Alberta Federal Scientific Common Provincial Provincial COSEWIC a Name Name G Rank S Rankb Statusc S Rankb Statusd Statuse Accipiter Northern S4B, G5 S4B, S4N Y Sensitive – gentilis goshawk S2S3N Northern A. g. laingi goshawk subsp. G5T2T3 S2B, SZN R – – T laingi Buteo Broad-winged SAS3B, G5 B S3B Sensitive – platypterus hawk SZN Buteo Swainson's G5 S2B, SZN R S4B Sensitive – swainsoni hawk
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page A-6
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-6 Raptors of Conservation Concern Along the Proposed Pipeline Route (cont’d)
British Columbia Alberta Federal Scientific Common Provincial Provincial COSEWIC a Name Name G Rank S Rankb Statusc S Rankb Statusd Statuse Falco Peregrine peregrinus falcon subsp. G4T3 S3B, SZN B – – SC pealei pealei Falco Peregrine peregrinus falcon subsp. G4T3 S2B, SZN R SNR – T anatum anatum Falco rusticolus Gyrfalcon G5 S3?B, SZN B S1N Secure NAR
Otus Western screech owl kennicottii G5TNR S3 B – – SC kennicottii subsp. kennicottii Northern hawk S4S5B, Surnia ulula G5 Y S3S4 Secure NAR owl SZN Northern pygmy G. g. swarthi owl subsp. G5T3Q S3 B – Sensitive – swarthi Strix varia Barred Owl G5 S5B,SZN Y S2S3 Sensitive Asio May be at Short-eared owl G5 S3B, S2N B S3B, S2N SC flammeus Risk Northern saw- A. a. brooksi whet owl subsp. G5T3 S3 B – Secure – brooksi
NOTES: – Species does not have a ranking or listing aG Rank = global rank, see Table A-1. b S Rank = subnational rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: B = indicates breeding status for a migratory species N = indicates non-breeding status for a migratory species Z = ranking not applicable (e.g., migrants only) ? = Inexact or uncertain due to limited information 1 = Critically imperiled 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable 4 = Apparently Secure 5 = Secure cBritish Columbia Status Ranks are as follows: R = red Y = yellow B = blue dSee Table A-2 for definitions. eSee Table A-3 for definitions.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page A-7
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-7 Amphibians of Conservation Concern Along the Proposed Pipeline Route
British Columbia Alberta Federal Common Provincial Provincial COSEWIC a Scientific Name Name G Rank S Rankb Statusc S Rankb Statusd Statuse Ambystoma Long-toed G5 S5 Y S3 Sensitive – macrodactylum salamander Ambystoma Tiger G5 S2 R S4 Secure E tigrinum salamander Coastal tailed Ascaphus truei G4 S3S4 B – – SC frog May be at Bufo hemiophyrs Canadian toad G4 – – S4 – Risk Bufo boreas Western toad G4 S4 Y S4 Sensitive SC Columbia Rana luteiventis G4 S4 Y S3 Sensitive – spotted frog
NOTES: – Species does not have a ranking or listing aG Rank = global rank, see Table A-1. b S Rank = subnational rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: 1 = Critically imperiled 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable 4 = Apparently Secure 5 = Secure cBritish Columbia Status Ranks are as follows: R = red Y = yellow B = blue dSee Table A-2 for definitions. eSee Table A-3 for definitions.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page A-8
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-8 British Columbia Provincial Ranking of Fish Species Along the Proposed Pipeline Route Provincial Scientific Name Common Name S Ranka Statusb Acipenser transmontanus White sturgeon (Nechako River S1 R pop.3 population) Arctic grayling (Williston Watershed Thymallus arcticus pop.1 S1 R population) Acipenser transmontanus White sturgeon (Upper Fraser River S1 R pop.5 population) Acipenser transmontanus White sturgeon (Lower Fraser River S2 R pop.4 population) Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner S1S2SE R Margariscus margarita Pearl dace S3? B Oncorhynchus clarki clarki Cutthroat trout, clarki subspecies S3S4SE B Salvelinus confluentus Bull trout S3 B Salvelinus malma Dolly varden S3S4 B NOTES: a S Rank = subnational rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: E = Exotic (introduced) ? = Inexact or uncertain due to limited information 1 = Critically imperiled 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable 4 = Apparently Secure 5 = Secure bBritish Columbia Status Ranks are as follows: R = red Y = yellow B = blue
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page A-9
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-9 Alberta Provincial Ranking of Fish Species Along the Proposed Pipeline Route
Scientific Name Common Name S Ranka Provincial Statusb Cottus ricei Spoonhead sculpin May be at Risk S3
Salvelinus confluentus Bull trout S3 Sensitive
Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling Sensitive –
Phoxinus eos Northern redbelly dace S3 Sensitive
Catostomus Largescale sucker S2 Sensitive macropheilus
NOTES: – Species does not have a ranking or listing a S Rank = subnational rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable bSee Table A-2 for definitions.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page A-10
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-10 Marine Species of Special Concern within the Gateway Assessment Area Federal British Columbia SARA Scientific Common Schedule COSEWIC Provincial a Name Name G Rank 1b Statusc S Rankd Statuse Balaenoptera Blue whale G3G4 3 E S1N B musculus Sebastes Bocaccio - – T - – paucispinis Oncorhynchus Chinook salmon G5 – – S4 Y tshawytscha Oncorhynchus Chum salmon G5 – – S5 Y keta Oncorhynchus Coho salmon G4 – – S4 Y kisutch Oncorhynchus Cutthroat trout G4 – – S4 B clarki Phocoenoides Dall’s porpoise G4G5 – – S4S5 Y dalli Salvelinus Dolly Varden G5 – – S3S4 B malma Thaleichthys Euchalon G5 – – S2S3 B pacificus Balaenoptera Fin whale G3G4 – SC S1N B physalus Eschrichtius Grey whale G4 – SC S2N B robustus Phocoena Harbour G4G5 – SC S3 – phocoena porpoise Phoca vitulina Harbour seal G5 – – S5 Y Megaptera Humpback G3 3 T S1N B novaeangliae whale Killer whale (northeast Orcinus orca Pacific northern G4G5T3Q 3 T S2 R resident population) Killer whale (northeast Orcinus orca G4G5T3Q 3 T S2 R Pacific transient population) Dermochelys Leatherback G2 – E S1S2N – coriacea seaturtle
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page A-11
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-10 Marine Species of Special Concern within the Gateway Assessment Area (cont’d) Federal British Columbia SARA Scientific Common Schedule COSEWIC Provincial a Name Name G Rank 1b Statusc S Rankd Statuse Eubalaena North Pacific – – E - R japonica right whale Callorhinus Northern fur G3 – – SNA B ursinus seal Eumetopias Northern sea G3 – SC S2B,S3N R jubatus lion Clupea pallasi Pacific herring – – – - Y Leptocottus Pacific staghorn G5 – – S5 Y armatus sculpin Lagenorhynchus Pacific white G5 – – SNA Y obliquidens sided dolphin Oncorhynchus Pink salmon G5 – – S5 Y gorbuscha Enhydra lutris Sea otter G4 3 T S2 R Balaenoptera Sei whale G3 3 E SHN B borealis Oncorhynchus Sockeye G5 – – S4 Y nerka salmon Physeter Sperm whale G3G4 – – S1N B macrocephalu Hypomesus Surf smelt – – – - Y pretiosus Gasterosteus Three spined aculeatus G5 – – S5 Y stickleback aculeatus Aechmophorus Western grebe G5 – – S1B,S3N R occidentalis Phalacrocorax Double-crested G5 – – S2B R auritus cormorant Pelagic Phalacrocorax cormorant G5TU – – S2B R pelagicus subsp. pelagicus Branta Dusky Canada Canadensis G5T2T3 – – S1N B goose occidentalis
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page A-12
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-10 Marine Species of Special Concern within the Gateway Assessment Area (cont’d) Federal British Columbia SARA Scientific Common Schedule COSEWIC Provincial a Name Name G Rank 1b Statusc S Rankd Statuse Pluvialis American G5 – – S3S4B B dominica golden-plover Heteroscelus Wandering G5 – – S3S4B B incanus tattler Uria aalge Common murre G5 – – S2B,S4N R Brachyramphus Marbled G3G4 3 T S2B,S4N R marmoratus murrelet NOTES: 3 = is listed in SARA aG Rank = global rank, see Table A-1. bSchedule 1 = Schedule 1 of SARA, 2005 cSee Table A-3 for definitions. dS Rank = subnational rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: B = indicates breeding status for a migratory species N = indicates non-breeding status for a migratory species NA = conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities 1 = Critically imperiled 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable 4 = Apparently Secure 5 = Secure eBritish Columbia Status Ranks are as follows: R = red Y = yellow B = blue
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page A-13
Preliminary Information Package
Table A-11 Mammals of Conservation Concern Along the Proposed Pipeline Route British Columbia Alberta Federal Scientific Common G Provincial Provincial COSEWIC Name Name Ranka S Rankb Statusc S Rankb Statusd Statuse Grizzly May be at Ursus arctos G4 S3 Blue - SC bear Risk May be at Gulo gulo Wolverine G4 S3 Blue S3 SC Risk Martes pennanti Fisher G5 S2S3 Blue - Sensitive - Rangifer Woodland G5 S4 - S2 At Risk Threatened tarandus caribou Northern Myotis May be at long-eared G4 S2S3 Blue S2S3 - septenttrionalis Risk bat NOTES: aG Rank = global rank, see Table A-1. bS Rank = subnational rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable cBritish Columbia Status Ranks are as follows: R = red Y = yellow B = blue dSee Table A-2 for definitions. eSee Table A-3 for definitions.
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page A-14
Preliminary Information Package
Appendix B Scope of Factors to be Considered
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005
Preliminary Information Package
This appendix provides a summary of the likely scope of the factors to be considered in the assessment for the preliminary elements listed in Section 5.3.1. Biophysical and human environment elements are presented separately. For the biophysical environment, this summary highlights those aspects of construction and operations that will potentially interact with key biophysical elements and that may require assessment within the ESA document. It should be recognized that the appendix represents a preliminary list of potential assessment issues, and some issues may be subsequently dropped while others may be added, following further advances in Project design, and further public and regulatory consultation As described in Section 5.1, the assessment will address all phases of the Project, including construction, operations, decommissioning, and abandonment. The activities that may occur during decommissioning and abandonment are likely to be similar to those listed for construction and, for clarity, are not repeated in the summary tables. The reader will note that the table is formatted differently for human environment elements. This is to reflect a differentiating characteristic of human environment effects. In particular: • these effects are not typically the result of a specific physical work or activity of the Project but rather they are the result of the Project as a whole • some effects on the human environment are secondary or indirect. For example, the project may, through project employment, lead to a change in household income, which would be a primary or direct effect. That, in turn, might influence community health and well-being, and these would be secondary or indirect effects.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page B-1
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-1 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Biophysical Elements Element Physical Work or Activity Potential Assessment Issue Air Quality Construction
Slash burning on RoW and at facility sites PM 2.5, 10, NOx emissions from burning
Operation of construction-support PM 2.5, 10, NOx emissions from equipment equipment on RoW and at facility sites and dust
Operation of construction camps PM 2.5, 10, NOx emissions from power supply at camps
Marine vessel traffic (i.e., delivery of PM 2.5, 10, NOx, SOx emissions from construction materials) marine vessels
All above-listed construction activities Greenhouse gas emissions
Operations Hydrocarbon storage at terminal(s) and Fugitive VOC emissions pump stations Odours (from fugitive VOC emissions)
Operational activities at marine PM 2.5, 10, NOx, SOx, and fugitive VOC infrastructure (loading/unloading of emissions from equipment, marine hydrocarbons; ship operations while vessels, facilities and hydrocarbon berthed) handling
Marine vessel traffic PM 2.5, 10, NOx, SOx emissions from marine vessel traffic All above-listed operational activities Ozone precursor emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions
Acoustic Construction Environment Operation of construction-support Local noise levels equipment on RoW and/or at facility sites Blasting on RoW and/or at facility sites Local noise levels Marine vessel traffic (i.e., delivery of Local noise levels construction materials) Operations Operational activities at terminals and Local noise levels pump stations Operational activities at marine Local noise levels infrastructure (loading/unloading of hydrocarbons; ship operations while berthed) Marine vessel traffic Local noise levels
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page B-2
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-1 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Biophysical Elements (cont’d) Element Physical Work or Activity Potential Assessment Issue Surface Construction Water RoW and/or facility site preparation Surface drainage patterns Quantity (clearing, grading) Runoff volumes RoW ditching and backfilling Surface drainage patterns Instream ditching and backfilling Stream channel morphology, stability Hydrostatic testing (withdrawal and release Volume of water withdrawal from and of hydrostatic test water) water release to surface waterbodies Operation of construction camps Volume of water withdrawal from and water release to surface waterbodies Operations Operational footprint of facility sites Surface drainage patterns and runoff volumes from impermeable surfaces Operational activities at terminals, pump Volume of water withdrawal from and stations and marine infrastructure water release to surface waterbodies Operational footprint of RoW Surface drainage patterns and runoff volumes from reclaimed RoW Surface Construction Water Quality RoW and/or facility site preparation Water quality characteristics of run-off (clearing, grading); RoW ditching and backfilling Instream ditching and backfilling Water quality characteristics during instream activities Hydrostatic testing (withdrawal and release Water quality characteristics of water of hydrostatic test water) releases Operation of construction camps Water quality characteristics of water releases Operations Operational footprint of facility sites Water quality characteristics of run-off Operational activities at terminals, pump Interactions between Project emissions stations and marine infrastructure and surface water quality Operational footprint of RoW Water quality characteristics of run-off Groundwater Construction Quantity RoW and/or facility site preparation Shallow groundwater flow patterns (clearing, grading), RoW ditching and backfilling, RoW blasting Operation of construction camps Volume of water withdrawal from and water release to groundwater Operations Operational activities at terminals, pump Volume of water withdrawal from and stations and marine infrastructure water release to groundwater
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page B-3
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-1 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Biophysical Elements (cont’d) Element Physical Work or Activity Potential Assessment Issue Groundwater Construction Quality Operation of construction camps Water quality characteristics of water releases and potential for percolation into shallow groundwater Operations Operational activities at terminals, pump Water quality characteristics of water stations and marine infrastructure releases, and potential for percolation into shallow groundwater Water quality characteristics of run-off and potential for percolation into shallow groundwater Terrain and Construction Soils RoW and/or facility site preparation Surface and slope integrity (clearing, grading); RoW ditching and Topsoil conservation backfilling; RoW and/or facility site reclamation Soil capability in agricultural areas Soil capability for reclamation in non- agricultural areas Operations Operational footprint of RoW Surface and slope integrity Operational activities at terminals, pump Interactions between Project emissions stations and marine infrastructure and soil capability Marine vessel traffic Vessel wake characteristics and effects on shoreline stability Vegetation Construction Species RoW and/or facility site preparation Non-native species Diversity (clearing, grading); RoW and/or facility site Rare or uncommon plants (including reclamation marine vegetation species in vicinity of marine infrastructure) and associated local/regional species diversity Operations Routine RoW maintenance activities Non-native species Operational activities at terminals, pump Interactions between Project emissions stations and marine infrastructure and species growth characteristics
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page B-4
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-1 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Biophysical Elements (cont’d)
Element Physical Work or Activity Potential Assessment Issue Vegetation Construction Community RoW and/or facility site preparation Rare or uncommon communities (including and (clearing, grading); RoW ditching and marine vegetation communities in vicinity Landscape backfilling; RoW and/or facility site of marine infrastructure) Diversity reclamation Local/regional structural diversity, including mature or old growth forest stands Wetland integrity and associated local/regional community diversity Landscape diversity characteristics, including large core patch areas Operations Operational activities at terminals, pump Interactions between Project emissions stations and marine infrastructure and community characteristics Wildlife Construction (Terrestrial) RoW and/or facility site preparation Habitat quality and availability Species (clearing, grading); RoW ditching and Local species abundance and distribution Abundance backfilling; RoW and/or facility site and Diversity reclamation, construction traffic Operations Operational activities at terminals, pump Habitat quality and availability stations and marine infrastructure; Local species abundance and distribution Routine RoW maintenance activities Operational activities at terminals, pump Interactions between Project emissions stations and marine infrastructure and species growth and health characteristics Wildlife Construction (Terrestrial) RoW and/or facility site preparation Wildlife movement patterns Landscape (clearing, grading); RoW ditching and Diversity and backfilling; construction traffic Connectivity Operations Operational activities at terminals, pump Wildlife movement patterns stations and marine infrastructure, New access potential and associated Operational footprint of RoW, routine hunting pressure and availability of core RoW maintenance activities security habitat
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page B-5
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-1 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Biophysical Elements (cont’d)
Element Physical Work or Activity Potential Assessment Issue Freshwater Construction Fish and Fish RoW and/or facility site preparation Riparian habitat quality and availability Habitat (clearing, grading); RoW ditching and Volumes and water quality characteristics Abundance backfilling and Diversity of run-off into fish-bearing streams Temporary and permanent road development Associated instream habitat quality and availability Fish distribution and abundance Instream ditching and backfilling Instream habitat quality and availability Water quality characteristics at and downstream of crossing Fish distribution and abundance Operations Operational footprint of RoW, facilities and Volumes and water quality characteristics roads of run-off into fish-bearing streams
Associated instream habitat quality and availability
New access potential and associated fishing pressure
Routine RoW maintenance activities (e.g., Riparian habitat quality and availability vegetation management)
Marine Construction Species Upland facility site preparation (clearing, Volumes and water quality characteristics Abundance grading), temporary and permanent road of run-off into near-shore habitats and Diversity development Associated marine habitat quality and availability Marine species distribution and abundance In-water marine infrastructure site Water quality characteristics preparation (including dredging and Marine habitat quality and availability blasting, if necessary) Underwater acoustic levels Marine species distribution and abundance Marine vessel traffic (delivery of Underwater acoustic levels construction materials) Marine species distribution and abundance
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page B-6
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-1 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Biophysical Elements (cont’d) Element Aspect Potential Assessment Issue Marine Operations Species Operational footprint of facility sites Volumes and water quality characteristics Abundance (terminal and marine infrastructure) of run-off into near-shore habitats; and Diversity Associated marine habitat quality and (cont’d) availability Marine vessels Underwater acoustic levels Vessel wake characteristics and shoreline habitat stability Marine species distribution and abundance Tanker ballast/bilge water discharge Non-native species Marine species distribution and abundance
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page B-7
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-2 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Human Environment Elements Potential Assessment Issue Element Aspect Conditions Services Demographics Construction Influx and outflow of Population, community temporary workers and job make-up seekers during construction Operations Employment of workers Population, community during operations make-up Education Construction Job opportunities requiring Levels of education School enrolment and trained workforce attainment associated programs Possible in-migration of workers and families Operations Job opportunities requiring Levels of education School enrolment and trained workforce attainment associated programs Possible in-migration of workers and families Health Construction Increased employment Individual, family and Medical resources and and income and changed community wellness services personal and household spending; change in population RoW and/or facility site Quality and/or quantity of preparation (clearing, traditionally used country grading); RoW ditching foods; access or and backfilling; availability of foods reclamation Temporary and permanent road development Marine vessel traffic Quality and/or quantity of (delivery of construction traditionally used country materials) foods Ability to acquire traditionally used country foods Operation of construction- Air quality support equipment on RoW and at facility sites
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page B-8
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-2 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Human Environment Elements (cont’d) Potential Effect Element Aspect Conditions Services Health (cont’d) Operations Increased employment Individual, family and Medical resources and and income and changed community wellness services personal and household spending; change in population Operational footprint of Quality and/or quantity of RoW, roads and facility traditionally used country sites foods; access or availability of foods Marine vessel traffic Quality and/or quantity of traditionally used country foods Ability to acquire traditionally used country foods (as a result of restricted zones) Operational activities at Air quality terminals, pump stations and marine infrastructure, marine vessel traffic Social Construction Conditions Influx and outflow of Social interaction between temporary workers and job workforce and residents seekers during construction Increased employment Individual, family and Social services and income and changed community wellness personal and household spending; change in population Operations Increased employment Individual, family and Social services and income and changed community wellness personal and household spending; change in population
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page B-9
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-2 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Human Environment Elements (cont’d) Potential Effect Element Aspect Conditions Services Protection Construction Services Increased employment Offence rates and public Law enforcement, fire and income and changed safety protection, emergency personal and household services spending; change in population Operations Increased employment Offence rates and public Law enforcement, fire and income and changed safety protection, emergency personal and household services spending; change in population Infrastructure Construction Construction activity and Housing, water supply, Community and regional presence of temporary sewage treatment, services workforce transportation, recreation, tourism, and utilities infrastructure Construction access and Traffic levels Transportation services materials supply Operations Employment of workers Housing, water supply, Transportation, waste during operations; Change sewage treatment, disposal, utilities and in population transportation, and utilities energy services, infrastructure Operational activities at Physical infrastructure Transportation, waste terminals, pump stations (including energy supply, disposal, utilities and and marine infrastructure water supply, waste energy services disposal, transportation, communications) Labour Construction Project-related Available labour supply, Training programs and employment opportunities (un)employment, services skills/training needs, opportunities Operations Project-related Available labour supply, Training programs and employment opportunities (un)employment, services skills/training needs, opportunities
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page B-10
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-2 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Human Environment Elements (cont’d) Potential Effect Element Aspect Conditions Services Income Construction Project-related Business, personal and employment opportunities household income levels and procurement of goods (and related social and and services economic effects) Operations Project-related Business, personal and employment opportunities household income levels and procurement of goods (and related social and and services economic effects) Local and Construction Regional Contribution to tax base Municipal/other Economy government finances Procurement Corporate income, industrial diversification and cost of living Local, regional business opportunities Employment of workers Personal/household income during construction and income distribution between social groups Labour force opportunities and experience Operations Contribution to tax base Municipal/other government finances Procurement Corporate income and industrial diversification Local, regional business opportunities Employment of workers Personal/household income during operations Labour force opportunities and experience
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page B-11
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-2 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Human Environment Elements (cont’d) Potential Effect Element Aspect Conditions Services Provincial and Construction National Contribution to Government revenues Economy government revenues through direct and indirect taxes and transfers Procurement Gross Domestic Product and imports Employment of workers Employment and labour during construction income Operations Contribution to Government revenues government revenues and through direct and indirect change in exports taxes and transfers Balance of payments Procurement Gross Domestic Product Employment of workers Employment and labour during operations income Land and Construction Resource Use Acquisition of land and Regional land use planning property rights and objectives and guidelines easements for construction Land tenure by federal, provincial, municipal or private owners Surface rights RoW and/or facility site Environmentally significant preparation (clearing, areas (including designated grading) parks, protected areas, Temporary and permanent ecological reserves, and road development designated ‘special places’) Use of aggregate/fill during Existing granular resource construction supply and demand, existing deposits and associated licenses and dispositions RoW and/or facility site Merchantable timber preparation (clearing, grading) Temporary and permanent road development
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page B-12
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-2 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Human Environment Elements (cont’d) Potential Effect Element Aspect Conditions Services Land and Access and activity Ability to pursue timber Resource Use restrictions during harvesting activities (cont’d) construction (including Ability to pursue mineral terrestrial, freshwater resource activities aquatic, and marine) Ability to pursue oil and gas activities Ability to pursue commercial fishing activities Ability to pursue consumptive commercial and recreational activities Ability to pursue agricultural activities Ability to pursue tourism and non-consumptive outdoor recreation activities Ability to pursue marine resource use activities All construction activities Quality of visual or aesthetic resources. Operations Operational footprint of Ability to pursue terrestrial RoW, facilities and roads resources use activities Marine vessels Ability to pursue marine resource use activities Regional marine planning objectives and guidelines Operational footprint of Regional land use planning RoW, facilities and roads objectives and guidelines Land base for consumptive resource uses Supply of industrial land
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page B-13
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-2 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Human Environment Elements (cont’d) Potential Effect Element Aspect Conditions Services Traditional Construction Land and RoW and/or facility site Ability to pursue traditional Resource Use preparation (clearing, land and resource use grading) activities Temporary and permanent road development Marine vessel traffic Ability to pursue traditional (delivery of construction resource use activities materials) Operations Operational footprint of Ability to pursue traditional RoW, facilities and roads land and resource use activities Marine vessels Ability to pursue traditional resource use activities Traditional Construction Culture All construction activities. Cultural identity and community well being related to traditional sites, foods, harvesting patterns, health, land and resource use patterns, working conditions, language, and community relationships Operations Operational footprint of Cultural identity and RoW, facilities and roads community well being related to traditional land and resource use patterns and population
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page B-14
Preliminary Information Package
Table B-2 Scope of the Factors to be Considered: Human Environment Elements (cont’d) Potential Effect Element Aspect Conditions Services Historical and Construction Archaeological RoW and/or facility site Historical and Resources preparation (clearing, archaeological artifacts, grading) features and sites and/or Temporary and permanent palaeontological fossils of road development ethnic value or local or regional significance In-water marine Historical and infrastructure site archaeological artifacts, preparation (including features and sites and/or dredging and blasting, if palaeontological fossils of necessary) ethnic value or local or regional significance in near-shore and shoreline areas Marine vessels (delivery of Historical and construction materials) archaeological artifacts, features and sites and/or palaeontological fossils of ethnic value or local or regional significance within shoreline areas Operations Operational footprint of Historical and RoW and roads archaeological artifacts, features and sites and/or palaeontological fossils of ethnic value or local or regional significance in areas with new access potential Marine vessels Historical, archaeological, and palaeontological artifacts of ethnic value or local or regional significance within shoreline areas
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page B-15
Preliminary Information Package
Appendix C Proposed Filing Requirements for Marine Elements
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005
Preliminary Information Package
Table C-1 Marine Regional Context Gateway ESA Filing Will describe qualitatively the overall general marine environment in the Project Effects Assessment Area and the Confined Channel Assessment Area, including: • Douglas Channel, including Caamano Sound and Kitimat Arm • Principe Channel • although not in the Project Effects Assessment Area or Confined Channel Assessment Area, Hecate Strait will be described in the larger regional context
This will include a general discussion of: • oceanographic and meteorological systems • presence and status of marine mammals, marine birds and marine fish species • species of special concern • fisheries, commercial, subsistence, and guided/recreational; Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal • non-consumptive marine recreation and tourism • vessel traffic
Table C-2 Project Effects Assessment Area Gateway ESA Filing The Project Effects Assessment Area for the marine environment is defined as: that geographic area encompassing the physical footprint of the marine infrastructure component of the Kitimat Terminal, restricted zones around the infrastructure, and an area defined by a trajectory analysis of an accidental release of oil caused by a malfunction during loading or offloading of an oil or a condensate tanker moored at the marine terminal.
The ESA will provide an analysis of the potential environmental effects of the Project on the marine environment, including: • identification of marine VCs • evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the Project on VCs during construction, operations and decommissioning. • the potential effects of accidental events on VCs is covered under Table C-4 Marine Birds and Marine Mammals The ESA will identify marine birds or mammals of ecological, economic or human/Aboriginal importance in the Project Effects Assessment Area.
For the marine resources identified, the ESA will describe: • habitat type • location/range • habitat suitability • diversity • abundance • population status • life cycle • for anadromous species, the seasonal ranges or migration patterns • sensitive periods
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page C-1
Preliminary Information Package
Table C-2 Project Effects Assessment Area (cont’d) Marine Birds and Marine Mammals (cont’d) The ESA will: • identify any special management areas in or near the Project Effects Assessment Area • describe the current level of disturbance to the marine environment within the Project Effects Assessment Area
For marine birds, the ESA will: • describe the findings of focused surveys on the marbled murrelet establishing whether suitable habitat and a population exists in the Project Effects Assessment Area • describe habitat and incidental observations of marine birds throughout the Project Effects Assessment Area • quantify habitat in the Project Effects Assessment Area
For coastal raptors, the ESA will describe the results of coastal habitat surveys, including description of habitat.
For marine mammals, the ESA will describe the results of dedicated marine mammal surveys, including description of habitat and incidental observations of marine mammals in the Project Effects Assessment Area. Species of Special Status For potential environmental effects of the Project on species of special conservation status, the ESA will: • identify the species and their status • identify their habitat, including any critical habitats • identify critical timing windows (e.g., spawning or staging) • identify species-specific recovery plans • follow Guidance as in Table A4 of NEB Filing Manual Marine Fish and Fish Habitat The ESA will: • provide, at the location of marine infrastructure, a detailed quantification and classification of marine habitat • provide a detailed description of subtidal and intertidal communities in the area of the marine infrastructure, including quantification of benthos populations and a description of sediment quality • be consistent with Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) “No Net Loss of Fish Habitat” policy and will provide the basis for a Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (if required) • provide, based on surveys within the Project Effects Assessment Area, a detailed assessment of intertidal habitat • contain a high-level overview of the shoreline with classification of substrate type, vegetation and watercourse outfall • contain detailed underwater mapping of the subtidal benthic habitat near the proposed marine infrastructure site • describe deeper subtidal and benthic invertebrate community information, including species abundance, richness and diversity (gathered through remote sampling)
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page C-2
Preliminary Information Package
Table C-2 Project Effects Assessment Area (cont’d) Marine Fish and Fish Habitat (cont’d) The ESA will provide a description of fish present in the Project Effects Assessment Area including: • likely fish species present, including forage fish (non-harvested) • seasonal and life cycle movements and sensitive periods • habitat requirements for each life stage • local abundance, distribution and use of habitat types • known sensitive or important habitat types (e.g., spawning, overwintering, refugia, feeding), species and timing of use Marine Fishery The ESA will: • describe fishing activities, including Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, seasonality (four seasons), gear types, commercial license statistics, fishing regulations and fish processing facilities and their economic importance to communities included in the assessment • provide DFO landing statistics, including fish catch by species and value for communities included in the assessment • describe and map fishing areas in the Project Effects Assessment Area • describe fishing areas and their relative importance in a broader regional context (i.e., substitutes and alternatives) • describe types, number, size/capacity of fishing vessels used in the area, their docking/marina locations and existing interactions with shipping (locations, frequency, effects) Historical and Archaeological Resources The ESA will: • involve completion of an HRIA/AIA (including palaeontological resources) as per provincial requirements of the proposed disturbance areas within the Project Effects Assessment Area • provide an inventory, description and evaluation of each identified site • provide a potential map of archaeological resources within the Project Effects Assessment Area Non-Consumptive Marine Recreation and Tourism The ESA will describe non-consumptive marine recreation and tourism activities in communities included in the assessment from existing data and surveys of/interviews with representatives of businesses serving tourists and recreational clubs/associations. Specifically, the ESA will: • describe marine and foreshore recreational use activities such as scuba-diving, sea-kayaking, canoeing, whale-watching, beach-combing, bird-watching, boating/yachting and the relative importance of these uses/sites in a broader regional context (i.e., substitutes and alternatives) • describe tourism user characteristics: origin, duration, type of use (i.e., guided and other) and its contribution to the local economy • describe seasonality of these uses, the various locations where these activities are favoured/take place • identify businesses and clubs/associations involved in marine recreation activities
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page C-3
Preliminary Information Package
Table C-3 Confined Channel Assessment Area Confined Channel Assessment Area Gateway ESA Filing The Confined Channel Assessment Area is defined as: • the marine area where measurable environmental effects of shipping are most likely to occur, the portion of the shipping route that brings ships near land and other resource uses, and where navigation to and from the Project will be escorted. This is the geographic area that encompasses the preferred shipping route (Douglas Channel through Caamano Sound, headland to headland) or the alternate shipping route (Douglas Channel through Wright Sound through Browning Entrance in Principe Channel).
The ESA will provide an analysis of the potential environmental effects of shipping and navigation to and from the Project on the marine environment and associated VCs within the Confined Channel Assessment Area and will include: • an assessment of the potential environmental effects on marine VCs (e.g., marine mammals) • an assessment of the potential environmental effects on existing marine vessel traffic • an effects analysis related to shipping elements such as erosion from wake energy, interaction of shipping with marine mammals, and additional acoustic load • a description of the interaction between existing commercial and Aboriginal vessel traffic and vessel traffic to and from the Project • an acoustic analysis to quantify increases in underwater acoustic emissions likely to accompany increases in shipping frequency and ship size • a marine mammal survey • a seabird survey • a potential analysis for archaeological and historic resources • a shoreline classification
The ESA will provide an analysis of vessel traffic in the Confined Channel Assessment Area, including: • a description of commercial vessel traffic (including tourism) from existing port/terminal data and surveys of/interviews with representatives of shipping companies and port authorities and other informed sources • routes/channels from/to ocean that commercial shipping uses, main hazard areas for other users in relation to shipping and frequency and magnitude of shipping incidents • vessel traffic, including frequency, goods, quantities, shippers, origin/destination and the importance to the local and regional economy • visual and aesthetic characteristics of commercial vessel traffic
The ESA will provide a detailed outline of the TERMPOL process to be followed, including: • studies required • government role • TERMPOL results to date • recommendations for navigational safety requirements for Douglas and Principe Channels and recommendation as to the responsible party, including the governments, Pilotage Authority, Response Organisation. • description of the typical vessels expected to call on the marine terminal • description of the typical chartering and contract arrangements between the Gateway and vessel operators/owners • description of the tug support in context of the terminal operations • description of a navigational analysis of the preferred and alternate vessel route from a navigational safety perspective • description of Gateway’s proposed Vessel Vetting Process
October 2005 Enbridge Gateway Project Page C-4
Preliminary Information Package
Table C-3 Confined Channel Assessment Area (cont’d) Non-Consumptive Marine Recreation and Tourism The ESA will describe non-consumptive marine recreation and tourism activities in communities included in the assessment from existing data and surveys of/interviews with representatives of businesses serving tourists and recreational clubs/associations. Specifically, the ESA will: • describe marine and foreshore recreational use activities such as scuba-diving, sea-kayaking, canoeing, whale-watching, beach-combing, bird-watching, boating/yachting and the relative importance of these uses/sites in a broader regional context (i.e., substitutes and alternatives) • describe tourism user characteristics: origin, duration, type of use (i.e., guided and other) and its contribution to the local economy • describe seasonality of these uses, the various locations where these activities are favoured/take place • identify businesses and clubs/associations involved in marine recreation activities
Table C-4 Effects Analysis of an Accidental Oil or Condensate Release into the Marine Environment
Gateway ESA Filing The ESA will provide an analysis of the potential environmental effects of an accidental release of oil or condensate on marine VCs within the Project Effects Assessment Area and the Confined Channel Assessment Area, including: • an oil release trajectory model • oil and condensate fate and behaviour analysis in the event of a release • a probability analysis of likelihood of a release of oil and condensate, using world-wide statistics for tankers of the size and configuration proposed for condensate and oil shipment to and from the Project • recommended oil release contingency planning based on oil release trajectory modelling of hypothetical releases for both condensate and oil, at locations identified through a thorough navigational analysis • a sample Oil Pollution Emergency Plan that would be carried onboard each tanker • the Response Organization’s role in relation to the tankers • a description of release emergency planning for the terminal, including potential infrastructure and other resources, Canada Shipping Act (CSA) requirements and facility designation under CSA • a sample Oil Release Atlas that would be part of CSA requirements
The ESA will also provide: • a probability analysis of an accidental condensate or oil release within Canadian waters outside the Project Effects Assessment Area and the Confined Channel Assessment Area, including Hecate Strait, using world-wide statistics for tankers of the size and configuration proposed for condensate and oil shipment to and from the Project.
Enbridge Gateway Project October 2005 Page C-5
Sec. 52 Application Volume 4: Public Consultation Appendix L: Other Outreach Documentation
L.7.2 Online Modules (2006)
Page L-330 May 2010
Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Welcome
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
A Snapshot in Time
Recognizing that
Environmental and Socio-
economic Assessment
work is still ongoing, the
information presented in
these modules is a
summary and a “snap-shot
in time” reflecting the work
done to August, 2006. Welcome to a new approach we are implementing for consultation on the Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment for the Enbridge Gateway Project. These web-based modules are offered to complement our other consultation activities, providing you with the convenience of reviewing the material where and when you wish, with the choice of what material you want to review. Feedback from Your feedback is welcome previous consultation told us that, while desirable, in-person events can be time or location prohibitive. any time through any of the methods listed in Contact Us found at the bottom of Module Orientation each page The Assessment Process Flow Chart gives you an overview of the Assessment process generally followed by all of the subject areas (disciplines) as listed on the Subject Areas menu above.
Clicking on any one of the subject areas will take you directly to that discipline. What you will initially see is a replica of the Assessment Process Flow Chart, and clicking on any one of the flow chart boxes will take you to the discipline-specific information pertinent to that box.
Three other assessment activities that have a bearing on all subject areas include:
● Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
● Risk Management of Accidental Releases
● Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan
Work to Date Last fall we held a series of open houses and workshops introducing the Project and providing preliminary information. Since then work in support of our National Energy Board application has continued. A significant portion of the work includes the analysis of the potential Project’s effects on the biophysical and human environments, which will collectively be reflected in the environment and Socio- economic Assessment portion of the filing submission. Issues scoping, determining baseline conditions, and associated field work was initiated in 2005, with additional field work continuing in 2006. Results analysis is another key activity in 2006.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp10/23/2006 11:45:02 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Project Overview
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Environment and Socio- Home » Project Overview economic Assessment Overview Project Overview Assessment Process Flow Chart ● General Project Description
Aboriginal Traditional ● Assessment Scenarios Knowledge ● Project Phases Environmental Protection
and Monitoring Plan ● Facility and Infrastructure Details
Risk Management of ● Pipelines Accidental Releases ● Right-of-Way Other Project Information
● Tunnels
● Pump Stations
● Temporary and Permanent Access
● Construction Camps
● Stockpiles
● Marine Terminal
● Vessel Operations
● Study Area
● Project Development Area
● Project Effects Assessment Area
● Confined Channel Assessment Area
● Project Activities and Physical Works
● Pipeline and Tank Facilities
● Marine Port
● Vessel Traffic
General Project Description The Enbridge Gateway Project proposes to construct and operate one pipeline to deliver oil from northern Alberta to a new marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia, and a second pipeline transporting condensate from the marine terminal to northern Alberta.
The Project facilities and infrastructure included in the Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment are:
● One export oil pipeline
● One import condensate pipeline
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5 (1 of 7)10/23/2006 11:45:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Project Overview
● One right-of-way easement for both pipelines
● Six pump stations
● Two initiating pump stations (one oil initiating station at the eastern starting point near Bruderheirm, Alberta; one condensate initiating station at the marine terminal)
● Powerlines to British Columbia pump stations
● A new marine terminal that will include tank and port facilities
Project Phases For each discipline, the Project effects will be analysed for construction, operations, and decommissioning:
● Construction Phase: To occur over two and a half years.
● Operations Phase: Expected to last a minimum of 25 years.
● Decommissioning Phase: At the end of the useful life of the Project.
Assessment Scenarios
● Base Case: Conditions existing prior to the Project
● Stand-alone Case: Effects from the Project alone
● Application Case: Stand-alone Case after mitigation measures have been applied
● Future Development Case: Application Case + the effects of any future planned developments in the assessment area, for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects
Facility and Infrastructure Details
Pipelines The oil pipeline is currently being designed for an average annual throughput capacity of 400,000 barrels per day and will have an outside diameter of 914 millimetres (36 inches).
The condensate pipeline is currently being designed for an average annual throughput capacity of 150,000 barrels per day and will have an outside diameter of 508 millimetres (20 inches).
Right-of-Way The product pipelines will be installed in separate trenches in one right-of-way, with an average 4- metre separation between the two, measured from the centre point of each pipeline ('hot lines'). Possible exceptions include sloping rocky terrain where the pipelines may be installed in a single trench, and poorly drained areas where the pipelines may be installed farther apart.
The pipeline easement will consist of a permanent 25-metre wide right-of-way, except in areas where there may be a requirement for additional right-of-way width to accommodate structures and supports.
Approximately 15 metres of temporary extra work space will be cleared along the right-of-way to accommodate various construction activities, and will be returned to previous land-use following construction.
Tunnels There will be two tunnel sections in the Coastal Mountain range, located between the Hoult and Clore valleys. Associated with these tunnels will be spoil and staging areas, as well as three construction camps. Spoil will be stored near the portals and disposed of at pre-approved locations.
Permanent access roads will be required to the tunnel portals to accommodate access during construction and operation of the pipeline. Roads to the area between the tunnels and the western portal already exist although some upgrading will be required; a new road will be http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5 (2 of 7)10/23/2006 11:45:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Project Overview
required to access the eastern portal.
Pump Stations There will be eight electric-powered intermediate pump stations: six will Related Information be dual purpose (oil and condensate), and two condensate only. In addition, there will be initiating pump stations at either end of the ● Preliminary Pump pipeline. Station Specifications Each pump station will be approximately 4 hectares in area (including work area and buffer zone); have permanent, all-weather access and (PDF - 15KB) electrical power; and will include varying numbers of oil and condensate pumps.
Remotely-operated pipeline block valves will be installed at the pump stations, on either side of selected river crossings, and at sensitive receiving environments. There will be no additional development area beyond the working area associated with the block valves. Electrical power for the block valves will be provided by commercial sources or by alternate power sources such as solar panels and propane- or condensate-fuelled thermo-electric generators. During operations, valves will be visited several times a year for servicing with access provided by helicopter or existing road, depending on the location.
In remote locations, valve sites and pump stations will be equipped with satellite telecommunications. Pigging facilities will be installed at both ends of the pipeline system and at each of the pump stations. These installations will be located within the area of permanent facilities so no additional development area is required.
Temporary and Permanent Access Permanent and temporary access to the right-of-way will be required along the route. All temporary access will be restored and reclaimed when construction is complete, unless the road is required for access during operations.
Construction Camps Project construction is expected to require 11 temporary construction Related Information camps for workers: 8 camps for the main pipeline and marine terminal, 20 hectares in area on average; plus 3 smaller camps, 5 ● Preliminary Location of hectares in area, for the tunnel construction. All camps will require temporary access. Construction Camps (PDF - 15KB) Stockpiles
Stockpiles will be constructed for Related Information temporary storage of pipe and other materials and equipment. In total, 13 ● Preliminary Location of stockpiles are anticipated within the pipeline working area, each about 20 Stockpile Sites hectares in size. (PDF - 13KB)
Marine Terminal The marine terminal will be located on the west side of the Kitimat Arm of Douglas Channel, about 175 hectares in area. Collectively, the terminal includes a tank facility, the marine port facility, the interconnect pipes between the two facilities, and a 30-metre fire break buffer.
Tank Facility
Full build-out of the tank facility will ultimately include 20 tanks for oil and condensate and an
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5 (3 of 7)10/23/2006 11:45:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Project Overview
initiating pump station for condensate. Initially 14 tanks will be constructed - 11 oil tanks, and 3 condensate tanks. The remaining 6 tanks (4 for oil, 1 for condensate, and 1 for maintenance) will be constructed as required; however, these will be included in the assessment.
At the terminal site, there will be a firewater holding pond as well as an oil water treatment facility with discharge of clean water to the firewater holding pond.
The spoil from site grading of the tank facility will be transported to an ocean disposal site approved by Environment Canada in Kitimat Arm located approximately three to four kilometres north of the marine terminal.
Port Facility
The port facility will consist of two separate berth platforms – one for oil tanker loading and one for condensate offloading – and booster pumps to pump oil to the tanks. The two berths will be designed to accommodate both oil tankers up to Very Large Crude Carriers and condensate Suezmax vessels. A construction berth will also be installed north of the two berths which may be used for tugs during operation.
Oil and condensate tanker berths will be comprised of:
● a loading platform and connecting trestle
● 4 breasting dolphins
● 6 mooring dolphins
● utility boat dock
Dredging will be required for construction of the berth structure foundations. Like the site spoil from the construction of the tank facility, dredged material will be transported to an ocean disposal site approved by Environment Canada in Kitimat Arm located approximately three to four kilometres north of the marine terminal.
Underwater blasting will be required to provide a level surface for pile location and positioning.
Vessel Operations Vessel routes may include both a north approach and south approach to Douglas Channel. The north approach would navigate through Browning Entrance, Principe Channel, Otter Channel, Lewis Passage, Wright Sound, and Douglas Channel to the marine terminal. The approximate distance of marine transit from Browning Entrance to the marine terminal is 160 nautical miles (14 to 18 hours by ship).
The south approach would navigate through Caamaño Sound, Squally Channel, Lewis Passage, Wright Sound, and Douglas Channel to the Terminal. The approximate distance of marine transit from Caamaño Sound to the marine terminal is 100 nautical miles (8 to 12 hours by ship).
During transit through the approaches, laden vessels will have a tug escort. Local pilots will be transported to incoming vessels from pilot stations in the area.
If weather or scheduling prevents vessels from docking, the vessels will enter a holding pattern within the Arm until docking can be accommodated.
Potential anchorage locations for tankers enroute to Kitimat include:
● Anger anchorage
● Coughlin anchorage
● north end of Douglas Channel in Kitimat Harbour
Study Area
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5 (4 of 7)10/23/2006 11:45:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Project Overview
Project Development Area
The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area
For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project may have measurable effects).
In the marine assessment, the Project Effects Assessment Area varies by measurable parameter, depending on the biology of the key indicator resource and the zone of influence. The zone of influence for accidental releases could extend beyond the Project Effects Assessment Area.
Confined Channel Assessment Area
The Confined Channel Assessment Area is the area where measurable effects from shipping on the marine environment are most likely to occur. This area includes condensate and oil carrier shipping routes, and where navigation to and from the marine terminal will be escorted by tugs. This area includes the confined waters between the north entrance to Principe Channel (north approach) through Kitimat Arm to the Terminal, and between the entrance to Caamaño Sound (south approach) and the Terminal.
Project Activities and Physical Works The following general Project activities or physical works in the study area have the potential to alter the natural and human environment, although the Project effects will be unique to each discipline.
Pipeline and Tank Facilities
Construction
■ borrow extraction
■ camp construction and operations
■ construction equipment and traffic
■ construction of pipeline, tanks, pump stations, support buildings
■ hydrostatic testing
■ powerline connections to supply electricity to pump stations and the marine terminal
■ right-of-way and facility site reclamation
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5 (5 of 7)10/23/2006 11:45:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Project Overview
■ right-of-way and site preparation
■ temporary and permanent road development
■ tunnelling and waste rock disposal
■ ground water management
■ watercourse crossings
Operations
❍ product transfer at the marine terminal
❍ operational equipment and traffic
❍ operations and maintance (pump stations, marine terminal)
❍ permanent road maintenance associated with pump stations and marine
terminal
❍ right-of-way maintenance (vegetation management, pipe maintenance,
surveillance)
Decommissioning
❍ site restoration (infrastructure removal, site rehabilitation, reclamation)
❍ reclamation of disturbed areas (right-of-way, infrastructure, roads)
❍ road removal where appropriate (re-contouring and reclamation, removal of
vehicle crossing structures)
❍ decommissioning equipment and traffic
Marine Port
Construction
❍ construction camp operations (waste water disposal)
❍ construction support vessels (barges, tugs, ocean disposal barges)
❍ in-water infrastructure construction (permanent jetty, construction jetty, pile
installation)
❍ in-water infrastructure site preparation (dredging, blasting, pile drilling)
❍ ocean disposal of waste overburden, drill cuttings
❍ on-shore infrastructure construction (tanks, inter-connector pipes, support
buildings, pumps)
❍ on-shore site preparation (clearing, burning, grading, blasting)
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5 (6 of 7)10/23/2006 11:45:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Project Overview
Operations
❍ bilge and ballast water management
❍ in-water infrastructure operations (docking berth and associated lights, noise)
❍ maintenance of in-water infrastructures (docking berth and associated shading,
underwater structures, pile inspections)
❍ maintenance of on-shore infrastructure
❍ moored tankers (and associated combustion emissions, inert gas exchange,
propeller wash, noise, boom deployment)
❍ on-shore infrastructure operations (marine terminal facilities and associated site
water run-off, lights, noise, waste water disposal, emissions)
❍ venting at the tanker berth
Decommissioning
❍ decommissioning support vessels (for pile removal, berth removal)
❍ in-water infrastructure removal
❍ on-shore site restoration (infrastructure removal, site rehabilitation, reclamation)
Vessel Traffic
Construction
❍ marine vessel traffic (wake, noise, collisions)
Operations
❍ marine vessel traffic
❍ tanker traffic (wake, noise, collisions)
❍ tug traffic (wake, noise, collisions, propellor wash)
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5 (7 of 7)10/23/2006 11:45:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Environment and Socio-economic Assessment Overview
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Project Overview Home » Project Overview » Environment and Socio-economic Assessment Overview Environment and Socio-
economic Assessment Environment and Socio-economic Assessment Overview Overview The Environment and Socio-economic Assessment is a document included as part of Enbridge Gateway Assessment Process Flow Project’s National Energy Board application. The Assessment will meet the requirements of the National Chart Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as outlined in the National Energy Aboriginal Traditional Board Filing Manual. Knowledge In general, the Assessment includes a description of the following items: Environmental Protection
and Monitoring Plan ● Environmental and socio-economic base case setting
Risk Management of ● Potential effects the Project on the human and physical environment Accidental Releases ● Rationale used to identify potential environmental and socio-economic issues Other Project Information ● Explanation of the analysis
● Proposed mitigation measures
● Evaluation of residual effects
Should the Project be subject to assessment by a Review Panel, the terms of reference from the Panel will establish the scope of the Assessment. To initiate the process however, Gateway submitted a Preliminary Information Package (PDF-649KB ) in late 2005 to the National Energy Board and other potential responsible authorities outlining the Project elements and proposed scope of the Assessment.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=34910/23/2006 11:46:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Assessment Process Flow Chart
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Project Overview Home » Project Overview » Assessment Process Flow Chart Environment and Socio-
economic Assessment Assessment Process Flow Chart
Overview Assessment Process Flow Chart
Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan
Risk Management of Accidental Releases
Other Project Information
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=31010/23/2006 11:45:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Project Overview Home » Project Overview » Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Environment and Socio-
economic Assessment Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Overview ● Objectives Assessment Process Flow Chart ● Aboriginal Community Participation in Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Studies
Aboriginal Traditional ● Aboriginal Concerns
Knowledge ● Study Area
Environmental Protection ● Scope of Assessment
and Monitoring Plan Risk Management of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge studies collect information from the Guiding Principles Accidental Releases Aboriginal perspective about important sites and areas, and the Other Project Information biophysical, cultural, and social-economic factors within the landscape that Collecting and using may have been used for a variety of traditional activities on traditional Aboriginal Traditional Aboriginal lands. Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge studies are designed to Communities in the Knowledge for the Project Study Area complement the biophysical and human environment studies undertaken through conventional scientific methods. We will integrate knowledge is guided by the following Map of Aboriginal provided by the Aboriginal communities into the other disciplines in principles: Communities determining the effects from Enbridge Gateway Project activities and, from that, assess the potential Project effects on traditional ways of life. List of Aboriginal ● Use of Aboriginal Objectives Communities Traditional Knowledge When an Aboriginal community agrees to undertake an Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge study, the study program, scope, and participants can be an integral part are determined by the Aboriginal community. In some cases, the of describing the base Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge study may be a collaborative program case assessment and with the Project; in other cases the Aboriginal community may conduct an Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge study independently. assessing potential
The Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge program will provide opportunities for Project environmental each Aboriginal community to: effects on traditional
lifestyles, practices, and ● Provide relevant information about Project effects, including biophysical, cultural, and social-economic information that might not territories. be otherwise available through conventional scientific studies. ● Aboriginal communities ● Collect information that will lead to a better understanding of potential and Elders decide who development and environmental effects on traditional lifestyles, practices, and territories. are the most appropriate
● Provide information about issues raised by Aboriginal communities providers of Aboriginal
regarding potential Project effects on social and cultural matters, Traditional Knowledge. including traditional lifestyles and cultural well-being.
● Aboriginal Traditional ● Cultivate an appreciation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge and Aboriginal perspectives among non-Aboriginal audiences, and Knowledge is the
contribute to building Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge capacity in the property of the Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal participants http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=25 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 11:46:02 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
● Provide a summary of Aboriginal perspectives on potential Project and community. effects.
● Aboriginal participants Aboriginal Community Participation in Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Studies In general, the Project identified communities or reserve lands located and their community within 80 kilometres on either side of the right-of-way and the marine retain the rights of terminal as a reasonable and practical method of ensuring engagement distribution of Aboriginal with Aboriginal groups potentially affected by the Project. Traditional Knowledge. Currently opportunities to conduct Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge studies have been made to 44 Aboriginal communities (15 in Alberta and 29 in ● Aboriginal Traditional British Columbia). Among these communities are 37 First Nations groups, Knowledge used in 1 non-status Aboriginal group, and 6 Métis Associations. the Environment and
Aboriginal Concerns Socio-economic In broad terms, Aboriginal concerns include: Assessment is with
● potential effects to the environment the permission of the
● emergency response plans Aboriginal community.
● potential effects on Aboriginal traditional ways of life ● Each prepared
● possibility for equity investment Aboriginal Traditional ● potential for short- and long-term economic opportunities Knowledge report will be ● potential for participation in economic and employment opportunities reviewed with the ● early training initiatives Aboriginal participants More comprehensive understanding of Aboriginal concerns will evolve as the exchange of information continues. before its release as
part of the public Study Area The study area boundaries will vary by Aboriginal communities as defined application, to ensure in consultation with the Aboriginal participants. the accuracy and
Project Development Area confidentiality of all
In the case of Aboriginal traditional knowledge, the study area shared Aboriginal encompasses the traditional territory of each Aboriginal community as it Traditional Knowledge relates to the Project Development Area. This might include lands currently considered under legal land claims or treaty negotiations, as well used to understand as ancestral homelands or resource gathering areas. The traditional potential Project effects. territories of a number of Aboriginal communities might overlap, but for the ● All original materials purposes of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge studies, Project effects on each of the Aboriginal community will be considered separately, regardless generated from an
of overlapping territories. Aboriginal Traditional
Project Effects Assessment Area Knowledge study are
The Project Effects Assessment Area may encompass areas where returned to the Aboriginal traditional land use and lifestyles are physically affected by the Aboriginal participants Project, as well as areas of interest affected by Project facilities and infrastructure. and the community.
Temporal Boundaries The temporal boundaries may consider current and future Aboriginal use within the study area. Future use pertains to the opportunities for several generations of descendants of the affected Aboriginal people to practice a traditional way of life, and to maintain traditional cultural and spiritual values. http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=25 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 11:46:02 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
Scope of Assessment Aboriginal people who have lived on the land have vivid and detailed memories and sensory perceptions. Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge is passed on orally, and current observations can often have a multi-generational time perspective. Accurate perception and memory of environmental features and changes are essential conditions for survival.
Information collected from Aboriginal participants is primarily qualitative and based on sensory data, oral traditions, cultural norms, and values. Three types of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge may be collected during assessment work when an Aboriginal community agrees to collaborate on Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge study:
● traditional land use information
● traditional environmental knowledge
● interests of traditional land users about how the Project will change their relationship to the land
Traditional land use information focuses on specific locations and sites of cultural importance within a landscape such as trail systems, resource use areas, habitation areas, and spiritual sites.
Traditional environmental knowledge is more broad-based, and represents wisdom about trends in cultural and ecological elements within a landscape such as long term trends, overall environmental health, cumulative effects, and mitigation and monitoring recommendations. Together, these components of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge represent an understanding of the natural environment that has been gathered over generations, adding a different analytical perspective to an assessment conducted by conventional scientific disciplines.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=25 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 11:46:02 AM Aboriginal Groups and Reserves in the Study Area
Region Aboriginal Group Reserves Alberta Métis Nation of Alberta Association – Region 4 None Edmonton Alexander First Nation Alexander 134 Edmonton Beaver Lake Cree Nation Beaver Lake 131 Blue Quills First Nation Reserve Edmonton Enoch Cree Nation Stony Plain 135 Edmonton Whitefish Lake Band No. 128 (Goodfish Lake) White Fish Lake 128 Central AB Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Alexis 133 Central AB Driftpile First Nation1 Driftpile River 150 Central AB Kapawe’no First Nation1 Freeman 150B Grouard 230 Halcro 150C Pakashan 150D Central AB Paul First Nation Wabamun 133A Central AB Sawridge First Nation1 Sawridge 150G Sawridge 150H Central AB Sucker Creek First Nation1 Sucker Creek 150A Central AB Swan River First Nation1 Swan River 150D NW AB Aseniwuche Winewak Nation None NW AB Duncan’s First Nation2 Duncans 151A NW AB Horse Lake First Nation2 Horse Lakes 152B NW AB Nose Creek Settlement None NW AB Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation2 Sturgeon Lake 154 Sturgeon Lake 154A NE BC Prince George Métis Association (North None Central Region 5, Métis Nation of British Columbia) NE BC Kelly Lake Cree Nation None NE BC Kelly Lake First Nation None NE BC Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society None NE BC Saulteau First Nations (East Moberly) East Moberly Lake 169 NE BC West Moberly First Nations West Moberly Lake 168A Central BC New Caledonia Métis Association (North None Central Region 5, Métis Nation of British Columbia) Central BC Tri-River Métis Association (North West None Region 6, Métis Nation of British Columbia) Central BC Burns Lake Band (Ts’il Kaz Koh)3 Burns Lake 18 Central BC Cheslatta Carrier First Nation Cheslatta 1 Central BC Lake Babine Nation Babine 6 Babine 25 Woyenne 27 Central BC Lheidli T’enneh First Nation (Lheit Lit’en) Fort George (Shelley) 2 Central BC McLeod Lake First Nation (TseK’hene) McLeod Lake 1
October 2006 Page 1 Region Aboriginal Group Reserves Central BC Nadleh Whuten Band3 Nautley (Fort Fraser) 1 Seaspunkut 4 Central BC Nak’azdli Indian Band3 Nak’azdli (Necoslie) 1 Six Mile Meadow No. 6 Sowchea 3 Williams Prairie Meadow 1A Central BC Nee-Tahi-Buhn First Nation Francois Lake 7 Omineca 1 Issac (Gale Lake) 8 Uncha Lake 13A Central BC Office of the Wet’suwet’en None Central BC Saik’uz First Nation3 Laketown 3 Stony Creek 1 Central BC Skin Tyee Nation Skins Lake 16A Skins Lake 16B Tatla’t East 2 Uncha Lake 13A Central BC Stellat’en First Nation Stellaquo (Stella) 1 Central BC Takla Lake First Nation3 North Tacla Lake 7 North Tacla Lake 7A Tacla Lake (Ferry Landing) 9 Central BC Tl’azt’en Nation3 Bihl’k’a 6 Bihl’k’a 18 Binche 2 (Pinchie 2) Dzitline Lee 9 Kuz Che 5 Tache 1 Tsay Cho Central BC Wet’suwet’en First Nation3 Duncan Lake 2 Maxan Lake 4 Palling 1 Tatla West 11 Central BC Yekooche First Nation Ye Koo Che 3 Coastal BC North West BC Métis Association (North West None Region 6, Métis Nation of British Columbia) Coastal BC Gitga’at First Nation (Hartley Bay) Kulkaya (Hartley Bay) 4 Coastal BC Kitamaat Village Council (Haisla Nation) Kitamaat 2 Coastal BC Kitkatla First Nation (Gitxaala) Dolphin Island 1 Coastal BC Kitselas First Nation Kshish 4 and 4A Kulsplai 6 Coastal BC Kitsumkalum First Nation Kitsumkaylum 1 Notes: 1 Member of the Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council. 2 Member of the Western Cree Tribal Council. 3 Member of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council.
October 2006 Page 2 Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Project Overview Home » Project Overview » Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan Environment and Socio-
economic Assessment Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan Overview The Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan is a comprehensive document covering all of the Assessment Process Flow environmental policies, protocols, and procedures associated with the Enbridge Gateway Project. It Chart ensures that Project-related environmental mitigation measures and commitments are addressed from Aboriginal Traditional the design, construction, and operation stages of the Project. Knowledge The Plan covers Project mitigation measures including improvements to protocols and procedures - to Environmental Protection industry best practices standards - as determined by the environmental and socio-economic assessment and Monitoring Plan process, public consultation program, and regulatory review process. Risk Management of The Plan will meet the requirements of Enbridge’s Environmental Management System, which Accidental Releases documents guidelines to ensure proper environmental planning, implementation, operation, checking, Other Project Information and corrective action on Enbridge projects during construction and operation. Enbridge management representatives will be involved in the review, approval, and implementation of all aspects of the Plan.
Objectives The objective of the Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan is to demonstrate the Project’s accountability for the protection of physical resources affected by the development. The intent of the Plan is to provide the depth of information and the processes needed to achieve an appropriate level of environmental protection.
The Plan will address all aspects of design, stakeholder involvement, construction, and operations implementation. Proof-of-performance will be demonstrated through the application of the monitoring program.
The Plan will:
● Outline environmental protection measures related to Project activities.
● Provide instructions for carrying out construction activities to minimize environmental effects.
● Serve as a reference handbook to the environmental inspection staff to assist in their understanding of the decision-making process, and direct them to more detailed information.
● Form part of the contract documents to be used as the primary reference for specific environmental protection instructions.
● Be used as an educational tool for the orientation and training of Project personnel.
● Provide the foundation for environmental inspection and monitoring during construction to ensure compliance with Enbridge’s environmental initiatives and the specific regulatory commitments pertaining to the Project .
● In all cases, be implemented to the highest standards in current pipeline and infrastructure construction engineering and technology, where practical.
Within the Plan, environmental protection measures are written under specific protocol and activity headings, to be read in conjunction with the environmental alignment sheets which identify specific locations where mitigation measures will be applied.
The Plan also provides resource-specific protection measures as well as a number of protocols and contingency plans. Site-specific protection plans will be referenced in the Environmental Protection and
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=27 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:46:15 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan
Monitoring Plan and accompanied by detailed plans and typical drawings.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=27 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:46:15 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Risk Management of Accidental Releases
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Project Overview Home » Project Overview » Risk Management of Accidental Releases Environment and Socio-
economic Assessment Risk Management of Accidental Releases Overview ● Terrestrial Environment Assessment Process Flow Chart ● Marine Environment
Aboriginal Traditional Currently underway is an assessment of the environmental effects of accidental releases that could Knowledge occur in connection with the Enbridge Gateway Project within the study area. Potential accidental releases could result from: Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan ● release of oil or condensate from the pipelines Risk Management of ● release of oil or condensate during cargo loading and unloading operations between the marine Accidental Releases terminal and tankers Other Project Information ● release of oil or condensate from tankers in-transit within the Confined Channel Assessment Area
The assessment will consider:
● measures to prevent accidental releases
● the likelihood of occurrence and the potential magnitude
● response to minimize consequences should an accidental release occur, and the effectiveness of such measures
The Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan will also deal with small-scale releases from equipment and vehicles and human-caused fire.
Release scenarios have been developed for the both the terrestrial and marine environment, with each subject area assessing the effects of each scenario specific to their discipline.
Terrestrial Environment Four accidental release scenarios involving releases of oil or condensate are being examined, ranging in volume from 100 cubic metres to 2100 cubic metres. The former represents a sub-surface leak while the latter represents a pipeline rupture/failure. Receiving environments for these release scenarios are a small and large watercourse, agricultural land, and wetland environment.
Prevention
One of the primary prevention activities is in the detailed routing to avoid areas that have unstable terrain features. Other prevention measures associated with accident releases that are part of the Project’s detailed engineering design include:
● meeting the Canadian Standards Association Z662 design standard requirements
● block valve siting
● pipeline integrity and monitoring activities
● preventing damage from third parties
● early detection
Operations and maintenance activities including line patrols, pipeline integrity surveys, and other maintenance activities will ensure early detection of potential problems.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=29 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 11:46:08 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Risk Management of Accidental Releases
Likelihood of Occurrence
The likelihood of occurrence of releases in the terrestrial environment is primarily associated with the pipeline. Enbridge has undertaken a probability analysis and this information will be used in the assessment of potential effects.
Response
For the purpose of assessment, counter measures will be developed for each of the release scenarios, after which the effects of an accidental release will be assessed, by discipline.
An Emergency Response Plan will be developed and submitted to the National Energy Board prior to the Project in-service date. As a detailed contingency plan, it will address:
● notification
● incident management
● preparedness
● training
● exercises
● response strategies
● recovery
The Emergency Response Plan will include sensitivity maps and site-specific information, as well as response strategies to mitigate the effects of releases.
A number of sources will be consulted during the development of the Response Plan including:
● Western Canadian Spill Services
● Canadian Petroleum Products Institute
● other oil release response organizations and contractors, regarding the availability of resources and services
● Provincial government agencies
Marine Environment There will be four accidental release scenarios in the marine environment, with the assessment based on four different products released into the marine environment from an oil or condensate tanker moored at the marine terminal.
Prevention
Prevention of accidental releases at the marine terminal is best accomplished through detailed vessel product loading and unloading operating procedures. Measures may include the pre-deployment of protection/exclusion booming and containment booms when moored at the port facility.
An Oil Pollution Prevention Plan for the Gateway Marine Terminal pursuant to Canada Shipping Act requirements will be developed prior to Project in-service. Key components of the Oil Pollution Prevention Plan include:
● engineering design of Project components
● marine terminal operations
● tanker operations at the marine port
● tanker operations in-transit
Likelihood of Occurrence
Release Probability Analysis http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=29 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 11:46:08 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Risk Management of Accidental Releases
We will estimate the probability or expected frequency of oil and condensate release that might occur as a result of marine terminal operations. Although all release sizes will be addressed, the focus will be on major releases from tankers. The study will draw on similar world-wide and Canadian analyses and any new statistics from world-wide sources. Release probability information will assess and put into perspective the various cost options associated with mitigation.
The analytical approach relies on the risk exposure of oil volumes transported; this has proven to be a reasonably good predictor of release frequencies in other areas of the world that have been analysed in depth. The study output is a predicted frequency of occurrence for various release scenarios, ranging from 'small' (less than 50 barrels) to 'large' (greater than 200,000 barrels).
Release Fate and Behaviour Analysis
Using trajectory modeling, we will examine the likely fate of a potential accidental release, focusing on a small number of specific accidental release scenarios for both oil and condensate. Our plan it to evaluate accidental release size – a large incident and a more probable, operational-type release – in four to six scenarios within Douglas Channel and approaches to Douglas Channel.
These would provide a good summary of the possibilities. If meteorological and oceanographic conditions vary greatly seasonally, this may be added as a variable in the analysis.
The task will involve describing the behaviour and fate of each of the identified release scenarios as a function of time after discharge. These will be developed in sufficient detail to allow for meaningful analysis of potential release impacts and counter-measure requirements and adequacy.
To use trajectory models to their fullest capability (i.e., provide accurate predictions of release behaviour), certain laboratory 'weathering' tests have been conducted with sample target oils.
Response
An Oil Pollution Emergency Plan for the marine terminal will be prepared pursuant to Canada Shipping Act requirements. The Emergency Plan will include:
● Accidental Release Management and the Incident Command System, which involves the following groups:
Operations (mitigation)
Health and Safety
Planning (environment, situation, documentation, and demobilization)
Logistics Support (transportation, facilities, supply, security) and Services (communication,
information technology, food, medical)
Finance
Administration
Legal
Insurance
Public Relations
● response objectives, strategies, and tactics for marine and on-shore oil release
● logistical aspects of accidental release response, including recommended oil release response
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=29 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 11:46:08 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Risk Management of Accidental Releases
equipment and staging areas
● site-specific tactic sheets for key protection areas and intercept points
● training
● marine oil release response exercise programs to show capabilities, which may include:
notification exercises to check contacts and gauge effectiveness of communication systems
tabletop release management exercises
hands-on field deployment
tabletop exercises with Response Organizations for releases greater than 50 cubic metres
Federal and provincial government agencies are being consulted regarding release response requirements in each jurisdiction. Western Canadian Canada Marine Response Corporation (Burrard Clean) is also being consulted as a Response Organization certified under the Canada Shipping Act regarding the regulated services and associated marine vessels they may be required to provide to the Project.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=29 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 11:46:08 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Other Project Information
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Project Overview Home » Project Overview » Other Project Information Environment and Socio-
economic Assessment Other Project Information Overview General information on the Enbridge Gateway Project can be found on the Internet at www.enbridge. Assessment Process Flow com/gateway/. The following links provide specific information: Chart
Aboriginal Traditional ● Project Summary (PDF - 6.7MB)
Knowledge ● Project Scope
Environmental Protection ● Preliminary Information Package (PDF - 7.7 MB) and Monitoring Plan ● Frequently Asked Questions Risk Management of ● Project Newsletter (PDF - 592KB) Accidental Releases
Other Project Information
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=2110/23/2006 11:46:35 AM Preliminary Pump Station Specifications
Pump Station Kilometre Purpose Oil Pump Condensate Pump Post (KP) Bruderheim, AB 0 Oil 5@5,000 HP Whitecourt, AB 201 Oil/Condensate 5@5,000 HP 2@5,000 HP Smoky River, AB 398 Oil/Condensate 5@5,000 HP 2@5,000 HP Tumbler Ridge, BC 588 Oil/Condensate 4@5,000 HP 2@2,500 HP Bear Lake, BC 710 Oil/Condensate 2@5,000 HP 2@2,500 HP Fort St. James, BC 817 Oil/Condensate 3@5,000 HP 2@2,500 HP Burns Lake, BC 915 Oil/Condensate 2@5,000 HP 2@2,500 HP Houston, BC 991 Condensate 2@5,000 HP Clearwater, BC 113 Condensate 2@5,000 HP Kitimat, BC 1160 Condensate 2@5,000 HP
Preliminary Location of Construction Camps
Camp No. Kilometre Post (KP) 1 205 2 337 368 Back-up 3 417 495 Back-up 4 518 5 589 6 668 7 762 8 878 9 936 10 1027 Eastern Tunnel Section 1061 Center Tunnel Section 1068 Western Tunnel Section 1077 (Kitimat Terminal)11 1160* * The Kitimat camp will either be located at the marine terminal or at an existing camp facility in the Kitimat area.
Preliminary Location of Stockpile Sites
Stockpile No. Kilometre Post 1 20 2 47 3 144 4 277 5 414 6 451 7 498 8 567 9 666 10 816 11 887 12 973 13 1021
Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - ESA Consultation Activities
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Home » ESA Consultation Activities
ESA Consultation Activities
● Discussion Forums
● Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan Advisory Working Groups
In fall 2005 and early spring 2006, Enbridge held a series of open houses and workshops introducing the Enbridge Gateway Project and providing preliminary information. A Project newsletter was also distributed in spring 2006. Dialogue with government agencies, community and special interest organizations, and resource users has been ongoing as part of the issues scoping and identification of study parameters.
In addition to these on-line modules, there are two other upcoming opportunities for stakeholders to provide input into the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment: discussion forums and Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan advisory working groups.
Discussion Forums In late September/early October 2006 there will be 2-day discussion forums on the Assessment, offered in three locations (one in Alberta, two in British Columbia). The morning of the first day will be a plenary session on the Project and Assessment in general. The afternoon and the following day will be breakout sessions, enabling participants to have in-depth discussion on three subject areas of their choice over the course of the forum.
Within each breakout session, the discussion will cover a range of topics related to the subject area including:
● assessment area
● scope of the study
● key issues
● aspects of the discipline that were studied and the measures used
● method for establishing base case conditions and assessing Project effects
● preliminary results and prevention, protection, and management measures
Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan Advisory Working Groups Three Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan (EPMP) Advisory Working Groups (one in Alberta and two in British Columbia) are planned to start in late October 2006 and will meet on a regular basis.
The Advisory Working Groups will focus on environmental protection and monitoring measure proposals for the Project. There will be a temporary suspension of the meetings during the Project regulatory review hearings, after which they will be reconvened and continue up to the start of construction.
Participants in the Advisory Working Groups will make recommendations to Gateway on:
● enhancements to mitigation and protection measures in the biophysical environment
● enhancements to management measures in the human environment
● criteria and details for specific monitoring plans
● review of environmental monitoring program results after construction http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=23 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:45:38 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - ESA Consultation Activities
Mitigation, protection, and management should provide maximum societal benefit, with collective interests prevailing over individual interests. For that reason, participation in Advisory Working Groups will only include representatives of organizations and agencies representing collective interests (e.g., government agencies with local stewardship responsibilities, community interests, associations, umbrella organizations and non-government organizations).
Individuals or private interests wishing to participate can either approach their respective association to carry forward their views to the Advisory Working Group, or can attend as a guest to make their views known to the Advisory Working Groups.
Prior to the inaugural meetings, the draft Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan and Advisory Working Group Charter (terms of reference) will be made available.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=23 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:45:38 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Contact Us
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Home » Contact Us
Contact Us
Your feedback or questions on the preliminary results of the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, the Project, or the effectiveness of the on-line modules as a consultation tool are always welcome.
Feedback or questions about the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment or the Project can be sent to: [email protected].
Questions about the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment consultation program can be sent to: [email protected].
Or call us toll-free at 1.888.434.0533
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=3310/23/2006 11:45:46 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Subject Areas
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Acoustic Environment Home » Subject Areas Atmospheric Environment
Freshwater Fish and Fish Subject Areas Habitat For the purpose of the Project's Environment and Socio-economic Assessment, the natural and human Heritage Resources environment was split into a number of disciplines with potential for measurable effects in the study area. Human Health Risk Natural Environment Disciplines Hydrogeology
Hydrology ● Acoustic Environment
Marine Avifauna ● Atmospheric Environment
Marine Fish and Fish Habitat ● Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat
Marine Mammals ● Heritage Resources
Non-Traditional Land Use ● Hydrogeology
Social-Economic ● Hydrology
Soils ● Marine Avifauna
Terrain ● Marine Fish and Fish Habitat
Vegetation ● Marine Mammals
Water Quality ● Soils
Wildlife ● Terrain
● Vegetation
● Water Quality
● Wildlife
Human Environment Disciplines
● Human Health Risk
● Non-Traditional Land Use
● Social-economic
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=26210/23/2006 11:45:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Acoustic Environment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Acoustic Environment Home » Subject Areas » Acoustic Environment Study Area
Key Issues Acoustic Environment
Measurable Parameters From an human acoustic environment point of view, the Enbridge Gateway Project traverses a Base Case Assessment predominantly rural environment in Alberta and remote areas in British Columbia. Under pre-Project
Stand-alone Case conditions, the existing acoustic environment is characterized by background noise (assessed by Assessment measuring ambient sound levels). Project-generated noise added to background noise could potentially increase environmental noise levels. Knowledge of background noise levels is also important in assessing Mitigation Measures the perception of sound, since a person’s subjective reaction is to compare a new noise environment to Other Modules with the existing noise environment. Related Information
● Non-traditional Land
Use
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=9710/23/2006 11:50:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Acoustic Environment Home » Subject Areas » Acoustic Environment » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The Enbridge Gateway Project route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Stand-alone Case Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical Assessment area needed for the pipelines, permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump
Mitigation Measures stations, marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
Acoustic Environment Spatial Boundaries The zone of influence was determined by the results of ambient noise modeling conducted at three locations: the marine terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia; a pump station mid-way; and the initiating pump station near Bruderheim, Alberta. Noise from blasting will be assessed on a site-specific basis.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=9910/23/2006 11:52:02 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Acoustic Environment Home » Subject Areas » Acoustic Environment » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Enbridge Gateway Project issue addressed in the acoustic environment is: Base Case Assessment ● potential disturbances to rest or recreational activities Stand-alone Case Assessment Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
Mitigation Measures
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=9810/23/2006 11:52:07 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Acoustic Environment Home » Subject Areas » Acoustic Environment » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment A valued ecosystem component is a key resource or resource characteristic of high management or Stand-alone Case public concern that can be measurably affected by the Project. Assessment For the acoustic environment this is: Mitigation Measures 1. ambient sound level
Key Indicator Resources A key indicator resource is a subset component of a valued ecosystem component considered to be the most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
This does not apply to the acoustic environment.
Measurable Parameters A measurable parameter is a measure or value associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For the acoustic environment this is:
1. ambient and permissible sound levels[1]
[1] Based on Noise Control Directive ID 99-8 (PDF - 47KB) (Energy and Utilities Board, Alberta Energy]. Specifies maximum allowable Permissible Sound Level (noise levels) for daytime at 50 decibels and nighttime at 40 decibels, 1500 metres away from noise sources.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=10010/23/2006 11:52:13 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Acoustic Environment Home » Subject Areas » Acoustic Environment » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Analytical Techniques Base Case Assessment ● Baseline Surveys Stand-alone Case ● Preliminary Results Assessment
Mitigation Measures Analytical Techniques A background noise assessment involved a 24-hour continuous monitoring period of sound parameters in accordance with the following two guidelines for environmental noise surveys:
● Procedures for Outdoor Measurement of Sound Pressure Level (American National Standard Institute)
[1] ● Noise Control Directive User Guide (Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Guide 38) The Larson Davis System 824 Sound Level Meter/Real Time Analyzer was used for the baseline noise surveys. It combines the features of a precision sound level meter with those of a frequency analyzer.
Baseline Surveys One 24-hour continuous monitoring period of baseline noise was completed at the following Alberta and British Columbia study area sites:
● North of Cherhill, Alberta: The survey started on 28 October 2005 at 22:00 hours and ended the next day at 21:58 hours. A total of 314 records were logged at five-minute intervals.
● Bruderheim, Alberta pump station along Ridge Road 214, south of Township Road 561A: Site monitoring commenced on 18 May 2006 at 15:02 hours and ended the next day at 16:02 hours. Sound parameter calculation was completed for 1499 data points representing sound pressure levels at one-minute intervals.
● South of Kitimat, British Columbia: The survey started on 13 December 2005 at 13:25 hours and ended the next day at 14:24 hours with 307 five-minute intervals recorded.
The logged data were processed to determine daytime and night time equivalent Leq sound levels.
Preliminary Results Recorded values of the background noise survey at the Cherhill area show noise levels of approximately 32 decibels during daytime and 26 decibels at night time, which are typical levels for rural Alberta where some farming activities and traffic noise add to ambient noise levels. The lowest recorded value was 20.2 decibels at night time and the highest was 39.7 decibels during daytime. Variance in Leq10, Leq50, and Leq90 indicate time-varying noise levels.
An acoustical anomaly at the Bruderheim pump station is a slightly higher background noise level Leq at night time (40.5 decibels) compared to daytime (39.0 decibels); usually night time levels are lower. This could be caused by the industrial facilities located west and southwest of the monitoring site, operating at higher capacity during night time to take advantage of lower power rates.
At the Kitimat area, the background Leq were at levels as low as 18.3 decibels at night time and 24 decibels during the day. This may be expected in the British Columbia wilderness where near and distant anthropogenic sources are absent and dense forest acts as an effective noise absorber. Similar
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=101 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:52:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
levels of Leq10, Leq50, and Leq90 values indicate a calm, acoustically stable environment.
[1] Which assists in the interpretation and application of Interim Directive 99-8: Noise Control Directive for operations activities.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=101 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:52:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Acoustic Environment Home » Subject Areas » Acoustic Environment » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Assessment ● Construction Mitigation Measures ● Operations
Construction Construction noise is based on analysis of the acoustic properties generated by construction equipment operating on the right-of-way. The noise levels will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of the various types of equipment, and depend upon the type of construction activity, the distance between construction activities, the nearest noise-sensitive receptors, and the existing noise levels at those receptors.
Occasionally blasting will be required to trench through rocks, especially in the Rocky and Coast Mountains, and particularly the six-kilometre tunnel across Mount Nimbus. Air-borne pressure waves may cause hearing and feeling annoyance particularly at low frequencies.
There may be noise levels above peak linear values. However, at a distance it is usually heard as a low rumble or 'popping' sound that lasts one or two seconds. If the wind is blowing away from the listener there may be no audible sound at all. Some atmospheric conditions, such as low cloud cover, may cause sound waves to propagate over a greater distance and result in a more noticeable 'bang' referred to as an 'air blast'.
Assessing construction noise involves calculation of cumulative noise for each construction phase by logarithmic addition of noise generated by individual units published for typical construction equipment, then approximating noise levels assuming hemispherical spreading of the sound waves that equates to a 6 decibel loss per doubling of distance from the sound source.
Operations Potential operational noise sources will largely come from pump stations. Noise-generating equipment will include 3.73 mega-watt and 2.61 mega-watt electric motors coupled with oil pumps and condensate pumps. However, they will be located within steel buildings, effectively mitigating noise at 100 metres from the building.
Noise will occur at the marine terminal, including the jetty. However, due to the attenuating effect of steel enclosures and tank noise mitigation, ambient noise levels will likely be low close to noise sources and very low at the facility fence line.
Assessment of noise levels during operations is accomplished with an ambient atmospheric attenuation computer model. The model predicts the noise emission levels during facility operation in typical atmospheric conditions. The model includes two sub-routines:
● ISO 9613-1 specifically addressing atmospheric attenuation
● ISO 9613-2 specifying an engineering method for calculating environmental noise from a variety of noise sources
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=102 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:52:23 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
The vicinity of the initiating oil pump station located near Bruderheim, Alberta where four oil pumps powered by 3.73 mega-watt electric motors will be operating continuously, is likely to experience the highest noise levels, and therefore was selected as the assessment scenario. Detailed acoustic characteristics on pump station equipment were not available so, as a proxy, noise levels were measured at a facility in Fort McMurray with similar equipment.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=102 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:52:23 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Acoustic Environment Home » Subject Areas » Acoustic Environment » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Enbridge Gateway Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce Base Case Assessment the extent and duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects
Stand-alone Case on wildlife are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and best management practices will be Assessment part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
General Measures
● Schedule construction activities during daytime hours to the greatest extent possible.
● Reduce noise emissions by installing shields where applicable, and effective mufflers on construction and fixed equipment.
● Perform regular inspection and maintenance of construction vehicles and equipment to ensure that they have effective mufflers installed and worn parts are replaced.
● Enforce vehicle speed limit.
● Turn off equipment when not in use if practicable.
● Avoid low altitude flights and restrict air traffic to daytime hours.
● Maintain Project roads to reduce noise associated with vibration and vehicle noise.
● Enclose noisy stationary equipment such as compressors and generators in noise sensitive areas, to reduce propogation of noise beyond the construction site. Use acoustic panels around noise- generating equipment if noise exceeds threshold levels in sensitive areas
● Replace or repair parts generating excessive noise.
● Consider noise barriers, berms, or enclosures for noisy outdoor equipment at the Bruderheim initiating pump station and the marine terminal.
● Use electric motors, pumps, and auxiliary equipment meeting acoustic industrial standards.
● Consider enclosure and cladding of pump station buildings to assure effective noise absorption by walls and roof material. Steel, in the form of orthotropic panels, will be the likely material of construction.
● Provide diesel units with efficient intake and exhaust silencers.
● Enclose conveyors where necessary.
● Monitor on-site noise periodically.
● Use standing trees to create natural noise buffers.
● Educate truck drivers and mobile equipment operators on the use of engine-retarder brakes in noise sensitive areas.
Mitigation measures for blasting include:
● Optimise blast design, monitor blasts, and revise blast design, as required.
● Ensure correct blasting ratio is applied.
● Notify affected residents prior to blasting.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=103 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:52:28 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
● Wherever possible, confine blasting to between 08:00 hours and 19:00 hours to minimize the noise- enhancing effects of temperature inversions.
● Inform local authorities of plans and procedures.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=103 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:52:28 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Atmospheric Environment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Atmospheric Environment Home » Subject Areas » Atmospheric Environment Study Area
Key Issues Atmospheric Environment
Measurable Parameters The atmospheric environment, with two distinct sub-components – air quality and climate -- is of intrinsic Base Case Assessment importance to the health of humans, wildlife, vegetation, and other biota. This discipline assesses the
Stand-alone Case potential Enbridge Gateway Project effects on the 10-kilometre layer of air near the earth’s Assessment surface, measuring the air quality of the existing atmospheric environment and characterizing the climate regimes in the study area. Mitigation Measures
Other Modules with Related Information
● Heritage Resources
● Human Health Risks
● Hydrology
● Soils
● Vegetation
● Water Quality
● Wildlife
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=8210/23/2006 11:50:32 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Atmospheric Environment Home » Subject Areas » Atmospheric Environment » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters ● Project Development Area Base Case Assessment ● Project Effects Assessment Area Stand-alone Case ● Air Quality Spatial Boundaries Assessment ● Climate Spatial Boundaries Mitigation Measures
Project Development Area The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Air Quality Spatial Boundaries At the marine terminal, the spatial boundaries for the air quality assessment encompasses potential sources of Project air emissions, existing emission sources in Kitimat, and potential future emission sources regionally. The area is approximately 300 square kilometres in size and is an elliptically-shaped area approximately 36 kilometres long and 10 kilometres wide stretching southwest to northeast. It includes land on both sides of the Kitimat Arm of Douglas Channel from southwest of the terminal to the northeast, and includes the District Municipality of Kitimat and Kitamaat Village.
For the remainder of the Project route, air quality spatial boundaries extends up to 1 kilometre from the right-of-way centerline.
Climate Spatial Boundaries The spatial boundaries for climate include Alberta, British Columbia, and Canada. Climate change is a global issue and in order to properly assess the potential environmental effects of the Project, emissions are considered in the context of provincial and national greenhouse gas emissions.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=8410/23/2006 11:52:39 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Atmospheric Environment Home » Subject Areas » Atmospheric Environment » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Enbridge Gateway Project issues addressed in the atmospheric environment assessment Base Case Assessment are the potential for emissions of:
Stand-alone Case ● criteria air contaminants Assessment ● hazardous air pollutants Mitigation Measures ● greenhouse gases
Prevention and mitigation measures will minimize the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=8610/23/2006 11:52:43 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Atmospheric Environment Home » Subject Areas » Atmospheric Environment » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment A valued ecosystem component is a key resource or resource characteristic of high management or Stand-alone Case public concern that can be measurably affected by the Project. Assessment For atmospheric environment these are: Mitigation Measures 1. air quality 2. climate
Key Indicator Resources A key indicator resource is a subset component of a valued ecosystem component considered to be the most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
This does not apply to atmospheric environment .
Measurable Parameters A measurable parameter is a measure or value associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For atmospheric environment these are:
1. criteria air contaminants[1] (carbon monoxide; hydrogen sulphide and total reduced sulpher; nitrogen oxides; sulpher dioxide; total, inhalable, and respirable particulate matter) 2. hazardous air pollutants (ozone, volatile organic compounds) 3. greenhouse gas emissions
[1] Based on provincial and federal guidelines available for evaluating effects.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=8810/23/2006 11:52:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Atmospheric Environment Home » Subject Areas » Atmospheric Environment » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Air Quality Base Case Assessment ● Climate Stand-alone Case
Assessment Air Quality
Mitigation Measures ❍ Description of Criteria Air Contaminants
■ Carbon Monoxide
■ Hydrogen Sulphide and Total Reduced Sulphur
■ Nitrogen Oxides
■ Sulpher Dioxide
■ Total, Inhabable, and Respirable Particulate Matter
❍ Description of Hazardous Air Pollutants
■ Ozone
■ Volatile Organic Compounds
❍ Data Sources
❍ Modeling
■ AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System
■ Meteorological Data
■ Topography and Receptors
❍ General Conclusions: Air Quality Trends (2000-2005)
❍ Analysis
■ Criteria Air Contaminants
■ Hazardous Air Pollutants
Description of Criteria Air Contaminants
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide is a colourless, odourless gas, produced from the incomplete combustion from materials such as fossil fuels and wood. Motor vehicles, industrial processes, and natural events (fires) are some common sources. Typical concentrations in the atmosphere are 120 micrograms per cubic metre. This level compares with minimum levels known to produce cardiovascular
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (1 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
symptoms in smokers that are approximately 35,000 micrograms per cubic metre.
Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) and Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS)
Total reduced sulphur is the arithmetic sum of all reduced sulphur species but is commonly composed almost entirely of hydrogen sulphide. Therefore total reduced sulphur is expressed as if it were all hydrogen sulphide.
Hydrogen sulphide is a colourless gas. At low concentrations (less than 100 micrograms per cubic metre) hydrogen sulphide is readily detectable by its distinctive ‘rotten egg’ odour. While it has an objectionable odour at very low concentrations (e.g., less than 20 micrograms per cubic metre), these levels do not negatively affect human health or have a substantial effect on the receiving environment.
Biogenic emissions comprise approximately 96% of global atmospheric hydrogen sulphide. Reduced sulphur compounds emitted by ocean surfaces account for nearly all biogenic emissions. The largest anthropogenic contributors to atmospheric hydrogen sulphide are industrial sources such as pulp and paper mills, petroleum refiners, and heavy water manufactures.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Nitrogen oxides are produced in most combustion processes, and almost entirely made up of nitric
oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Nitrogen oxides are colourless gases with no apparent direct effects on animal health or vegetation at typical ambient levels.
The concentration of nitrogen dioxide is the regulated form of nitrogen oxides. The levels of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, and the ratio of the two gases, together with the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight, are the most important factors in the formation of ground-level ozone and other oxidants. Further oxidation and combining with water in the atmosphere forms nitric acid, a component of 'acid rain'.
Nitrogen dioxide is an orange to reddish gas that is corrosive and irritating. Most nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere is formed by the oxidation of nitric oxide, which is emitted directly by combustion processes, particularly those at high temperature and pressure such as internal combustion engines.
Anthropogenic emissions comprise approximately 93% of global atmospheric emissions of nitrogen oxides. The largest anthropogenic contributor to atmospheric nitrogen oxides is combustion of fuels such as natural gas, oil, and coal. Forest fires, lightning, and anaerobic processes in soil account for nearly all biogenic emissions.
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Sulphur dioxide is a colourless gas with a distinctive pungent sulphur odour. It is produced in combustion processes by the oxidation of sulphur in fuel. At high enough concentrations, sulphur dioxide can have negative effects on human, plant, and animal health, particularly with respect to their respiratory systems. Sulphur dioxide can be further oxidized and may combine with water to form the sulphuric acid component of acid rain.
Anthropogenic emissions comprise approximately 95% of global atmospheric sulphur dioxide. The largest anthropogenic contributor to atmospheric sullpher dioxide is the industrial and utility use of heavy oils and coal. Nearly all biogenic emissions are from oxidation of reduced sulphur compounds emitted by ocean surfaces. Volcanic activity accounts for much of the remainder. Motor vehicles are minor contributors to the sulphur dioxide content of the atmosphere, particularly with recent reductions in the allowable sulphur content of gasoline and diesel fuel.
Total, Inhalable (PM10), and Respirable (PM2.5) Particulate Matter
Particulate matter as an air contaminant is classified by size of the particle. Particle size determines
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (2 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
the velocity with which gravitational settling occurs, and the ease with which they penetrate the human respiratory tract. Generally, large particles settle out very close to the source, and very fine particles penetrate deep into the respiratory tract. Total suspended particulate matter encompasses all size ranges from approximately 100 micrometers to the sub-micrometer range. Inhalable and respirable particulate matters are comprised of very small particles that are less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers respectively.
Particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometres can become lodged in the respiratory tract. Over the past few years, greater concern with regard to these fine particles has led to research resulting in new sampling methods and criteria. In June 2000, the Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment proposed a Canada-wide standard for respirable particulate matter of 30 micrograms per cubic metre per 24 hours, with the current objective of meeting the standard by 2010[1]. Achievement is to be based on the 98th percentile of the ambient measurement annually, averaged over three consecutive years.
Description of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) Hazardous air pollutants consist of a variety of chemicals which exist as gases, particles, and aerosols (particles less than 10 microns in size) and are dispersed in the atmosphere. They can be naturally occurring or produced by humans. They can have negative effects on human, plant, and animal health but are not comprehensively regulated by ambient air quality criteria. Many organic hazardous air pollutants are present as vapours and thus classified as volatile organic compounds. High-molecular weight organics, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), usually occur as particles or aerosols. Most toxic heavy metals are present as particles or aerosols.
In the air quality assessments, the hazardous air pollutants include ozone, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and volatile organic compounds. Hydrogen fluoride gas is also included in the hazardous air pollutants section.
Ozone
Ground level ozone has both natural and anthropogenic origins. British Columbia has elevated levels of naturally occurring ozone from natural photochemistry and occasionally injections of ozone from the lower stratosphere. It is also suspected that long range transport of pollutants from Asia, including particulate matter and ozone, may contribute to levels observed in British Columbia.
The combination of particulate matter, ozone, and ozone-forming substances is referred to as 'smog'. Ground level ozone is not emitted directly; it is formed by reaction with other air contaminants such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of strong sunlight on hot days. Locally, motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions can contribute to ozone formation, although it is only a substantive issue in or near major urban centers.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile organic compounds are carbon-containing (organic) Key signs or compounds that readily evaporate into the air under ambient symptoms associated conditions. Many volatile organic compounds are of natural origin with exposure to including methane. Some volatile organic compounds may have short- volatile organic and long-term adverse health effects. Others may be potentially compounds include: harmful to the environment, either directly or indirectly, as a contributor to ground level ozone and smog formation.
While volatile organic compounds are naturally present in the atmosphere and emitted by automobiles and industrial processes, the concentrations of many volatile organic compounds are consistently higher indoors (up to ten times higher) than outdoors. Volatile organic compounds may be emitted by a wide array of sources such as: http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (3 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
● building materials and furnishings ● allergic skin reaction ● cleaning supplies
● decline in serum ● correction fluids cholinesterase levels ● graphics and craft materials including glues and adhesives
● office equipment such as copiers and printers ● dizziness
● paint strippers ● eye irritation
● paints and lacquers ● fatigue ● permanent markers
● ● pesticides headache
● photographic solutions ● nausea No federal or provincial objectives or standards exist for assessment of ● nose and throat exposures to total hydrocarbons, of which volatile organic compounds is a sub-set. However, in a study conducted for the Canadian discomfort Association of Petroleum Producers, the limits for occupational-related exposure to total hydrocarbons used:
● an 8-hour time-weighted average of 100 parts per million
● a 12-hour time-weighted average of 50 parts per million
● a short-term exposure limit of 200 parts per million.
These exposure limits were derived from the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (2005), which used a gasoline threshold limit of 300 parts per million. Other relevant threshold limit values developed by the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists include:
● 1000 parts per million for liquefied petroleum gas
● 1,000 parts per million for aliphatic hydrocarbon gas
● 200 parts per million for total hydrocarbon vapour
Data Sources Primary sources:
● Environment Canada
● Natural Resources Canada
● Alberta Environment
● British Columbia Ministry of Environment
These departments were the primary providers of meteorological, climate trend, and air quality data employed in both the base case assessment and the qualitative and quantitative assessment of Project case on the air quality and climate. Terrain data was obtained from the United States Geological Survey.
Modeling
AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System
In order to determine the effect on ambient air quality associated with emissions from the Project, the Environmental Protection Agency (United States) AERMOD dispersion modeling was conducted for the four Project scenarios - Base Case, Stand-alone Case, Application Case, Future Development Case - with specific guidance provided by the Protection Agency.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (4 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Since all modeling was conducted in relation to activities located within British Columbia’s jurisdiction, all dispersion modeling for the Measurable Parameters was conducted in accordance with Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in British Columbia (British Columbia Ministry of Environment). The conceptual and detailed modeling plans specifying the analytical techniques applied in the dispersion modeling assessment was approved by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment.
The AERMOD dispersion modeling system[2] is based on the following three components:
● AERMAP (AERMOD Terrain Pre-processor, Optional)
● AERMET (AERMOD Meteorological Pre-processor)
● AERMOD (AERMIC Dispersion Model)
AERMAP
AERMAP is a terrain pre-processor that is designed to handle the input of receptor terrain elevation data for the AERMOD dispersion model (Environmental Protection Agency, United States). Terrain data is in the form of digital terrain data available from the United States Geological Survey.
Assuming that the effect of terrain on an individual receptor is directly proportional to the difference between the elevation of the receptor and the height of the local terrain features, and inversely proportional to the distance between the receptor and terrain features, AERMAP searches for the terrain height and location that has the greatest influence on dispersion for an individual receptor. This height is referred to as the 'height scale'. Output from AERMAP therefore includes the location and height scale for each receptor, used for the computation of air flow around hills.
AERMET
AERMET is the meteorological pre-processor for the AERMOD dispersion model. Input data for AERMET includes hourly cloud cover observations, surface meteorological observations, and twice- daily upper air soundings. AERMET modeling is a three stage process:
Stage 1: Extract meteorological data from archive data files and processes.
Stage 2: Merge all data available for 24-hour periods and store the data together in a single file.
Stage 3: Read the merged meteorological data and estimate the necessary boundary layer parameters for use by AERMOD.
Output from AERMET comes in the form of two files: a file of hourly boundary layer parameter estimates, and a file of multiple-level observations of wind speed and direction, temperature, and standard deviation of the fluctuating components of the wind.
AERMOD
AERMOD is the dispersion modeling component that uses the output from AERMAP and AERMET to predict ground-level air contaminant concentrations. Special features of the AERMOD dispersion model include:
● the ability to treat the vertical in-homogeneity of the planetary boundary layer
● special treatment of surface releases
● irregularly shaped area sources
● plume models for the convective boundary layer
● limitation of vertical mixing in the stable boundary layer
● fixing the reflecting surface at the stack base
Modeling dispersion using the presence of intermediate and complex terrain improves on the
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (5 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
methods currently used in other models such as the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model-Plus. The AERMOD model contains Plume Rise Model Enhancement (PRIME) building downwash algorithms which incorporate two fundamental features: enhanced plume dispersion coefficients due to wake turbulence, and reduced plume rise caused by descending streamlines and increased entrainment in the wake of a structure.
Meteorological Data
Meteorological data from the following monitoring stations provided input into the AERMET meteorological pre-processor for the five-year period from January 1999 to December 2003:
● Kitimat Whitesail (British Columbia) monitoring station, for wind speed, wind direction (rotated 30 degrees clockwise), and temperature
● Terrace Airport (British Columbia) monitoring station, for ceiling height and other surface data not available for Kitimat Whitesail
● Annette (Alaska) monitoring station, for upper air data
The Kitimat Whitesail monitoring station was chosen because it is British Columbia Ministry of Environment’s preferred meteorological station in this region. However, because of its location with respect to the orientation of the valley area to be modeled, it was also decided (in consultation with the British Columbia Ministry of Environment) that the wind direction data should be rotated 30 degrees clockwise to allow the model to better represent the likely areas affected by the various plumes.
The Terrace Airport monitoring station was selected because it is the closest monitoring station with ceiling height and surface data. Similarly, the Annette station was selected because it is the closest upper air station monitoring site.
Topography and Receptors
Since topographic relief within the study area is substantial, the dispersion models must be capable of handling all potential receptors on nearby terrain.
Digital elevation model topographical data for the study area, taken from satellite readings collected by the United States Geological Survey, were applied in the AERMAP terrain pre-processor. For this assessment, digital elevation model data of 90-metre resolution were used. AERMAP determines the receptor elevation by a distance-weighted, two-dimensional interpolation of the elevation values at the four nearest digital elevation model nodes surrounding the receptor location.
Multiple receptor networks centered on the Project site were established for the purposes of dispersion modeling. The grids and their corresponding receptor spacing are:
● 30 kilometres x 30 kilometres, with 1000 metre spacing
● 12 kilometres x 12 kilometres, with 500 metre spacing
● 6 kilometres x 6 kilometres, with 250 metre spacing
● 3 kilometres x 3 kilometres, with 50 metre spacing
● 20 metre spacing along the Project boundary and in areas of maximum predicted effect
In addition, flagpole receptors at tree height (15 metres above ground level) were used to determine potential effects associated with substances capable of injuring vegetation (phytotoxins).
General Conclusions: Air Quality Trends (2000-2005) Ambient air quality in the study area is generally good, with little year-to-year variability. A detailed analysis of the period 2000 to 2005 shows that the measured concentrations of particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, and hydrogen sulphide occasionally exceed the most stringent ambient air quality objectives. http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (6 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Observed levels of sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide may be attributed to industrial point sources of emissions and are largely restricted to industrialized areas.
Exceedances of the applicable objectives for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are attributable to combinations of urban and industrial emissions, transportation sources, fugitive dust (road and agricultural), open burning, and long-range transport (e.g., smoke from distant industrial activities and forest fires).
Nitrogen dioxide concentrations are well below the applicable objectives all of the time. This is indicative of generally good air quality.
Analysis Included in the assessment of potential Project effects on the atmospheric environment were:
● emissions from marine vessels moored and in- transit through Douglas Channel
● other terminal emissions
● fugitive emissions of volatile organic carbon and odourous inorganic substances at the terminal
● emissions from fixed hydro carbon-fuelled facilities
● greenhouse gas emissions and potential effect on climate change
● accidental releases
Criteria Air Contaminants
The existing industrial sources in Kitimat include an aluminium smelter and Related Information a kraft pulp mill. These base case sources have their greatest effect in the Kitimat area proper and add a small increment of selected criteria air ● Total Existing Criteria contaminants to the study area. Air Contaminants Emissions from the proposed liquid natural gas terminal in Kitimat and associated marine traffic were also considered in the base case Emissions in the Study assessment. Area
Hydrogen fluoride is emitted by the existing aluminium smelter. (PDF - 20KB)
● Ambient Background Hazardous Air Pollutants Values for Criteria Air Hazardous air pollutants are substances capable of causing environmental and health effects. All hazardous air pollutants – except hydrogen fluoride Contaminants in the
– are included in the total hydrocarbons measure. Study Area
The Kitimat area has a relatively heavy industrial base, most of which is (PDF - 22KB) confined to the western side of the valley, opposite the residential and commercial district. The heavy industry base includes an aluminium
smelter and casting facility, and an unbleached Kraft pulp mill. There is a decommissioned methanol/ammonia manufacturing facility in Kitimat which is currently being retrofitted to serve as a condensate import facility. Other industries include an asphalt plant and a Portland cement batch plant. There are also smaller commercial and industrial sources of air contaminants as well as the usual vehicular and residential emissions.
The major industrial sources of hazardous air pollutants emissions located in the Kitimat area are Alcan Smelters & Chemicals Ltd. and Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co. Kitimat is located well away from other major industrial sources of air contaminants in British Columbia. Given the prevailing westerly wind, Kitimat is also placed well downwind of industrial sources of air contaminants in Asia. Long-range transport of anthropogenic air contaminants is not a substantial air quality concern in the study area.
Total area source emissions of volatile organic compounds in the study area (183.4 tonnes/year) are
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (7 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
largely associated with:
● space heating (100.2 tonnes/year)
● solvent evaporation (50.8 tonnes/year)
● fuel combustion activities (20.5 tonnes/year)
Agriculture, landfills, and miscellaneous burning also contribute to area source emissions in the study area but on a much smaller scale.
Mobile sources of volatile organic compounds emissions (62.2 tonnes/year) are related to a variety of transportation activities:
● light-duty vehicles (35.2 tonnes/year)
● marine vessels (25.0 tonnes/year)
Total volatile organic compounds emissions from area and mobile sources in the study area are approximately 245.6 tonnes per year.
Climate
Data Sources
● Environment Canada
● Government of British Columbia:
● Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection - ADAMS system
● Ministry of Environment
● Ministry of Forests
● Ministry of Transportation and Highways
● Government of Alberta - CASA Data Warehouse
● Peace Airshed Association
● Fort Air Partnership
● Industry meteorological data
Greenhouse Gas A greenhouse gas is any gas which contributes to potential climate change. Greenhouse gases absorb heat radiated by the earth and subsequently warm the atmosphere, leading to what is commonly known
as the ‘greenhouse effect’. Common greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
and nitrous oxide (N2O).
The main environmental and health effect from greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is an increasing global average temperature which subsequently result in rising sea levels, increased extreme weather events, and glacial melting. Health effects relating to global warming include increased heat- related deaths and an expansion of the range of tropical diseases to areas previously unaffected.
Assessment of potential greenhouse gas emissions followed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency guide document. The key steps were:
● establish the quantities of potential greenhouse gas emissions for each phase of the Project;
● estimate the potential contribution of the Project emissions to the provincial and national emissions;
● identify relevant jurisdictional policies;
● establish the industry profile for greenhouse gas emissions and best practices for projects that are similar in nature to the Project; and
● identify whether the Project is a low, medium, or high intensity emitter of greenhouse gases
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (8 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Once these steps are completed, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency guide document suggests answering the following questions:
● Will the Project be a medium or high emitter?
● Will the Project exceed relevant jurisdictional policies?
● Will the Project exceed the industry profile?
● Will 'best practices' be used in all phases of the Project?
[1] Although the Canada-wide standard for respirable particulate matter has not yet been adopted, it will be relevant in the near future.
[2] Developed by the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) in association with the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=90 (9 of 9)10/23/2006 11:52:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Atmospheric Environment Home » Subject Areas » Atmospheric Environment » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Assessment ● Air Quality Mitigation Measures ● Climate
Air Quality The technical factors used for potential Project-related emissions and ground-level concentrations of the measurable parameters pertain mainly to British Columbia Ministry of Environment Air Quality Codes established for release of air contaminants of concern into the atmospheric environment to protect human/animal health and the environment.
Potentially small quantities of hazardous air pollutant measurable parameters may be emitted during most activities throughout the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the Project. Consequently, this could affect ambient air quality in the study area.
The marine terminal is likely to be the major permanent point source of air quality-related emissions associated with the Project, as the pump stations will be electrically driven. Emissions of potential hazardous air pollutants during the construction phase of the Project are associated primarily with the internal combustion engines required to power the necessary heavy equipment. During the operations phase, potential hazardous air pollutants emissions are attributable primarily to marine vessel activity and the tanks at the marine terminal.
Relevant sources of potential volatile organic compounds include the operation of heavy equipment and other internal combustion engines, and fugitive emissions of volatile organic compounds from the tanks.
Air quality-related emissions potentially associated with pipeline are primarily related to construction activities, and are limited in mass and temporary in nature so the potential for cumulative interactions is substantially less than for stationary, continuous, or intermittent sources characteristic of the marine terminal.
The following physical works and activities can potentially result in release of criteria air contaminants and/or hazardous air pollutants.
Construction – Pipeline
● construction camp operations
● construction equipment and traffic
● right-of-way and site preparation (clearing, slash burning/chipping)
● temporary and permanent road development
● vehicular traffic
Construction – Marine Terminal
● construction camp operations
● construction equipment and traffic (including infrastructure construction) http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=93 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:01 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
● marine vessel traffic
● site preparation (clearing, slash burning/chipping)
● vehicular traffic
Operations – Pipeline
● pump stations
● right-of-way maintenance (vegetation management, pipe maintenance, surveillance)
Operations – Marine Terminal
● infrastructure operations including vessel traffic
● maintenance
● marine vessel traffic
● product transfer
Decommissioning – Pipeline
● construction camp operations
● construction equipment and traffic
● right-of-way and site preparation (clearing, slash burning/chipping)
● temporary and permanent road development
● vehicular traffic
Climate The Project’s effects on climate via greenhouse gas emissions are considered in the context of provincial and national emissions of greenhouse gases.
The following physical works and activities can potentially result in release of greenhouse gas resulting in change in climate.
Construction - Pipeline
● construction camp operations
● construction equipment and traffic
● right-of-way and site preparation (clearing, slash burning/chipping)
● temporary and permanent road development
● vehicular traffic
Construction – Marine Terminal
● construction camp operations
● construction equipment and traffic
● infrastructure construction
● marine vessel traffic
● site preparation (clearing, slash burning/chipping)
● vehicular traffic
Operations - Pipeline
● right-of-way maintenance (vegetation management, pipe maintenance, surveillance)
Operations – Marine Terminal
● maintenance
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=93 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:01 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
● marine vessel traffic
● infrastructure operations including vessel traffic
● product transfer
● vehicular traffic
Decommissioning - Pipeline
● decommissioning equipment and traffic
● site restoration
● vehicular traffic
Decommissioning - Terminal
● decommissioning equipment and traffic
● decommissioning support vessels (berth removal)
● marine vessel traffic
● on-shore site restoration (infrastructure removal, site rehabilitation, and reclamation)
● vehicular traffic
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=93 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:01 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Atmospheric Environment Home » Subject Areas » Atmospheric Environment » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on wildlife are
Stand-alone Case outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to be followed Assessment during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
General Measures
● Use the best available technology economically achievable to reduce criteria air contaminants, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gas emissions. The integration of this technology and the use of best practices throughout the Project will serve to reduce emissions at the source.
● Use low-sulphur fuels for all construction equipment whenever possible to reduce emissions of sulphur-containing compounds.
● Follow proper equipment maintenance schedules to limit emissions from construction equipment.
● Minimize disturbed areas as much as possible to prevent dust generation.
● Avoid dust generating activities during periods of high winds to limit fugitive dust emissions.
● Apply dust suppressants to control fugitive dust emissions.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=9510/23/2006 11:53:05 AM Total Existing Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions in the Study Area
Criteria and Other Air Contaminant Emissions (tonnes/year) Particulate Particulate Matter Matter with with Total diameter diameter Total Sulpher Nitrogen Carbon Suspended less than 10 less than Reduced Dioxide Oxides Monoxide Particulates microns 2.5 microns Sulpher Source (SO2) (NOx) (CO) (TSP) (PM10) (PM2.5) (TRS) Total: Permitted Point 10,498 886 45,356 2,485 1,421 843 337 Sources Total: Area, Mobile, 280 1,131 1,021 929 249 117 - - and Other Sources Total Existing 10,778 2,017 46,377 3,414 1,670 960 337 Emissions in the study area Permitted Point 97% 44% 98% 73% 85% 88% 100% Sources as a percent of Total
SOURCE: Extracted from 2000 Emissions Inventory (Ministry of Environment, British Columbia, 2004b)
Ambient Background Values for Criteria Air Contaminants in the Study Area
Concentration a Averaging Micrograms per Cubic Metre Species Period (µg m-3) Parts per Million (ppm)
Sulpher Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 36.3 0.01387 3-hour 31.6 0.01208 24-hour 20.3 0.00776 Annual 5.32 0.00203
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 1-hour 42.4 - 24-hour 25.2 - Annual 8.75 - Nitrogen Dioxide 1-hour 26.8 0.01426 (nitrogen dioxide) 24-hour 15.7 0.00835 Annual 6.02 0.00320 Particulate Matter 24-hour 23.2 - with diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) Particulate Matter with 24-hour 11.3 - diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)b Hydrogen Sulphide 1-hour 2.33 0.00167 (H2S) 24-hour 1.32 0.00095 NOTES: a Representative values are based on all available monitoring data within the Kitimat area for 2000 to 2005. Values are the 98th percentile of monitored concentrations. b PM2.5 monitoring period from April 2002 to April 2005.
Conversions to parts per million for NOx and PM10 / PM2.5 are not possible without specific compositional data.
Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Freshwater Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat Habitat
Study Area Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat Key Issues Freshwater fish habitat includes spawning and rearing areas, overwintering pools, instream and riparian Measurable Parameters habitat associated with rivers, streams, lakes, and floodplains. In general, the status of the streams, Base Case Assessment ponds, wetlands, and lakes within any given watershed can be indicative of ecosystem productivity. Stand-alone Case Specific key fish habitat attributes such as good water quality, cover complexity and abundance, and Assessment sufficient amount of critical instream habitat (deep pools, spawning beds) can indicate overall system
Mitigation Measures health.
The assessment studies the potential Enbridge Gateway Project effects on freshwater fish populations Other Modules with and fish habitats. Using this information, we then determine the best methods to cross waterbodies with Related Information fisheries value and develop mitigation measures to ensure no net loss of productive capacity.
● Hydrology
● Water Quality
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=10510/23/2006 11:50:38 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Freshwater Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat » Study Area Habitat
Study Area Study Area Key Issues Project Development Area Measurable Parameters The Enbridge Gateway Project route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Base Case Assessment Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical Stand-alone Case area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, Assessment marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation Mitigation Measures of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat Spatial Boundaries Spatial boundaries for the fish and fish habitat assessment include all waterbodies potentially affected by the Project Development Area related to three major drainages in British Columbia (Peace, Fraser, Skeena, and Kitimat watersheds) and three major drainages in Alberta (North Saskatchewan, Athabasca and Peace watersheds).
The freshwater fish and fish habitat assessment uses the 1-kilometre corridor to define the Project Effects Assessment Area. Within this area, physical and biological assessments were completed either up to 100 metres upstream/300 metres downstream from the pipeline crossing centreline, or encompassed the entire zone of influence, whichever was greater.
At this time, the freshwater fish and fish habitat assessment focuses on the right-of-way only. Stream assessments related to other infrastructure is currently underway as infrastructure locations are finalized.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=10710/23/2006 11:53:10 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Freshwater Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat » Key Issues Habitat
Study Area Key Issues Key Issues The key Project issues addressed in freshwater fish and fish habitats are: Measurable Parameters
Base Case Assessment ● potential to impact fish populations
Stand-alone Case ● potential impact to productive capacity of fish habitats Assessment Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases. Mitigation Measures
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=10610/23/2006 11:53:15 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Freshwater Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat » Measurable Parameters Habitat
Study Area Measurable Parameters Key Issues Valued Ecosystem Component Measurable Parameters A valued ecosystem component is a key resource or resource characteristic of high management or Base Case Assessment public concern that can be measurably affected by the Project. Stand-alone Case For freshwater fish and fish habitat this is: Assessment
Mitigation Measures 1. habitat productive capacity
Key Indicator Resources A key indicator resource is a subset component of a valued ecosystem component considered to be the most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
There are no key indicator resources for freshwater fsh and fish habitat. Specific key fish habitat attributes such as good water quality, cover complexity and abundance, and sufficient amount of critical instream habitat (deep pools, spawning beds) indicate ecosystem productivity and overall watershed health. Any adverse effects to these attributes would ultimately affect fish populations and productivity at all life stages. Accordingly, we selected fish and habitat productive capacity as an overall indicator of aquatic ecosystem condition instead of measuring separate components such as individual fish species or the benthic invertebrate community structure.
Measurable Parameters A measurable parameter is a measure or value associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
The measurable parameters for freshwater fsh and fish habitat are:
1. riparian habitat quality (vegetation quality and availability, change per hectare in riparian vegetation structure, cover, stage, and area) 2. in-stream habitat quality (availability, change in substrate composition, channel morphology, characteristics, quantity and quality of cover [e.g., deep pools, undercut banks]) 3. fish mortality risk (change in number of potential fish mortality factors)
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=10810/23/2006 11:53:20 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Freshwater Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat » Base Case Assessment Habitat
Study Area Base Case Assessment Key Issues
● Measurable Parameters Watercourse Crossings
● Base Case Assessment Species of Concern
● Stand-alone Case Stream Classification
Assessment ● Historical Data Collection
Mitigation Measures ● Field Program
● Work Still To Be Done
Watercourse Crossings The pipeline will cross a total of 1279 waterbodies between the end point near Bruderheim, Alberta and the marine terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia. Results from literature research and the 2005 field program indicate 59 potential species in the study area, including 11 Pacific, 24 Arctic, and 24 freshwater fish species common to drainage systems in both provinces.
Alberta The pipeline route crosses 250 watercourses; in the 2005 field program 97 were surveyed and data gathered for an additional 39 sites. The majority are in the Athabasca River drainage system (48%), followed by 40% in the Peace River drainage system.
British Columbia The pipeline route crosses 1029 watercourses; in the 2005 field program 811 sites were surveyed. The majority are in the Peace River drainage system (45%), followed by 22% in the Fraser River system, and 20% in the Skeena River system.
Species of Concern Species of concern (e.g., species at risk, provincially listed species) were identified, and their relative distribution, abundance, and habitat use assessed based on the measurable parameters.
Alberta Alberta species of conservation concern found in the study area include:
Bull trout Quillback Cutthroat Rainbow trout Finescale dace Redside shiner Lake sturgeon River shiner Largescale sucker Sauger Mooneye Shorthead redhorse Northern redbelly Silver redhorse Pearl dace Spoonhead sculpin
British Columbia British Columbia species of special conservation status found in the study area include: Arctic grayling – Williston watershed [1] Goldeye Bull trout [2] Pearl dace Coastal cutthroat trout [3] Spottail shiner [4] Dolly varden [5] White sturgeon [6]
A blue-listed status indicates indigenous species of special concern (formerly vulnerable), particularly sensitive to environmental disturbances; they are at-risk, but not extirpated, endangered, or threatened.
In addition to blue- and red-listed species, the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre has a 'watch http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=109 (1 of 7)10/23/2006 11:53:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
list' of S4 yellow-listed fish species, considered to be of conservation concern for one or more of the following reasons:
● have a small range
● low abundance
● populations have declined provincially
● there are perceived long-term threats to their populations
Stream Classification
British Columbia Stream class is determined by mean channel width and presence or absence of regionally important fish species (conservation-listed, commercial, recreation, or traditional use). Riparian management areas were then established for fish-bearing and non fish-bearing reaches, with the following parameters:
● channel gradients in excess of 20 to 25% default to non-fish-bearing; however, sites with gradients greater than 30 to 35% were often sampled to confirm fish absence
● unproductive survey sites (no fish captured) accessible to downstream fish-bearing reaches (no observed or historic migration obstruction) were defaulted to fish bearing (assumes fish use during at least part of the year).
● unproductive watercourse crossings with known downstream migration barriers, trickle flow, or surface drainage origin (i.e., absence of a headwater lake) were classified as non-fish bearing
Alberta Alberta Environment uses pre-determined stream classifications based on fish habitat sensitivity to establish crossing methods and restricted activity periods for all mapped and classified waterbodies. Alberta Environment defines 'fish' as those used for domestic, sport, and commercial purposes and 'fish of special concern' including, but not limited to, rare, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable species.
All mapped and unclassified waterbodies within 2 kilometres of entering a Class A, B, or C waterbody assume the same class as the receiving waterbody. All unmapped Class A, B, or C waterbodies within 2 kilometres are subject to the same conditions as the corresponding mapped waterbody.
Historical Data Collection Conducted an extensive literature review on fisheries resources and habitats in the study area including:
● maps
● aerial photographs
● government databases and reports
● consultant reports
The review identified data gaps and gave historical accounts of species distributions, fish assemblages, and migratory obstructions for many of watercourses associated with the Project. The Alliance Pipeline Project provided useful information on fish species and habitats at watercourse crossings common to both pipeline routes in Alberta.
Information from the historical records was used to:
● supplement fish observations made by the field program; for example, where no fish are observed by field crews, a stream may still be classified as fish-bearing if previous creditable records report fish in the system.
● reduce the amount of field sampling necessary; for example, Alliance data was used for a large portion of the route in Alberta where the Gateway route parallels the Alliance Pipeline
Orthophoto maps (1:20,000) were annotated with relevant historic data and used in the field to identify http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=109 (2 of 7)10/23/2006 11:53:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
additional fish sampling requirements.
Field Program
● Field Operations Plan
● Permits
● Orientation Sessions
● Field Reconnaissance
● Habitat Assessment
● Biological Sampling
The assessment considered all riparian, ephemeral, and instream areas within the Riparian Management Area as defined by the British Columbia Forest Practices Code (Ministry of Forests), and applied to both Alberta and British Columbia watersheds.
Field Operations Plan After completing the historical data collection, a field operations plan was developed including:
● identifying the sites to be sampled, recorded in geographical information system (GIS) format
● identifying the best way to access each site, by reviewing available maps, air photos, and other information
● assembling sites into groups to form logical work packages for field crews
● assembling the logistical and safety information to support field crews
Permits Obtained the following permits for the field program:
● Scientific Fisheries Licence, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada
● Fish Collection Permit, from British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (now Ministry of Environment)
● Fish Research Licenses, from Alberta Sustainable Resource Development
Orientation Sessions Held a senior fisheries staff pre-field orientation program to establish:
● data collection standards
● recording and management standards
● procedures that ensured consistent data collection between crews
Orientations with field crews reviewed the above standards and procedures, as well as the data collection, data entry, and database management procedures required by the British Columbia Resource Information Standards Committee (formerly Resources Inventory Committee) and Alberta Code of Practice.
Field Reconnaissance Focused reconnaissance surveys, based on past project experience and developed and approved in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada staff, included the following activities:
● visiting each watercourse to be intersected by the pipeline
● digitally photographing the right and left banks and up-stream and down-stream of the centre line for each watercourse at the stream-crossing location
● confirming the geographic lcoation of each stream using geogrpaphic positioning system (GPS)
● assessing fish habitat quality: spawning, overwintering, rearing, migration, staging, and holding http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=109 (3 of 7)10/23/2006 11:53:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Standard observations and measurements for each study section consisted of:
● section length
● geomorphologic features: channel morphology, confinement, pattern, islands, bars, and coupling
● channel features: mean bankfull depth and width, mean depth, mean wetted width, gradient, barriers to fish movement
● hydrologic features: stage in British Columbia; velocity, stage, discharge, streambed groundwater upwelling, and streambank seepage in Alberta
● water quality: dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH (acidity), conductivity, turbidity
● composition of channel bed materials: percent of fines, gravels, cobbles, boulders, bedrock
● bank features: shape, height, slope, texture
● shoreline features: vegetation type and structural stage, percent crown closure
● habitat units: pool, riffle, glide, run; flat in Alberta
● pool features: type, maximum pool depth in Alberta; riffle crest, residual depth in British Columbia
● disturbance indicators: abandoned channels, eroding banks, sediment fingers, wedges
● fish cover: small woody debris, boulders, undercut banks, deep pools, overhanging and instream vegetation
● fish captures
Habitat Assessment The definition and recommended study section length criteria in the Guide to the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody (Alberta Environment) was adopted to ensure fish and fish habitat assessments encompassed the potential zone of influence with respect to downstream sedimentation effects:
Physical assessment: The waterbody conditions and fish habitat characteristics in the study sections immediately upstream of the crossing site and encompassing the zone of influence.
Zone of Influence: The area of bed and banks of the waterbody that will be altered or disrupted because of the works and where 90% of the sediment discharged because of the works will be deposited. Substrate sampling might be needed to determine the zone of influence associated with sediment deposition.
The Code recommends at least two study sections for fish and fish habitat assessments:
● a minimum length of 100 metres, immediately upstream from the crossing site
● a minimum length of 300 metres or encompassing the entire zone of influence, whichever is greater; additional sampling to determine species presence might be required further downstream
Accordingly, fish and fish habitat sampling covered either 400 metres of stream or 10 times mean channel width at each waterbody crossing,whichever was greater. Where fish presence was suspected but none captured during the initial sampling, an additional 20 to 100 metre sampling was done. Care was taken to ensure a representative range of all habitat types present within the stream section was surveyed.
A professional biologist assessed a 400 metre section of each watercourse crossing for the following:
● bank stability
● depth
● fish cover composition
● flow (persistence)
● gradient http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=109 (4 of 7)10/23/2006 11:53:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
● habitat quality: none, poor, moderate, good, excellent
● habitat type: potential and actual spawning, rearing, overwintering, migration, holding, staging
● life-stage-specific habitat type and water quality requirements for representative species: walleye, cutthroat trout, Arctic grayling, bull trout, chinook, coho salmon
● morphology
● presence of migration barriers
● relative abundance of spawning substrate
● riparian features
The physical and water quality parameters were:
● bank shape and texture
● bed materials (percent composition)
● channel morphology (British Columbia); pool, riffle, run, flat ratio (Alberta)
● channel pattern
● crown closure
● disturbance indicators
● islands, bars, coupling, confinement
● percent cover: boulder, cutbank, deep pool, overstream vegetation, instream vegetation
● predominant riparian vegetation species and stage
● stream stage
● turbidity
Habitat sampling at pre-selected sites measured the following physical and water quality attributes:
● bankfull depth
● channel and wetted widths
● conductivity
● pH (acidity)
● residual pool depth
● site length
● stream gradient
● water temperature
Also identified and recorded were:
● changes in stream gradient within 15 percent within 400 metres (i.e., fish migration barrier)
● comments about potential fish production limiting factors
● concerns about fish species and life stage that occupy a particular reach or watershed (salmonids, pike, walleye)
● fish migration obstructions or points of difficult access (perennial and ephemeral)
● fisheries-sensitive zones: tributaries, side-channels, flood channels, swamps, sloughs, beaver dams
● flood signs, special features, and obstructions
● gradient that best represented channel slope at the right-of-way centreline
● habitat quality components: rearing, spawning, overwintering
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=109 (5 of 7)10/23/2006 11:53:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
● mean channel width and pond dimensions (wetted width) at beaver impoundment ponds, determined by inlet and outlet channel measurements
● new features not identified during historical data collection
● unmapped watercourse crossings not identified during initial map and aerial photograph analyses; the location more specifically identified through the use of a decimal point system (e.g., site 125.1 indicates an unmapped watercourse crossing location between sites 125 and 126)
Photographs were taken of all:
● erosion sites
● features
● fish barriers
● fish voucher samples
● lake inlets and outlets where possible
● reach-specific representative habitat
● sample sites (upstream and downstream and left bank and right bank)
● stream riparian areas
British Columbia Variations
Fish and fish habitat inventory methods generally followed:
Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands)
Forest Practices Code Guidebooks (Ministry of Forests)
Physical habitat data collection varied from standard Resource Standards Inventory Committee methodology as follows:
● fish cover, channel bottom, and bank substrate composition were estimated to the nearest 5 percent contribution to the total (as opposed to general descriptions such as D for dominant)
● surveyed site lengths were generally four times longer (400 metres) compared to the Resource Standards Inventory Committee standard of 100 metres
● site photodocumentation included four photographs compared to the two required for standard Resource Standards Inventory Committee fish and fish habitat inventories
Alberta Variations
Fish and fish habitat inventory methods generally followed the Guide to the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody (Alberta Environment).
Habitat sampling at pre-selected sites measured the following additional physical and water quality attributes:
● bank stability
● dissolved oxygen
● fish cover composition
● habitat unit ratios
● substrate
● turbidity
● water depth
● water velocity
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=109 (6 of 7)10/23/2006 11:53:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Biological Sampling Fish collection and sampling in British Columbia and Alberta followed the procedures in:
Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands)
Forest Practices Code Guidebooks (Ministry of Forests)
At each successful fish sampling site, fish were identified by species, enumerated by stage (juvenile, fry, adult), and measured (fork-length or total millimetre length).
Fisheries distribution and species composition sampling was done at all designated stream sample sites, primarily with Smith-Root electrofisher models 15C (generator) and 12B (battery) where flow and depth conditions and logistics permitted.
Baited (canned salmon) minnow traps were set in pairs overnight at most unproductive electrofishing sites where fish presence was suspected and logistics and habitat conditions permitted.
Alternative methods of sampling such as pole seine, dip net, and angling were used where conditions or logistics did not allow the effective use of either of the above methods (too shallow, too deep, poor conductivity, too turbid, remote, or logistically unfeasible).
Electrofishing was discontinued at all sites when water temperatures declined and remained less than 5° celsius, and baited minnow traps used instead. Electrofishing in British Columbia Regions 7 and 9 was discontinued after September 30 in known/suspected bull trout streams, a condition of the fish collection permit.
Work Still To Be Done The 2006 field program is currently underway, with a focus on assessing watercourse crossings not done in 2005 and those associated with route re- alignments and the location of powerlines and access roads as this information becomes available.
[1] S1 red-listed in the following Forest Districts: Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Peace. Arctic grayling indigenous to the Parsnip, Missinka, and Hominka rivers in the Williston watershed are considered critically imperilled.
[2] Blue-listed in the following Forest Districts: Kalum, Nadina, Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Peace. Under the British Columbia Forest and Range Practices Act (formerly Forest Practices Code), bull trout is an ‘Identified Wildlife Management Species’, affording it special protection such as severely limited land disturbance within a 500 metre radius of known spawning areas.
[3] Blue-listed in the following Forest Districts: Kalum, Nadina
[4] S1, S2 red-listed in the following Forest Districts: Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Peace
[5] Blue-listed in the following Forest Districts: Kalum, Nadina, Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George
[6] S1 red-listed in the following Forest Districts: Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Peace. White sturgeon is also classified as an endangered species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=109 (7 of 7)10/23/2006 11:53:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Freshwater Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat » Stand-alone Case Assessment Habitat
Study Area Stand-alone Case Assessment Key Issues There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Measurable Parameters work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects Base Case Assessment assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Stand-alone Case ● Assessment Risk Assessment Framework
● Mitigation Measures Preliminary Assessment
● Riparian Habitat Quality
● Instream Habitat Quality
● Fish Mortality Risk
Risk Assessment Framework A risk assessment framework was created in accordance with the Integrated Risk Management Framework (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and incorporated risk analysis and mitigation measures from the Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings Manual (3rd Edition, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers).
While the Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings Manual addresses risk management at a very high level, more refined and appropriate pathways of effects and risk management framework were applied at the Project level.
Analysis of watercourse crossings by major drainage system determined where each site placed in the Integrated Risk Management Framework’s “Risk Determination Matrix”. This involved:
● establishing the sensitivity of fish and fish habitats at each crossing, based on what we know regarding the spawning, rearing, wintering, and migratory habits of fish and their associated habitats
● assigning a rating of possible negative effects to each watercourse crossing, based on the proposed crossing method and physical features of the watercourse
A very preliminary analysis indicates:
● less than 1 percent of watercourse crossings are potentially of extreme risk to fish and fish habitats
● approximately 5 percent of watercourse crossings are potentially of high risk to fish and fish habitats
● 26 percent of watercourse crossings are potentially of moderate risk to fish and fish habitats
● 70 percent of watercourse crossings are potentially of low risk to fish and fish habitats
There are on-going meetings with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to discuss and refine the watercourse crossing Risk Determination Matrix.
British Columbia Least-risk instream construction work windows were adapted from established Ministry of Environment region-specific timings, based on 2005 field results and historical accounts of fish distribution in watercourses crossed in the study area.
Higher-risk instream construction windows (watercourse crossings with known and comprehensive fish species data) was based on Ministry of Environment regional- and Forest District-specific criteria.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=110 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Construction windows for watercourse crossings with insufficient species composition data was based on known species assemblage(s), and accessible from the nearest downstream or adjacent watercourse for which complete species data exists. In these cases, historical annotated 1:20,000 orthophotos of individual watercourse crossings were examined for the presence of downstream barriers and species composition in adjacent mainstem and tributary habitats.
Alberta Least-risk instream construction work windows were based on watercourse-specific habitat sensitivity and restricted activity periods.
Preliminary Assessment Pipeline construction, operation, and decommissioning activities all have the potential to interact directly and indirectly with freshwater fish and habitats in the study area. These activities include road and pipelines crossings watercourses, access road construction, and riparian vegetation clearing, as well as potentially intensifying recreational fishing from increased access to fish-bearing streams, all of which have the potential to affect the measurable parameters.
The key potential Project effects for freshwater fish and fish habitats are:
● the potential to introduce excessive sediment or hazardous materials to streams at watercourse crossings impacting fish populations
● the potential to impact productive capacity of fish habitats arising from alteration of instream habitat and riparian vegetation
Riparian Habitat Quality Project-related activities interacting with riparian zone habitat could potentially result in the alteration of vegetation from riparian areas. The physical loss of critical riparian habitats required for fish survival, elevated water temperatures, and loss of allochthonous inputs to the stream environment could potentially reduce the quality and quantity of valued habitat, and in turn, affect the sustainability of a healthy fish population and production.
Temporary losses to riparian habitat could occur on a 15- to 45- metre wide area of riparian vegetation along the stream bank during construction activities, primarily consisting of converting the existing riparian community to an assemblage dominated by grasses and shrubs (after revegetation measures). This is a small area relative to the entire stream length, so effects are anticipated to be small and not limit fish and habitat productive capacity. Furthermore, any reduction in covering and shading that may occur because of construction, operations, or decommissioning is usually temporary (less than 5 years).
There is the potential for increased sediment deposits in streams in the study area to occur during construction of pipeline and access roads across watercourse crossings. Mitigation measures will minimize long term impacts and ensure riparian vegetation re-establishes.
Instream Habitat Quality Project-related activities interacting with instream fish habitat could potentially:
● disturb riparian substrates, instream cover (i.e., boulders, large woody debris, undercut banks), and critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning beds and deep pools)
● change channel morphology
● eliminate trees, possibly reducing the quality and availability of instream habitat temporarily or permanently
For example, the removal of instream vegetation may adversely affect fish and habitat productive capacity through the physical loss of critical instream habitats required for fish survival, elevated water temperatures, and loss of allochthonous inputs to the stream environment. Mitigation measures will http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=110 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
minimize impacts to instream habitats.
With the possible exception of permanent access roads, no permanent loss of instream habitat is expected. The potential effects of temporary access road development on instream fish habitat will be assessed once the temporary access road requirements are finalized.
In general, infill from sedimentation could degrade or reduce important instream habitat components such as spawning beds and deep over-wintering pools. Any increase in sediment levels in streams could also adversely affect fish health through gill clogging, abrasion, and smothering of incubating eggs. Again, the Project will use mitigation measures to address the potential for sediment impacts.
If introduced into the aquatic environment, hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, oils, and lubricants) may affect fish health through the degradation of water quality, resulting in lethal and sub- lethal effects (avoidance behaviour, disruption of feeding patterns, etc.). If large enough sediment loadings or hazardous materials are introduced into streams, fish mortalities may potentially result. The Project mitigation measures will minimize the risk of introduction of hazardous materials and sediment loading.
Fish Mortality Risk There is the potential for Project-related activities to increase the risk of fish mortalities by changing access habitats, exacerbating passage issues, increasing angling pressure, or entrainment in machinery.
During construction there is a risk that fish mortality could result from:
● direct physical contact with equipment
● stranding in isolated stream crossing work areas when the site is dewatered
● blasting activities in or near the watercourse
● impingement in by-pass or water intake pumps, against pump screens used to direct flows around the work area, or from water withdrawals for hydrostatic testing or other uses
The greatest potential risk to fish mortality may occur from instream construction activities and water extraction, and potential accidental releases of deleterious substances to watercourses in the study area at any time. These risks will be managed by the Project mitigation measures.
There is also the potential for increased water temperatures and elevated sediment levels to directly affect fish mortality. Indirectly, reduction in food supply and degradation of habitat quality could cause fish mortalities. There is the potential for both direct and indirect effects to be caused by instream construction activities such as pipeline or road watercourse crossings. These and other anthropogenic activities can affect aquatic ecosystems, resulting in changes to biological, physical, and chemical characteristics, thus potentially leading to fish mortality. Again, the Project mitigation measures address these potential risks.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=110 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Freshwater Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat » Mitigation Measures Habitat
Study Area Mitigation Measures Key Issues Enbridge Gateway Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce Measurable Parameters the extent and duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects Base Case Assessment on wildlife are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to Stand-alone Case be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan. Assessment One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project Mitigation Measures activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● General Measures
● Site Preparation
● Access Limitations to Fish-bearing Streams
● Watercourse Crossings
● Use of Industrial Equipment
● Explosives
● Water Extraction
● Habitat Restoration
● Mortality Prevention
General Measures Due to the large number of Project watercourse crossings, specific fisheries habitat protection measures will be described in the environmental alignment sheets.
The preliminary protection measures are adapted from the Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossing Manual (3rd Edition, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers). Also referenced was the Standards and Best Management Practices for Instream Works (PDF - 2.8MB) (British Columbia Ministry of Environment).
For streams identified as extreme or high risk, we will employ alternative crossing methods to reduce the overall risk. Particular care will be taken during in-stream activities where Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), British Columbia provincially red- or blue-listed species, or Alberta watch-listed fish species occur.
Site Preparation In order to minimize the duration of exposed riparian soils, all clearing associated with site preparation activities will be conducted as soon as practicable prior to construction and pipeline installation. In addition, we will:
● limit the extent of riparian vegetation clearing
● develop detailed reclamation plans
● restrict areas where industrial equipment can work
● implement sediment and control measures
Access Limitations to Fish-bearing Streams
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=111 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:39 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
● implement a 'no fishing' policy for construction workers
● gate right-of-way and access road entrances in remote areas
Watercourse Crossings
● ensure adjacent flow around work areas during instream construction activities
● isolate work areas and conduct fish salvage
Use of Industrial Equipment
● observe instream fisheries work window (British Columbia) or restricted activity period (Alberta) where practicable
● follow established accidental release contingency measures
Explosives
● conduct geological testing to ensure exposed rock will not generate acid runoff
● when possible, restrict blasting in flowing water
● avoid the use of ammonium nitrate fuel-oil mixtures in or near fish-bearing streams to avoid generating ammonia by-products
● ensure particle velocity is less than 13 millimetres per second
● ensure instantaneous pressure change is less than 100 kilopascals
● wherever practical, all blasting activities will take place during the specific in-stream fisheries work window to avoid fish mortality risk
Water Extraction
● avoid extracting large volumes of water
● maintain mean stream flow rate
● ensure water intake pumps are properly sized and screened
Habitat Restoration We will implement a revegetation program along affected riparian areas. In order to minimize the duration of exposed riparian soils, we will undertake to revegetate as soon as possible after site clearing and before excavation and pipeline installation begins, whenever practicable.
Riparian areas will be seeded with approved reclamation mixes, possibly replanted with native shrubs, and potential environmental effects on fish habitat mitigated immediately upon completion of construction activities. The replanting of shrubs along the stream banks at pipeline crossings will increase bank stability; they will rapidly re-establish over-stream, over-fishhanging cover to approximate pre- construction conditions. These techniques are proven bank restoration measures that will return riparian function within three to ten years.
Reclamation seed mixes used on the right-of-way and watercourse banks will include an annual cover crop that will provide a quick cover over exposed soils to minimize erosion. Brush layering, live staking, or shrub cuttings using native or indigenous shrubs adapted to local conditions such as willow, dogwood, and alder may be used. Flood-tolerant species of grass or sedge can also be planted.
Mortality Prevention The following measures, in addition to appropriate construction techniques, will minimize fish mortality:
● screen intakes to pumps that take water from existing water sources to prevent the entry of fish
● avoid fish stranding when water is required for testing
● avoid exhaustion of natural water supplies, to prevent fish stranding
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=111 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:39 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
● conduct blasting in accordance with Fisheries and Oceans Canada blasting guidelines
● salvage fish from habitats before the isolation of in-stream work areas
● ensure uninterrupted water flow during isolated in-stream construction
● prohibit angling by contractors, consultants, and employees
To reduce fish mortality risk and protect fish and fish habitat from accidental releases, valves will be installed at the beginning of high value/high risk areas to prevent or reduce any product being released and directly entering the watercourse. These valves capture any released materials in the downslope end of valleys.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=111 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 11:53:39 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Heritage Resources
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Heritage Resources Home » Subject Areas » Heritage Resources Study Area
Key Issues Heritage Resources
Measurable Parameters Heritage resources are unique archaeological, historic, and palaeontological non-renewable resources Base Case Assessment with aesthetic, cultural, and scientific value that contribute to the interpretation of local or regional heritage.
Stand-alone Case Loss of potential heritage resource sites or portions of heritage sites can result in the loss of interpretive Assessment capacity of heritage resource data at the site, local, or regional level. These resources have importance Mitigation Measures and value to the scientific, cultural, and public communities.
Other Modules with Related Information
● Aboriginal Traditional
Knowledge
● Non-Traditional Land
Use
● Social-Economic
● Soils
● Terrain
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=11310/23/2006 11:50:43 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Heritage Resources Home » Subject Areas » Heritage Resources » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The Enbridge Gateway Project route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Stand-alone Case Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical Assessment area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations,
Mitigation Measures marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Heritage Resources Spatial Boundaries The heritage resources zone of influence is equivalent to the Project Development Area.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=11510/23/2006 11:53:44 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Heritage Resources Home » Subject Areas » Heritage Resources » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key issues related to heritage resources are the potential for disturbance or destruction of: Base Case Assessment ● archaeological, historic, and palaeontological sites Stand-alone Case ● Assessment historic aboriginal structures, features, and culturally-modified trees
● Mitigation Measures historic buildings and burial sites Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=11410/23/2006 11:53:50 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Heritage Resources Home » Subject Areas » Heritage Resources » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Social Component Base Case Assessment A valued social component is a key resource or resource characteristic of high management or public Stand-alone Case concern that can be measurably affected by the Project. Assessment Palaeontological, archaeological, historical, and traditional sites and materials are collectively referred to Mitigation Measures as 'heritage resources' and are considered as one valued social component because:
● they can all potentially be disturbed during surface and subsurface altering activities related to Project development
● under the Alberta Historical Resources Act, the British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act, British Columbia’s Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act they are all considered as heritage resources
● Aboriginal interests consider them collectively
Key Indicator Resources A key indicator resource is a subset component of a valued social component considered to be the most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
For heritage resources these are:
1. pre-contact campsite/ midden/cache pit site 2. pre-contact ceremonial and religious site 3. pre-contact artifact scatter sites 4. pre-contact isolated artifact find site 5. culturally-modified tree site (pre-1846) 6. historic residential and domestic sites 7. palaeontological site
Measurable Parameters A measurable parameter is a measure or value associated with selected valued social components and/ or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For heritage resources these are potential:
1. loss of site contents http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=116 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:53:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
2. interpretive value
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=116 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:53:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Heritage Resources Home » Subject Areas » Heritage Resources » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Archaeology and Historic Sites Base Case Assessment ● Paleontology Stand-alone Case ● Work Still To Be Done Assessment
Mitigation Measures Archaeology and Historic Sites
● Cultural Heritage Values Heritage Resource studies were ● Literature Review coordinated with ● Field Program
● Data Analysis ● Aboriginal Traditional
Cultural Heritage Values Knowledge The measurable parameters correspond to site types with varying degrees of interpretive capacity.
● Non-Traditional Land Generally, classification of archaeological and historic site types is by site function, as for example,
Use campsite or meat cache. However, when diagnostics are not present or the original context is disturbed, site classification is by the amount of material present, such as isolated finds or artifact scatters.
● Social-Economic Heritage values assigned to individual sites used the following:
● function(s)
● rarity
● age
● current condition (undisturbed sites versus disturbed sites)
● source and nature of potential disturbance by the Project
Cultural heritage values assigned to individual sites in the study area were adapted from the Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management).
Scientific Value
The potential of a site to enhance current understanding of cultural or natural history and development as well as its potential to shed light on current research problems. Of prime importance is site integrity. Knowledge of details of pre-contact lifestyles can be incomplete, often dictated by vagaries of past human use and discard and preservation efforts. The first order of scientific evaluation occurs at the site level. Only after the site's potential to provide substantive data is established are the local and regional implications considered.
Public Value
The potential of a site contributes to public understanding or appreciation of past human lifestyles or environmental conditions, as well as the potential for development as an interpretive or tourist facility. Current use or visitation by the public and public interest expressed during consultation were also considerations.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=117 (1 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:01 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Ethnic Value
The perceived value of a site to a particular ethnic group or of expressed importance to a particular group. Evaluation of traditional land use is primarily from the perspective of ethnic (Aboriginal) value.
Historical Value
Only relevant to historic sites, based on the association of a particular site with personages, themes, or events evincing important or lasting contributions to society on a local or regional level. Other factors considered include the presence of physical structural remains and the potential of the archaeological remains to provide information relating to consumption, provisioning, disposal, ethnic and social stratification, technological development, economic transitions, and representative land use.
Economic Value
Generally associated with the feasibility and suitability of a site for interpretive and tourism purposes.
Literature Review A review of the current literature identified:
● reports pertaining to quaternary geology
● previous archaeological studies
● archaeological context
● regional history
Sources for historic events relevant to the Project included provincially curated site files and Borden Blocks in the study area to identify historic sites.
Sources for cultural resources relevant to the Project included site files, map sheets, and Borden Blocks (Alberta Heritage Resource Management Branch) for information on previously recorded:
● archaeological sites
● location and content
● degree of site integrity
Field Program[1] The field study (September to November 2005) focused on the 110 target areas considered to be of highest potential. The study consisted of:
● selecting target areas
● aerial overflight of the Project Development Area
● a pre-effect assessment of targeted portions of the Project Development Area to identify and evaluate archaeological, historical, and recent traditional use sites in potential conflict with the Project Development Area Standard assessment methodology included:
● inspecting surficial exposures and excavation by shovel testing
● forest timber inspected for evidence of culturally modified trees
● evaluating target areas for depth of deposits and potential for deeply buried sites
Archaeological Permit Applications
Submitted permit applications for 2005 fieldwork to:
Heritage Resources Management Branch, Alberta Community Development
Archaeology and Registry Services Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=117 (2 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:01 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Management
Follow-up Field Program
In 2006, a follow up field program will capture high-potential sites where landowner access was denied in 2005, areas where the proposed route has changed, ancillary facilities have been identified, and to assess the moderate potential sites.
Several areas potentially containing deposits too deep to effectively assess through conventional shovel testing will be deep tested (backhoe) in the follow-up field program or through monitoring during construction (i.e., trenching).
The selection of an appropriate means of testing these deep deposits depends primarily on accessibility. Areas in the Alberta White Zone with road accessibility will be deep tested in 2006; those areas in less accessible areas of the Alberta Green Zone or in British Columbia will be monitored during the trenching activities.
Data Analysis
● curated collected cultural material as per provincial requirements
● examined and identified specimens by type and function from each site, with the range of material types noted
Palaeontology
● Palaeontological Heritage Values
● Data Sources
● Field Program
Palaeontological Heritage Values Determined individual site values, using the following information:
● abundance of material
● quality of preservation
● diversity
● rarity of taxa
● aesthetic value
● taxonomic value
● geographic or stratigraphic value
For each category, each location was assigned a value between 1 and 10, and the values averaged to obtain an overall heritage value and rated as low, medium, or high.
Abundance of Material
The abundance of the material, where zero = not abundant (a single fossil) and 10 = abundant (material is common, more than 10 specimens). This value is a useful indicator of the likelihood of the Project affecting a resource in the region.
Quality of Preservation
The quality of preservation of the material, where zero = poor (can be recognized as a fossil but not identified at a lower taxonomic level) and 10 = excellent (quality of preservation allows for accurate identification of the fossil plus other scientific information). This value is a useful indicator of how much scientific information is obtainable from a site.
Diversity http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=117 (3 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:01 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
The diversity of the material, where zero = monotypic (single species) and 10 = diverse (four or more species). Diversity of a site indicates how many taxa can be investigated at a site.
Rarity of Taxa
Rarity of taxa, where zero = common (species is found at 10 or more localities) and 10 = rare (species is found at one or few localities; includes all vertebrate taxa). Rarity of taxa indicates the scientific value of rarely found fossil types.
Aesthetic and Public Value
Aesthetic value of taxa, where zero = low (specimen cannot be recognized as a fossil by the layperson) and 10 = high (specimen is an object of intrigue to the layperson and can have a high educational and economic value). Aesthetic value rates the public value of a find, from the perspective of their potential to contribute to public understanding or appreciation of past environmental conditions and their potential for development as interpretive or tourist facilities. Current use or visitation by the public, as well as public interest expressed at community consultation meetings, was also a consideration in ascribing public value to a site.
Taxonomic Value
The taxonomic value, where zero = taxon is already well known (taxon has been thoroughly described in the scientific literature and the new specimen does not add to the knowledge base) and 10 = taxon is poorly known (taxon has not previously been described or described based only on poor material, specimen will add to the scientific knowledge base). This category rates the contribution of the site to the scientific taxonomic knowledge base.
Geographic or Stratigraphic Value
The geographic or stratigraphic value, where zero = low (taxon has been previously found at that geographic location or stratigraphic horizon) and 10 = high (taxon has not been previously found at that geographic location or stratigraphic horizon). This category rates the contribution of the site to the scientific knowledge base on distribution of fossils.
Data Sources The major palaeontology data sources included:
● literature review
● aerial reconnaissance
● 2005 field program with ground reconnaissance in target areas
● bedrock geology data from the following databases:
❍ Alberta Geological Survey
❍ British Columbia Geological Survey
● assessment of depth to bedrock and thickness of wetlands along the study area and 1:30,000 maps
● soils and terrain databases and surficial geology mapping (1:20,000)
● Significant Historical Sites and Areas (Alberta Culture Department)
Unlike archaeology, site files and location databases are not available for palaeontology.
Field Program The palaeontological field program ran for approximately five weeks in August to October 2005. Targets were refined as necessary in the field, based on access and exposure.
In the plains area, the goal was to evaluate potentially fossiliferous bedrock at or near each watercourse http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=117 (4 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:01 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
crossing where exposures occurred. In the mountainous areas, the goal was to sample each geological formation with high palaeontological potential along the pipeline route.
Bedrock was the focus of the field reconnaissance, although surficial deposits were also examined wherever encountered. Surficial deposits were only occasionally set as the target in an area, as fossils in these deposits are rare and seldom found outside of an excavation.
A pedestrian traverse was conducted for each target through the areas where exposures occur, with lithology, sedimentary features, and amount and nature of overburden noted. Bedrock and surficial exposures were inspected for fossils.
Collections were made of invertebrate and plant material where fossils were of sufficient quality to allow identification of specimens in the laboratory. Vertebrate material was generally left in place as excavation of dinosaur skeletons is outside the parameters of a field reconnaissance program. The exception was isolated bony elements preserved in a shell bed where a full skeleton was unlikely.
Work Still To Be Done Additional fieldwork for archaeology and historic sites in 2006 includes:
● re-evaluate, and where necessary, re-assess targeted areas based on results of the 2005 field assessment and terrain assessment
● complete the heritage assessment of all study area segments not assessed in 2005 including reroutes that have occurred since completion of the 2005 field program
Specific locations include:
● the Bruderheim reroute north of Edmonton, including target assessment areas along the North
Saskatchewan River, Sturgeon River, and Little Egg Creek
● the inter-mountain belt in British Columbia
● the Confined Channel Assessment Area
[1] While evidence of traditional use was considered in the heritage resource assessment, results will be included in the Socio-economic discipline and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge . Aboriginal assistants were employed as part of the field program.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=117 (5 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:01 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Heritage Resources Home » Subject Areas » Heritage Resources » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing.
Assessment The two key potential effects for cultural and palaeontological resources are the loss of material Mitigation Measures specimens and the loss of site interpretive capacity. Loss of cultural materials implies a loss of cultural interpretive capacity; similarly, loss of fossil specimens could result in a loss of palaeontological interpretive capacity.
The following are identified sites within the study area.
● Archaeology and Historic Sites
● Paleontological Sites
Archaeology and Historic Sites
● Alberta
❍ Pre-contact Midden/Cache Pit/Campsites
❍ Pre-contact Ceremonial and Religious Sites
❍ Pre-contact Artifact Sites
❍ Pre-contact Isolated Artifact Find Sites
❍ Culturally-modified Tree Sites (pre-1846)
❍ Historic, Residential, and Domestic Sites
● British Columbia
❍ Pre-contact Midden/Cache Pit/Campsites
❍ Pre-contact Ceremonial and Religious Sites
❍ Pre-contact Artifact Sites
❍ Pre-contact Isolated Artifact Find Sites
❍ Culturally-modified Tree Sites (pre-1846)
❍ Historic, Residential, and Domestic Sites
Alberta [1]
Pre-contact Midden/Cache Pit/Campsites
37 sites in total, in 18 Borden Blocks; 2 are within the Project Development Area, both within the White Zone.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=118 (1 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:09 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
● Cultural materials including lithic debitage, tools, and faunal materials from the early and middle pre-contact period, located southeast of Deadman Lake. This site was identified and recorded during the Alliance Pipeline Project assessment and controlled excavation took place; however, an undisturbed portion is within the study area.
● A surface scatter of lithic tool, debitage, and fire-broken rock, located southwest of Kakina Lake. The site was identified and recorded during the Alliance Pipeline Project.
Pre-contact Ceremonial and Religious Sites
No pre-contact ceremonial or religious sites were found in Alberta.
Pre-contact Artifact Sites
53 sites in total, in 22 Borden Blocks; 7 are within the Project Development Area.
Four of these sites fall within the generally cultivated lands south and east of the Athabasca River, in the Alberta White Zone:.
❍ A subsurface scatter of burned and calcined large ungulate bone within cultivated lands east of
Rivière qui Barre.
❍ A surface scatter of lithic debitage and formed tools within cultivated lands southeast of Kakina
Lake . This site was initially identified and recorded during the Alliance Pipeline Project
assessment, and a portion of the site was disturbed during construction of the Alliance Pipeline.
❍ A sparse subsurface scatter of lithic debitage along the margin of a small unnamed creek near
Kelly Lake .
❍ A multi-component site, including a sparse subsurface scatter of lithic debitage, on a low
terrace of the Pembina River . The site was initially identified and recorded during the Alliance
Pipeline Project assessment, with no disturbance from that project.
The remaining three sites are located within the Alberta Green Zone:
❍ A sparse surface scatter of lithic debitage.
❍ A sparse surface scatter of lithic debitage tools located on an active quad trail.
❍ A sparse surface scatter of lithic debitage within a forested area disturbed by forestry activities.
Pre-contact Isolated Artifact Find Sites
39 sites in total, in 21 Borden Blocks; 7 are within the Project Development Area.
Four sites are located within the cultivated terrain in the Alberta White Zone:
❍ Surface finds in a disturbed location, located southeast of Deadman Lake . The site was
initially identified and recorded during the Alliance Pipeline assessment due to the recovery of a
retouched cobble tool. Construction activities were monitored in the site area relative to the
Alliance Pipeline.
❍ Surface find in a disturbed location, consisting of a single flake recovered from the surface,
located south of Kakina Lake . http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=118 (2 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:09 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
❍ Surface find in a disturbed location, consisting of the surface recovery of a lithic biface tool
located near Coyote Creek. The site was initially identified and recorded during the Alliance
Pipeline assessment, with no effect from the project.
❍ A series of currently dry sloughs; consisting of a single piece of lithic debitage, located near
Coyote Creek.
Three sites are located in the Alberta Green Zone:
❍ Surface find in a disturbed location, consisting of a single piece of lithic debitage, in the
Athabasca River valley.
❍ Surface find in a disturbed location, consisting of a lithic tool, in the Athabasca River valley.
❍ A piece of lithic debitage, located in the Simonette River .
Culturally-modified Tree Sites (pre-1846)
No culturally-modified tree sites were found in Alberta.
Historic, Residential, and Domestic Sites
60 sites in total, in 21 Borden Blocks; 4 are within the Project Development Area.
Three are located in the Alberta White Zone, the fourth in the Green Zone:
❍ A homestead consisting of one standing cabin, two collapsed outbuildings, a cribbed well, a
number of additional structural and midden features, and a scatter of cultural materials. The
site is associated with a small slough and a currently dry unnamed drainage. The earliest
recorded occupation date is A.D.1920, the original date of patent. The site was crossed by the
Alliance Pipeline Project with no apparent effect on historic features.
❍ A homestead or farmstead consisting of 13 buildings and features, approximately 350 metres
east of a small unnamed drainage, located in the Alberta White Zone. The earliest occupation
date for this site is A.D. 1916. This site was also traversed by the Alliance Pipeline Project,
again with no apparent effect on historic features or buildings.
❍ An historic residential and domestic site. The site is located on a low terrace of the
PembinaRiver , in the Alberta White Zone, and consists of five cellar depressions, representing
buildings or refuse midden remains. The earliest occupation date for the historic component of
this site is A.D. 1919, based on the original date of patent. The site was initially recorded
during the Alliance Pipeline Project assessment, but again no apparent effects from the project.
❍ A mid-20th century site, located on a terrace on the eastern valley edge of the Iosegun River in
the Green Zone, consisting of two depressions and two associated midden locations. Based
on the Artifact assemblage, the site dates to circa 1950s. The site may represent the remains
of a trapping cabin or may be associated with the initial construction of Highway 43, opened in
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=118 (3 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:09 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
A.D.1955.
British Columbia [2]
Pre-contact Midden/Cache Pit/Campsites
34 sites in total, in 19 Borden Blocks; 3 are within the Project Development Area:
❍ Cache pit site consisting of five cultural depressions including four cache pit-sized depressions
and one circular depression of roasting pit or small cache pit size, in the area of the confluence
of the Thautil and Maurice rivers.
❍ An isolated cultural depression of cache pit size, in the area of the confluence of the Thautil
and Maurice rivers.
❍ A subsurface campsite associated with a microtopographic feature near Flatbed Creek.
Testing at the site yielded chipped lithic material, fire-altered rock, and faunal materials. The
site has a very high density and a variety of cultural materials, with datable materials in the
form of faunal remains which are very rare in this part of British Columbia .
Pre-contact Ceremonial and Religious Sites
10 sites in total, in 4 Borden Blocks; 7 are within the Project Development Area: one location contains a burial site; the remaining six sites are located along Kitimat Arm, all containing rock art and are of special cultural significance to the Haisla.
Pre-contact Artifact Sites
44 sites in total, in 22 Borden Blocks; 5 are within the Project Development Area:
❍ A newly identified surface and subsurface lithic deposit with chipped lithic material on the
surface, identified in a tree throw, and in a subsurface test.
❍ An approximately 75 square metre surface with a low-density subsurface lithic site.
❍ A previously recorded site; not relocated in the field and possibly destroyed by previous
development.
❍ A subsurface lithic scatter with two historic debris piles around the south fringes of the site.
The site is approximately 450 square metres.
❍ A subsurface lithic scatter with two historic debris piles around the south fringes of the site.
The site is approximately 2600 square metres.
Pre-contact Isolated Artifact Find Sites
8 sites in total, in 7 Borden Blocks; none are within the Project Development Area.
Culturally-modified Tree Sites (pre-1846)
99 sites in total, in 23 Borden Blocks; 5 are within the Project Development Area.
Four occur along the Kitimat Arm and one along the Kitimat River:
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=118 (4 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:09 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
❍ A previously-recorded site but the boundaries have been expanded based on the results of the
2005 assessment.
❍ Five culturally-modified trees, with one yielding a modification date of A.D. 1870. Given the
size of the lobes on the test-hole tree and the size of the trees, it is assumed that the stand pre-
dates A.D. 1846.
❍ A 2.5 kilometre site with 49 culturally-modified trees of various types identified, with one
yielding a modification date of A.D. 1773.
❍ Two culturally-modified trees, with modification dates of A.D. 1855 and A.D. 1847. Given the
size of the lobes around the scars and the imprecise results provided by increment cores, the
site is considered to pre-date A.D. 1846.
Several large culturally-modified tree sites, particularly in the Kitimat Arm area, have been previously recorded.
Historic, Residential, and Domestic Sites
19 sites in total, in 12 Borden Blocks; none are within the Project Development Area.
Palaeontological Sites
Alberta The identified paleontological sites within the study area are listed in the attachment in the Related Information box.
British Columbia The British Columbia assessment (inter-mountain belt, marine study area) is still to be completed.
[1] 45 Borden Blocks in total in Alberta
[2] 60 Borden Blocks in total in British Columbia
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=118 (5 of 5)10/23/2006 11:54:09 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Heritage Resources Home » Subject Areas » Heritage Resources » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on heritage
Stand-alone Case resources are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to Assessment be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● Archaeological Sites
● Paleontological Sites
Each province under has specific legislation protecting heritage resources: in Alberta, under the Alberta Historical Resources Act; in British Columbia, the British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act.
Because heritage sites are non-renewable, there are a number of possible approaches for avoiding the site altogether, recovering artifacts, or gathering as much information from a site as possible before it is disturbed. Avoidance of the site is always the preferred option, if it is practical to do so, either by re- routing the pipeline around the site, drilling beneath it, or by moving facilities, e.g., pump stations, away from the site. Where disturbance is unavoidable, the method used for recovering artifacts and/or extracting information depends on the type of site.
Archaeological Sites For historic sites, the methods for extracting information before the location is disturbed might include:
● documentary research
● detailed recording and mapping of the buildings
● collecting surface artefacts
For archaeological sites, this might involve:
● a collection of artefacts on the surface using a grid system
● controlled archaeological excavation of the site
Palaeontological Sites Known palaeontological sites are typically excavated if they cannot be avoided. For unknown palaeontological sites, avoidance is rarely feasible because fossiliferous bedrock in the subsurface is extensive and fossils are often not found until construction begins.
In locations where construction will disturb bedrock with potential fossils, a professional palaeontological monitor may be called to the site at the time of construction. The monitor ensures that any fossils found during construction are collected with minimal damage and the information recorded.
Early identification of palaeontological resources during construction can also mitigate disturbance or destruction. This will be accomplished through employee training on:
● awareness about the significance of palaeontological resources
● identifying palaeontological resources in the field http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=119 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:54:16 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
● distinguishing what is important from what is not
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=119 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:54:16 AM Palaeontological Sites
Alberta
Kilometre Heritage Post # Value
69-75 Outcrop along road cuts – Cretaceous Horseshoe Canyon formation Examined various road cuts with minimal surface cover: fossil wood in ironstone (including chalcedony) L
127-130 Pembina River – Cretaceous Wapiti and Horseshoe Canyon formations Pedestrian traverse along cutbanks north and south of route: sandstone blocks at river level have shallow water deposition features and potential -- for dinosaur footprints some petrified wood in bedrock and upper overbank deposits have occasional L snails and fingernail clams dinosaur longbone found weathering out of bank H overburden mostly of thick sand rather than silty overbank deposits --
181-186 Athabasca River, south slope – Pleistocene gravel and Cretaceous Wapiti to Lower
Scollard formations Two helicopter passes across the terraces with one landing: all sand and gravel -- outcrop of massive channel sandstone with minimal overburden near top of slope, -- about 0.5 kilometre from right-of-way centre line; overlies mudstones
186-187 Athabasca River, north slope – Cretaceous Wapiti to Lower Scollard formations Pedestrian traverse across valley slope: upper terrace with deep overburden, gravel, and bedrock -- exposure along Alliance pipeline just above river level, with amber in a coal bed H exposure along an old cut at top of lower terrace, with plant fossils in ironstone L exposure along an old cut at top of lower terrace, with partial dinosaur skeleton exposed and plants in black ironstone with Metasequoia cones, silicified wood H (chalcedony), and assorted plant remains
195-196 Sakwatamau River – glaciofluvial gravel Pedestrian traverse across valley slope: one exposure – massive gravel capped in overbank deposits, including varved -- sediments and diatomaceous earth
211.5-213 Chickadee Creek – Paleocene Upper Scollard to Paskapoo formations Pedestrian traverse across valley slopes: no bedrock exposed though some of the sticky mud in cutbanks has texture -- Kilometre Heritage Post # Value consistent with deeply weathered bedrock occasional gravel deposits -- one piece of petrified wood --
237-238 Two Creeks – Paleocene Upper Scollard to Paskapoo formations Pedestrian traverse along creek: Very wet area with muskeg -- Some cutbank deposits but all overbank deposits -- Larger cutbank with overbank deposits, minor glaciofluvial gravel and clays that -- could be deeply weathered bedrock
254-256 Iosegun River – Paleocene Paskapoo formation Pedestrian traverse across and along west valley slope: Exposures in the road cut on west bank of river with lenses of fine-grained material -- in trough-cross bedded sequences Plant fossils common in fine-grained strata H
286-287 Little Smoky River – Cretaceous to Paleocene Scollard to Paskapoo formations Pedestrian traverses along west and east banks: exposures of deeply weathered shale capped in gravels -- upper valley slope capped in gravel and fine overbank deposits -- one loose block of sandstone with clams and snails; not in situ L
337.5-341 Simonette River – Cretaceous Lower Scollard formation Pedestrian traverses along east and west sides of river and along adjoining creek
near route: east bank largely surficial deposits -- west site is cutbank with coal and sandstone, the latter containing occasional snails, H∗ clams, trace fossils, and wood; potential for trackways in the sandstone area by bridge has sandstone with large deciduous leaf impressions M diverse plant locality in siltstone lenses in coal bed. H
371-372 Latornell River – Cretaceous Lower Scollard formation Completed pedestrian traverses on east valley slope: mostly overbank deposits with some gravel in upper terrace L some of the material at river level may be deeply weathered mudstone; occasional -- ironstone nodules found with plant material
∗ Based on strata potential, not actual fossils found (e.g., sedimentary features indicate high potential for high-value trackways. Kilometre Heritage Post # Value
393-396 Smoky River – Cretaceous Wapiti formation Pedestrian traverses along east and west sides of river and along adjoining creek: west side is all surficial deposits - silt and crossbedded sand capped in a coarse -- boulder gravel east side has cutbank into mudstone and siltstone with sandstone lenses capped in -- gravel; some wood fossils in sandstone upper terrace mudstone with sandstone lenses showing ripple marks and M∗ mudcracks but no fossils; these sandstones have potential for dinosaur tracks small river in east; gravel and overbank deposits, no in-situ fossils --
446-449 Pinto Creek – Cretaceous Wapiti formation Pedestrian traverses along creek and along drainage into creek: known dinosaur site at bridge but material not in situ H a large silicified tree stump in deeply weathered shale at a drainage into Pinto M Creek bedrock well exposed throughout creek banks with petrified wood and cone-in-cone M dewatering structures second small terrace back from creek with fine grained deposits full of fingernail M-H clams, snails, and a proliferation of calcareous algae
467-469 Wapiti River – Cretaceous Wapiti formation Pedestrian traverses along west and east banks: sandstone block on beach with snails, clams, and a Metasequoi-type cone. M large blocks of a dense clam and wood bed tumbled down onto beach full of H dinosaur bones; also some deciduous leaves in other sandstone blocks west side of river includes same clam/wood bed with dinosaur bone that indicates it M-H is laterally continuous; also clay ironstone layer full of Metasequoi-type cones.
572-574 Murray River – Triassic Whitehorse to Sulphur Mountain formations Pedestrian traverse along Murray River from near falls to crossing location: shale (sulphur mountain formation) with scrappy plant material along first part of -- transect limestone at mid transect and near crossing location; rare fossils of coral in -- limestone other limestone lithologies with abundant microfossils; sugary texture with -- ostracods and foraminifera
574 Mountain side - Devonian Banff/Exshaw formation
∗ Based on strata potential, not actual fossils found (e.g., sedimentary features indicate high potential for high-value trackways Kilometre Heritage Post # Value Pedestrian traverse along exposed mountain ridge: fine to coarse-grained limestone with colonial and solitary corals, brachiopods, and M bryozoa
579-580.5 Mountain side – Devonian Palliser to Perdrix formations Pedestrian traverse along a limestone ridge: massive orange-weathering limestone (Palliser formation) over black shale (Perdrix formation); abundant fossils of corals (tabulate and rugose), brachiopods M (productids, spirifids), ostracods, and bryozoa in the limestone no fossils noted in the black shale --
581-582.5 Ridge on mountain side – Ordovician Beaverfoot formation Pedestrian traverse along exposures: west end of transect was Monkman quartzite and east part was Beaverfoot limestone1; latter was highly fossiliferous with a variety of facies such as M brachiopod packstone others facies had fewer fossils, some mottled yellow and grey, some rip-up clasts with surrounding matrix of packstone of broken fragments; other cherty layers with M various trace fossils; fossils included brachiopods, nautiloids, crinoids, trilobites, and corals (rare)
586.5-587.5 Imperial Creek – Ordovician Skoki formation Pedestrian traverse along creek: quartzite and some shale with no fossils --
590 Mountain ridge – unnamed Paleozoic strata Pedestrian traverse down exposed mountain ridge: quartzite cliffs with no fossils. --
592 Mountain ridge – Upper Cambrian Lynx group Pedestrian traverse down a mountain side: limestone in west, quartzite in east (lower on mountain). -- strata equivalent to cirque (see next discussion) but not as abundant or as well M preserved; fossils included corals and brachiopods
592-593.5 Cirque – Upper Cambrian Lynx group Pedestrian traverse along the base of a cirque and partly down the slope: limestone scree with abundant corals, clams, algal buildups, nautiloids, and H bryozoa; some silicification
594 Saddle between two peaks – Upper Cambrian Lynx group to Lower Ordovician
1 Geological mapping is likely inaccurate in this area as lithology matches the Beaverfoot formation, not the Monkman Formation as mapped. Kilometre Heritage Post # Value Chushina (survey peak) formation Pedestrian traverse along saddle between two peaks: scree at bottom of each slope; thin-bedded limestone, lots of rip-up clasts, mixed -- shale/phyllite, and limestone; rare re-crystallized corals
656-674 Chuchika Creek – Cambrian to Ordovician Kechika group; Ordovician to Silurian
Sandpile group Vehicle transect by truck, with pedestrian traverses at waypoints: massive carbonate but no fossils (Kechika) at east end of transect -- gravel pit with no fossils -- permian ryolite, andesite, and contact metamorphic rocks, gravels -- carboniferous to permian carbonaceous shale, siltstone, minor limestone with no -- fossils carboniferous to permian siltstone, shale, limestone -- slate, lots of chlorite -- chloritic shale and metamorphosed limestone. -- major limestone ridge, no fossils, high energy environment (Kechika); shale and -- limestone, oolitic, rip-up clasts, flute casts quartzite and slate (Tapioca sandstone) -- carboniferous to permian shale/slate and some quartzite -- massive limestone inter-bedded with black shale (sandpile group); re-crystallized L brachiopods and crinoid pieces in limestone, and graptolites in black shale/slate Ordovician Monkman quartzite and massively re-crystallized limestone -- Ordovician Monkman quartzite with fine banding; quarry -- side road, deep surficial gravels --
Palaeontological Sites
British Columbia
The British Columbia assessment (inter-mountain belt, marine study area) is still to be completed.
Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Human Health Risk
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Human Health Risk Home » Subject Areas » Human Health Risk Study Area
Key Issues Human Health Risk
Measurable Parameters Airborne emissions or contaminants carried to surface soil or surface water can potentially cause human Base Case Assessment health risks; collectively these are referred to as 'chemicals of potential concern'.
Stand-alone Case Chemical exposure is a risk when it occurs over long periods of time and accumulates over time in the Assessment body. People with the highest susceptibility to chemicals of concern are infants and the elderly. Mitigation Measures The assessment of human health risk is done in conjunction with the other biophysical disciplines, as the chemicals of concern might have an effect on wildlife, vegetation, soils, water quality, and freshwater Other Modules with Related Information fish and fish habitat that could potentially end up in the human food chain.
● Aboriginal Traditional
Knowledge
● Atmospheric
Environment
● Freshwater Fish and
Fish Habitat
● Soils
● Vegetation
● Water Quality
● Wildlife
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=12110/23/2006 11:50:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Human Health Risk Home » Subject Areas » Human Health Risk » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The Enbridge Gateway Project route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Stand-alone Case Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical Assessment area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations,
Mitigation Measures marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Human Health Risk Spatial Boundaries While six regions were initially reviewed, the human health risk assessment Human Health only focuses on the British Columbia Coastal Region, and specifically the Assessment Regions Kitimat area where the marine terminal will be located. The greatest emissions associated with the Project are expected there, and the potential ● Edmonton for human exposure considered most likely, based on professional opinion.
● Central Alberta For all other regions, the exposure to chemicals of concern is not
considered an issue because the right-of-way is either far from ● Northwest Alberta communities or the release of chemicals from construction and operations ● Northeast British is expected to be short term and localized. Columbia
● Central British Columbia
● Coastal British
Columbia
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=12310/23/2006 11:54:26 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Human Health Risk Home » Subject Areas » Human Health Risk » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues addressed in human health risk are the potential for toxic effects of chemicals of Base Case Assessment concern through:
Stand-alone Case ● inhalation of air-borne emissions Assessment ● ingestion of toxic chemicals from food sources contaminated from emissions or accidental releases Mitigation Measures Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=12210/23/2006 11:54:32 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Human Health Risk Home » Subject Areas » Human Health Risk » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Social Component Base Case Assessment A valued social component is a key resource or resource characteristic of high management or public Stand-alone Case concern that can be measurably affected by the Project. Assessment Human health risk is in itself a valued social component. Mitigation Measures Key Indicator Resources A key indicator resource is a subset component of a valued social component considered to be the most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
For human health risk this is:
1. potential exposure to emissions
Measurable Parameters A measurable parameter is a measure or value associated with selected valued social components and/ or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For human health risk this is:
1. chemicals of potential concern
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=12410/23/2006 11:54:39 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Human Health Risk Home » Subject Areas » Human Health Risk » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters While six regions were initially reviewed, the base case assessment only focuses on the British Base Case Assessment Columbia coastal region, and specifically the Kitimat area where the marine terminal wil be located. The
Stand-alone Case greatest emissions associated with the Project are expected there, and the potential for human exposure Assessment considered most likely, based on professional opinion.
Mitigation Measures The base case assessment included a review of the physical environmental determinants that may influence health, existing environmental monitoring programs and studies, and available information for the Haisla First Nation.
● Air Quality
● Water Quality
● Environmental Studies
● Traditional Foods
Air Quality Atmospheric dispersion modeling was used to predict maximum baseline Related Information ground-level concentrations of criteria air contaminants and several volatile organic compounds, e.g., benzen, toluene, xylene, at key receptor ● Receptor Assessment locations in the Town of Kitimat and Kitamaat Village. Key emission sources include: Locations (PDF - 10.5KB) ● Alcan Smelters and Chemicals Ltd.
● Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co.
● light and heavy duty vehicles
● marine vessel traffic
● miscellaneous burning
● road dust
● space heating
Maximum average ground-level concentration of chemicals of potential concern were modeled for short- term exposures at one-hour, three-hour, and 24-hour time intervals, and for long-term exposure using annual averages.
Water Quality The Town of Kitimat[1] obtains its water from three infiltration gallery wells in the Kitimat River. Six other small holdings on the outskirts of town, not connected to the town water system, either use river water or groundwater wells. Kitamaat Village[2] obtains it water from two groundwater supply wells located next to Wathl Creek. The town's wastewater treatment plant treats wastewater using aeration and then discharges it into Douglas Channel.
Environmental Studies Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the extent of contamination in the sediments in Kitimat Arm from the Alcan smelter. Historical analysis revealed high chemical concentrations in sediments
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=125 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 11:54:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
near the smelter and Hospital Beach. Other studies investigated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) concentrations in clam tissue from Hospital Beach. Alcan reports that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment have decreased significantly.
Traditional Foods According to the Haisla First Nation web site, most Haisla continue to cary on the tradition of hunting, berry picking, gathering, and fishing. Every spring Haisla family groups still travel to the Kemano River for oolichan fishing, an important traditional food and valuable cultural and commercial commodity for the Haisla. (There was a traditional oolichan harvesting site on the Kitimat River but it has not been used for over 25 years due to tainting by industrial effluents.)
Through interviews and cognitive mapping, the Royal BC Museum anthropological team identified traditional subsistence resources including:
● Terrestrial wildlife
❍ bear (black and grizzly)
❍ cougar
❍ deer
❍ ducks
❍ fox
❍ geese
❍ grouse
❍ lynx
❍ marten
❍ mink
❍ moose
❍ otter
❍ squirrel
❍ weasel
❍ wolf
● Terrestrial vegetation
❍ alder bark
❍ blackcaps
❍ blueberries
❍ buttercup roots
❍ cattails
❍ cedar (large trees, bark, withes)
❍ clover roots
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=125 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 11:54:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
❍ cow parsnips
❍ crab apples
❍ cranberries
❍ devil's club
❍ fern roots
❍ fiddleheads
❍ fireweed
❍ firewood
❍ grey currants
❍ hellebore
❍ hemlock (cambium)
❍ labrador tea
❍ raspberries
❍ red/blue huckleberries
❍ rose hips
❍ ryegrass
❍ salmonberries
❍ sprouts
❍ spruce (root, gum)
❍ wild rhubarb
❍ wild rice
● Marine resources
❍ anemone
❍ cockles
❍ cod (red)
❍ crab
❍ halibut
❍ herring and roe
❍ mussels
❍ octopus
❍ prawns
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=125 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 11:54:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
❍ salmon (coho, spring, pink, chum, sockeye)
❍ sea cucumber
❍ seals
❍ trout (bullhead, steelhead)
[1] Population 10,285 in 2001.
[2] Population 668 in 2001.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=125 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 11:54:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Human Health Risk Home » Subject Areas » Human Health Risk » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters This is only a preliminary evaluation based on work done to date. A more comprehensive and Base Case Assessment conclusive assessment based on the complete effects assessment process, including mitigation
Stand-alone Case measures, will be included with the regulatory filing.
Assessment Based on standard risk assessment practices, screening of chemicals, receptors, and pathways will Mitigation Measures be conducted to identify pathways of concern for quantitative assessment. Other pathways will be qualitatively assessed. The assessment focuses primarily on the inhalation pathway.
Construction Exposure Pathways Particulate and dust emissions will likely be the primary emissions during Inhalation Pathway Inhalation of: construction; human receptors might be exposed to chemicals of potential
concern through: ● outdoor air
● dust ● particulate emissions from site preparation including clearing, burning, grading Ingestion Pathway ● air emissions from construction equipment and vehicles during Ingestion of: construction ● surface soil ● air emissions from marine vessels delivering equipment to the site for
terminal construction ● surface water
● Operations groundwater During marine terminal operations, human receptors might be exposed to ● vegetation chemicals of potential concern through:
● garden produce
● fugitive emissions from tanks ● fish and marine ● operations activities mammals in contact ● stack emissions from marine vessels with chemicals of ● vehicular traffic to and from the marine terminal potential concern ● maintenance and inspection activities
● wild game in contact Abandonment/Decommissioning During marine terminal abandonment/decommissioning, human receptors with surface soil might be exposed to chemicals of potential concern through: Dermal Pathway Skin contact with: ● particulate emissions from decommissioning of the pipeline and right- of-way restoration ● surface soil surface
● air emissions from equipment and vehicles during decommissioning water
● particulate emissions generated by the dismantling of the facilities and ● infrastructure ground water
● dust Accidental Releases During pipeline and terminal operations, human receptors may be exposed to chemicals of potential concern through accidental releases. Based on
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=126 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:54:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
standard risk assessment practices, a screening of potential chemicals, receptors, and pathways will be conducted to identify pathways of concern for quantitative assessment, focusing on the inhalation and ingestion pathways.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=126 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:54:55 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Human Health Risk Home » Subject Areas » Human Health Risk » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Enbridge Gateway Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce Base Case Assessment the extent and duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects
Stand-alone Case on human health risks are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management Assessment practices to be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan. Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
General Measures
● monitoring both effects and compliance; compliance monitoring will ensure compliance with regulatory requirements associated with permits and licenses for the Project
● control dust by applying water or other surface tacifiers and by limiting traffic speed on the right-of- way and service roads
● use low-sulphur fuel where practical
● regularly maintain and clean vehicles and equipment
● where practical, control sediment disturbance in watercourses by minimizing streambed disturbance during pipeline installation through trenchless and isolated stream crossing techniques
● equip terminal with below-grade collection sumps and secondary containment systems, which will locally contain or easily recover product from accidental releases; secondary containment and collection systems eliminate direct seepage, or chemical release to the surrounding soil
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=12710/23/2006 11:55:05 AM Receptor Assessment Locations
1. Roy Wilcox Elementary School 2. Mount Elizabeth Secondary School 3. One Step Ahead Enriched Learning Day Care Centre Society 4. Nechako Elementary School 5. Kitimat General Hospital 6. Kitimat City High School 7. Kildala Elementary School 8. Kitimat Kiwanis Senior Citizens Housing Society 9. Haisla Village School 10. Haisla Support and Recovery Center 11. Kitimat and Area Health Council 12. Kitamaat Village 13. Kitamaat Village Council 14. Stepping Stones Preschool and Out of School Care Centre 15. Town of Kitimat
Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Hydrogeology
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrogeology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrogeology Study Area
Key Issues Hydrogeology
Measurable Parameters Hydrogeology is the interrelationship between geologic materials and water sources. Water moves Base Case Assessment between groundwater and surface water systems through recharge and discharge. For example,
Stand-alone Case groundwater can discharge from springs into wetland areas, or into streams and rivers to contribute to Assessment surface water flow. Changes in the physical environment as a result of the Project might affect surface and groundwater quality and quantity. Mitigation Measures
Other Modules with Related Information
● Freshwater Fish and
Fish Habitat
● Hydrology
● Soils
● Terrain
● Water Quality
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=12910/23/2006 11:50:56 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrogeology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrogeology » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The Enbridge Gateway Project route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Stand-alone Case Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical Assessment area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations,
Mitigation Measures marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Hydrogeology Spatial Boundaries The hydrogeology zone of influence is equivalent to the 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline).
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=13510/23/2006 11:55:12 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrogeology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrogeology » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key issues related to hydrogeology are: Base Case Assessment ● the potential to alter groundwater flows and flow patterns (together described as groundwater Stand-alone Case quantity) Assessment ● the potential to reduce groundwater quality and its effects on water users and the environment Mitigation Measures Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=13410/23/2006 11:55:18 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrogeology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrogeology » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project. Assessment For hydrogeology these are: Mitigation Measures 1. groundwater quantity 2. groundwater quality
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
There are no key indicator resources for hydrogeology.
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from the base case assessment to assess the significance of Project effects.
For groundwater quantity these are:
1. groundwater levels 2. flow rates For groundwater quality this is:
1. water quality[1]
[1] Comparison of Project effects based on Canadian Drinking Water Standards.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=13010/23/2006 11:55:24 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrogeology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrogeology » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Literature Review Base Case Assessment ● Field Program Stand-alone Case ● Work Still To Be Done Assessment
Mitigation Measures Literature Review Existing information was reviewed to establish a hydrogeology framework, Hydrologic Zones in identify potential sensitive sites and Project effects, and identify gaps to the Project Study Area address in the field program. Material covered regional information within 15 kilometres of the pipeline route and detailed information within 500 The pipeline crosses four distinct physiographic metres. The following information was sought: regions, characterised by different geology, climate, and topographic ❍ bedrock and surficial geology maps conditions that influence groundwater flow within ❍ regional and local hydrogeology studies each region.
❍ water well information ● Eastern Alberta Plains
❍ groundwater chemistry ● Soutthen Alberta
Sources included: Uplands/Alberta Plateau
● Rocky Mountains ● British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (now
● Interior Plateau/Coastal Ministry of Environment) for aquifer mapping within the study area Mountains (limited information)
● provincial government databases, for well water information and
ground water data
● provincial monitoring well networks data from provincial government databases for groundwater
data
● aerial photographs
● published literature
● government publications (primarily the Geological Survey of Canada)
● Alberta Geological Survey
● British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
● unpublished reports submitted to regulatory agencies applicable to the area
Field Program Within the study area the field program identified by physiographic region: http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=131 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:55:31 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
❍ shallow groundwater aquifers
❍ shallow groundwater flow systems
❍ groundwater quality locations of shallow groundwater users
❍ springs and seeps
❍ the natural setting
Large parts of British Columbia lack groundwater information so only through extrapolation was baseline data derived.
There is limited ground water flow in the Coastal Mountains because of the impermeablele nature of rock.
No site-specific information is currently available for groundwater resources in the vicinity of the other permanent Project facilities, as final site locations and configurations have not been finalized. Similarly, site-specific details are not available regarding waste management practices during operations.
The information from the field survey was provided to other disciplines regarding groundwater features of interest to their studies, specifically:
❍ Vegetation: location of springs of unusual chemistry, for rare plant studies
❍ Wildlife: locations of springs and seeps that may serve as mineral licks
❍ Engineering: locations of identified groundwater discharge features
Work Still To Be Done Additional work is required to update the base case assessment to identify the effects of:
❍ groundwater use for construction camps and construction purposes
❍ disposal of waste or wastewater
❍ updates where substantial changes have occurred to the location or nature of Project activities,
e.g., the line has been moved to location that intersects a fen or shallow aquifer not previously
considered
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=131 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:55:31 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrogeology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrogeology » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Assessment ● Groundwater Levels Mitigation Measures ● Groundwater Flow
● Groundwater Quality
Most community groundwater users are located in Alberta ; only a few communities in British Columbia (Kitimat, Bear Lake , Burns Lake , and Fort St. James) use groundwater. No shallow groundwater use was identified in the Rocky Mountains region or in the Coastal Mountains region.
Blasting will be required in areas where surface or near-surface rock is encountered during site grading and excavation. Blasting will primarily be needed in the Coastal Mountains and Rocky Mountains regions, but could also be needed over localized areas in the remaining regions.
Within the Interior Plateau, only Burns Lake has bedrock wells in close proximity to the right-of-way. Should blasting be needed there, there could be a potential for bedrock to be fractured permanently, affecting groundwater flow patterns; likewise, in the Southern Alberta Uplands, Alberta Plateau, and Eastern Alberta Plains regions. Areas of potential concern include Burns Lake in British Columbia and much of the Southern Alberta Uplands/Alberta Plateau region and Eastern Alberta Plains region. Mitigation measures will be implemented to eliminate or minimize this risk.
Shallow groundwater well locations, identified from available provincial databases, will be recorded on environmental alignment sheets. Where blasting will occur within 500 metres of groundwater wells, additional information will be collected from the nearby well(s) including:
● depth and distance of the finished well relative to blasting activities
● aquifer used by the well
● hydraulic connection, if any, to the blasting area
● results of a pump test to verify the baseline well yield
● results of a water sample analysis for major ion chemistry
Groundwater Levels
● Construction
● Operations
● Decommissioning
Groundwater withdrawals affect the amount of groundwater in aquifers and have the potential to affect other nearby groundwater users.
For any Project groundwater withdrawals, a qualified hydrogeologist will prepare a groundwater assessment, based on Alberta Groundwater Evaluation Guidelines. These groundwater assessments require the evaluation of potential effects to local groundwater users or potential surface water
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=132 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 11:55:39 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
interactions.
Construction Where trench de-watering is needed to remove in-flowing groundwater, there will be a review of any shallow groundwater use within 500 meters to determine the potential effects to a nearby well or dugout and be noted on the environmental alignment sheets.
Groundwater use for construction camps and construction purposes has the potential to result in a direct reduction of groundwater quantity.
Effects from groundwater withdrawals will begin to recover as soon as withdrawals cease, with extent of effects varying depending on the aquifer and withdrawal rate. However, effects will be localized and water levels might recover between construction seasons depending on the characteristics of the aquifer in use.
Operations Of the eight pump stations, only two use groundwater near the right-of-way, located in the Southern Alberta Uplands/Alberta Plateau region. The shallow groundwater sources that will supply the pump stations could interact with surface water, but since the site of marine terminal and pump station locations are yet to be finalised, water requirements and water sources for these permanent facilities have not been identified. Groundwater use will be assumed to be relatively continuous for these facilities.
Decommissioning Some residual contaminants could be left at facility sites after restoration that could enter shallow groundwater depending on the proximity of shallow groundwater resources to the facility sites.
Effects from groundwater withdrawals will begin to recover as soon as withdrawals cease during decommissioning. The extent of effects will vary depending on the aquifer and withdrawal rate; however, effects might extend beyond the local region.
Groundwater Flow
● Construction
● Operations
● Decommissioning
Construction Hydraulic head and hydraulic conductivity of aquifers determines the direction and rate of groundwater flow.
Ditching, blasting, and temporary de-watering during construction has the potential to alter groundwater flow patterns or volume, potentially affecting nearby near-surface groundwater features such as wetlands, springs, dugouts, or wells.
Clearing, road and facility construction, and borrow sites also have the potential to affect groundwater by changing surface-water runoff patterns and thus altering the areas of recharge.
Potential Project effects to groundwater flow patterns will be most noticeable where the excavated ditch encounters shallow groundwater flows (i.e., less than 3 metres) moving across the right-of-way. The excavated ditch can potentially intercept such flows and divert it away from downslope discharge areas (e.g., wetlands) or groundwater user facilities such as dugouts. Such diversions could potentially continue after backfilling if the density and porosity of the backfill is sufficiently different from native subsoil materials. Mitigation measures will minimize the potential Project effects.
Where shallow groundwater intercepts the ditch, to facilitate pipe installation, ditch de-watering of amounts less than 5000 cubic metres may be required after ditch excavation but prior to backfilling. These de-watering activities may also temporarily disrupt the local groundwater flow patterns
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=132 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 11:55:39 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
groundwater, although they would not persist after backfilling.
Blasting will occur mainly in the Coastal Mountains region and, to a lesser degree, in the Interior Plateau/ Rocky Mountains region, with the possibility of localized requirements in the remaining regions. No shallow groundwater use was identified in the Interior Plateau/Rocky Mountains region and the only area of groundwater use in the Coastal Mountains region is near Kitimat, where blasting is not expected to be needed.
Operations If needed, temporary de-watering of localized excavations to facilitate inspections or repairs to the line during operations – a sporadic activity of short duration – would have negligible effects on groundwater flow patterns.
Decommissioning Decommissioning will involve the abandonment of the pipeline in place. At facility sites, all aboveground infrastructure and subsurface foundations will be removed and the sites re-contoured and revegetated to blend with surrounding terrain.
Decommissioning activities would could result in some land disturbance, but much reduced from that experienced during construction (i.e., no blasting, no installation of groundwater drainage structures, minimal de-watering), with negligible effects on groundwater flow patterns.
Groundwater Quality
Construction Land disturbance activities have the potential to affect groundwater quality from blasting activities and through the creation of new exposures of rock with acidic rock drainage.
Blasting could produce a temporary increase in turbidity in groundwater quality and blasting residues left in the subsurface can leach into the groundwater system and adversely affect groundwater quality. Particular concerns could potentially arise if local residents or other operators use shallow aquifers as the local water supply source.
Some of the bedrock exposed by Project blasting has the potential for acidic rock drainage that can adversely affect groundwater quality. Leachate produced from acidic rock drainage has two potential effects:
● increasing the acidity of the receiving water
● dissolving and forming other minerals thereby changing the chemical composition of the receiving water, typically resulting in increases in concentrations of dissolved metals in the receiving water
These potential effects are of particular concern where local residents or other operators use affected groundwater resources. It could also raise concerns if adversely affected shallow groundwater resources surfaced at discharge locations and/or adversely altering surface waterbody quality.
Since acid-generating potential is typically more of a problem with high sulphide rocks such as mafic volcanics and intrusives, the potential for acidic rock drainage is considered low within the Interior Plateau/Rocky Mountains region, the Southern Alberta Uplands/Alberta Plateau, and the Eastern Alberta Plains region, where sedimentary geology predominates. Greater potential for acidic drainage occurs in the Coastal Mountains region. The Project mitigation measures will address this risk.
Disposal of waste onto or into the ground has the potential to leach substances into the ground and affect groundwater quality. Wastewater or other waste materials from construction camps and other temporary facility sites (e.g., stockpile sites), if not adequately managed, have the potential to contribute leachate into the ground and alter groundwater quality.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=132 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 11:55:39 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrogeology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrogeology » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on
Stand-alone Case hydrogeology are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices Assessment to be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan. Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
Groundwater Quantity
● appropriate watering management guidelines will be followed to avoid adverse effects from trench de-watering
● groundwater assessments will be prepared for Project groundwater withdrawals
● utilize various engineering construction techniques such as ditch breakers and sub-drains to maintain consistency and direction in groundwater flow
● monitor groundwater wells in the vicinity of Project for potential blasting effects on groundwater wells
Groundwater Quality
● develop appropriate material-handling procedures to reduce the potential for acid rock drainage
● tank or dispose construction camp grey water (e.g., water used for showering, laundry, etc.) into an approved septic system
● store solid, kitchen, and sewage wastes from construction camps and other facilities on site and transport to approved treatment or disposal sites
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=13310/23/2006 11:55:46 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Hydrology
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrology Study Area
Key Issues Hydrology
Measurable Parameters Above-ground watercourses (streams, lakes, and other natural surface water bodies) and groundwater Base Case Assessment systems are affected by hydrology, which affects water quality, which in turn affects the health and
Stand-alone Case sustainability of humans and aquatic resources.
Assessment Mitigation Measures
Other Modules with Related Information
● Freshwater Fish and
Fish Habitat
● Hydrogeology
● Marine Avifauna
● Marine Fish and Fish
Habitat
● Marine Mammals
● Soils
● Terrain
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=13710/23/2006 11:51:02 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrology » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The Enbridge Gateway Project route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Stand-alone Case Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical Assessment area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations,
Mitigation Measures marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=14310/23/2006 11:55:52 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrology » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues addressed in hydrology are: Base Case Assessment ● altered flows and reductions in annual water yield from water use Stand-alone Case ● Assessment altered channel geomorphology (channel depth and flow velocities) from changes in-stream flows, channel destabilization, sedimentation, or in-stream obstructions Mitigation Measures Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=14210/23/2006 11:56:00 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrology » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Project. Assessment For hydrology this is: Mitigation Measures 1. flow patterns
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
There are no key indicator resources for hydrology.
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For hydrology these are:
1. run-off flow rates 2. channel morphology and stability 3. stream flows
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=13810/23/2006 11:56:06 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrology » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Data Review Base Case Assessment ● Field Program Stand-alone Case The pipeline crosses numerous principle watersheds in four distinct hydrologic zones, each with different Assessment physiographic, hydrological, and surface-runoff characteristics: topography (aspect, elevation, relief, Mitigation Measures basin gradient, and drainage density), soils, vegetation, climate (precipitation and temperature), and percentage of wetland or lake areas. Hydrologic Zones in the Project Study Area Data Review A database review identified over 1200 watercourse crossings in the study area. Although the majority ● Plains (Bruderheim to of these are small channels, more than 100 have been identified as medium, large, or major approximately KP 281) watercourses.
Topographic mapping at the 1:30,000-scale was used to define disturbance areas, with the drainage ● Eastern Slopes (KP 281 areas for each channel crossing determined. The watercourse crossing database that was developed to KP 596) contains information on:
● Central Mountains (KP
❍ location 596 to KP 1006)
❍ drainage areas ● Coastal Mountains (KP
1006 to Kitimat) ❍ peak, average, and low stream flows
❍ bed and bank materials
❍ channel gradients
Channel geomorphology (size and shape) can be affected by changes in the velocity and depth of flow in a stream, and changes to sediment loading from increased surface erosion. Information gathered on channel characteristics was:
❍ channel geometry
❍ water levels
❍ velocities
❍ suspended sediment loads
Available surface water data was gathered from published sources, libraries, and government archives. Stream flow data was obtained from the Water Survey of Canada (Environment Canada), for 50 kilometres on either side of the pipeline right-of-way. This data was used to develop regional hydrologic parameters for the four hydrologic zones in the study area. Runoff coefficients for baseline and disturbed conditions were selected using standard methodology (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Peak flow, mean discharge, and low flow data from Water Survey of Canada’s stream flow monitoring stations was used to develop regional or zonal relationships to estimate pipeline and construction-period design flows, and assessing the viability of temporary water supplies, forming the baseline http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=139 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:56:14 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
characterization for each hydrologic zone.
A number of watercourse crossings representing a range of channel sizes were identified in each of the hydrologic zones for detailed site investigations.
Field Program In September and October 2005 a field program was undertaken at selected representative watercourse crossing sites to:
❍ confirm the number of crossings
❍ refine stream classifications
❍ establish baseline hydrological characterizations
❍ initially assess Project effects on the measurable parameters
❍ identify those requiring detailed assessment[1]
For field reconnaissance purposes, the crossings were given a preliminary classification based on drainage area, later refined for hydrological zone.
Data Collected
● basic cross-section survey of the channel to determine channel dimensions (width, depth and gradient) and bankfull levels
● bed and bank material
● channel shape data (cross-section and gradient)
● peak flow, mean discharge, and low flow
● suspended sediment samples
Assessment of Bed and Bank Materials Correlated bed and bank material sizes to geographic location and hydrologic zone, and assessed the effects of various construction methods on sediment generation and conveyance.
Identified Potential Scour and Erosion Issues Supplementing the freshwater fish and fish habitat research on existing conditions at watercourse crossing sites, the channel geomorphology was also assessed with particular forethought given to future changes to channel behaviour in areas likely to be disturbed during construction.
Assessment of Potential Water Management and Mitigation Measures A qualitative assessment of potential water management and construction mitigation measures including potential river engineering issues to be addressed in the preliminary engineering design.
Winter Assessment An assessment to gather winter low flow data to confirm the regional hydrology, and assess ice cover formations and freezing depths for winter construction planning.
[1] Versus streams for which “typical” parameters can be assumed for both design and effects assessment. The field investigations concentrated on the smaller watersheds for which published data is limited.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=139 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:56:14 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrology » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Assessment ● General Mitigation Measures ● Construction
● Operations
General The geomorphology effects of the Project were qualitatively assessed based on the expected changes to hydrology and sediment loading in the channels compared to the base case assessment. Expected changes in mean annual total runoff, peak, and low flows were calculated on the change in the basin- averaged runoff coefficient with Project disturbances for:
❍ peak flows
❍ the effects on the 1:100 year discharge
❍ low or drought flows
❍ effects for a seven day duration
❍ 1:10 year return period drought flow
Project-related activities that could result in effects to surface water resources include:
❍ vegetation clearing
❍ surficial land disturbance
❍ disturbances to streambed and banks
❍ water withdrawals
❍ wastewater disposal
❍ access road development
❍ flow obstructions
❍ airborne emissions
These activities have the potential to affect:
❍ annual water yield
❍ peak and drought (low) flows
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=140 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:56:22 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
❍ surficial soil erosion and sediment delivery to surface channels
❍ in-stream sediment concentrations
❍ channel geomorphology
Construction Hydrology-related Project effects in the study area could include:
❍ locally altered flows from changes to runoff characteristics in watersheds
❍ altered channel geomorphology from channel destabilization
❍ sedimentation or in-stream obstructions
Vegetation clearing and grading could affect runoff and sedimentation volume and patterns.
Road embankment construction, ditch and spoil piles, and vehicle structures at water crossings could impede overland flows, destabilize channels, and increase sediment loads.
Construction camp operations and hydrostatic testing could result in altered flows or volumes from water use since camps and hydrostatic testing will use surface waterbodies as water source. Water releases from camps could also enter surface waterbodies.
Operations The presence of the right-of-way and facilities could result in altered flows from changes to runoff characteristics in watersheds and altered channel geomorphology from sedimentation or in-stream obstructions. The less permeable surfaces on facility sites, plus active storm-water management could affect runoff.
Trapping surface flows through stormwater control and water withdrawal for on-site use could affect total runoff volumes which in turn could affect peak stream flow rates.
Permanent access roads and vehicle crossing structures at water crossings will contribute to locally higher rates of runoff and could present ongoing obstructions to overland flow.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=140 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:56:22 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Hydrology Home » Subject Areas » Hydrology » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on hydrology
Stand-alone Case are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to be followed Assessment during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● Design and Construction Measures
● Controlling Runoff
● Channel Substrate Disturbance Mitigation
● Project-Related Release Mitigation
● Watercourse Mitigation Strategies
● Restoration and Revegetation
● Effects and Compliance Monitoring
Design and Construction Measures Mitigation measures in the design and construction of temporary and permanent access roads could include:
❍ minimizing the number of crossings
❍ selecting appropriate types and sizes of vehicle crossings a site-specific basis
❍ constructing access road crossings at stable channel sections and avoiding crossings where
the channel bed and banks are unstable
❍ providing cross-drainage where roads might cross wetlands, swales, or overland drainage
paths
❍ where practical, using ice/snow fill bridges or snow fill around culverts for temporary access
road crossings during winter construction; when ice bridges are used, preventing the freezing
of the waterbody to the bed to not obstruct flows
❍ placing crossings perpendicular to the channel
❍ maintaining the maximum practical separation between watercourses and access roads except
at crossings
❍ removing temporary crossings before spring break-up unless they have been specifically
located and sized to have the capacity to convey the 1:25 year annual peak discharge
❍ locating pump stations away from watercourses; the further facilities are from watercourses and http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=141 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 11:56:30 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
the larger the watershed, the lower the impacts. Pump stations should be situated at least 200
metres from the nearest surface watercourse and, where possible, within watersheds with
drainage areas of at least 2 to 4 square kilometres.
❍ trucking-in or locally-sourcing domestic water for the construction camps, and treated to
potable water standards
Controlling Run-off Controlling run-off is most effectively mitigated by minimizing the active footprint as much as possible throughout construction, and by restoring the vegetative cover on sites not required for permanent facilities as soon as possible after construction. Beyond that, there are some specific stormwater measures that can be implemented:
❍ equip pipeline facility sites with on-site stormwater management systems
❍ at the marine terminal, capture runoff in stormwater retention ponds
❍ test water to ensure it complies with water quality standards before controlled release into the
environment
Channel Substrate Disturbance Mitigation Loading of total suspended solids in streams is most effectively mitigated through appropriate crossing design and procedures.
Isolating, removing the top layer of bottom sediment, and backfilling with non-contaminated material will help to contain contaminated bottom sediments and prevent their transport downstream.
Crossing designs based on site conditions and aquatic resource sensitivity and associated risk levels will mitigate impacts on downstream areas from in-stream activities.
Project Related Release Mitigation Wastewater from construction camps will be collected and trucked for disposal.
All hydrostatic test water will be sampled and sent to a laboratory for testing, and discharged into the same drainage basin, unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities. Alternatively, hydrostatic test water may be trucked to a wastewater treatment facility for disposal.
Watercourse Mitigation To reduce the potential for recurrent disturbances to or degrade the stability of watercourse crossings:
❍ design temporary and permanent access road crossings to the appropriate design discharge
without adversely affecting the hydrology or hydraulics of the channel being crossed
❍ place pipeline below the 1:100 year scour depth of the channel
❍ pipeline sagbends set back sufficiently from the top-of-bank to minimize risk of lateral channel
movement; this may require deep burial of the pipeline some distance beyond the top-of-bank
line on either or both sides of the channel, as assessed by a qualified river engineer
❍ route the pipeline and access roads to avoid areas of increased local scour such as at severe
bends or channel confluences
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=141 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 11:56:30 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
The pipeline crosses mountainous terrain as well as cross alluvial fans or steep, downcutting channels at some points. Burial design across alluvial fans will be cognisant of the potential for sudden channel avulsions and debris flows, possibly requiring additional depth of cover over an extended pipeline reach. At crossings of degrading channels, the potential for future downcutting will be taken into account in assessing pipe cover requirements.
Restoration and Revegetation The right-of-way areas and temporary roads developed for construction will be re-contoured and re- vegetated to reduce runoff coefficients. It is expected that a full vegetative cover will be restored along the pipeline right-of-way and temporary workspaces over time, partially mitigating the effects of construction clearing and stripping although potential residual effects on surface flows may occur.
Effects and Compliance Monitoring Compliance monitoring will ensure compliance with regulatory requirements associated with permits and licenses for the Project
Effects monitoring will continue for the lifetime of the Project. Scheduled inspections of the right-of-way, and specifically the watercourse crossings, will monitor ongoing sediment control measures and long- term channel stability.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=141 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 11:56:30 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Marine Avifauna
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Avifauna Home » Subject Areas » Marine Avifauna Study Area
Key Issues Marine Avifauna
Measurable Parameters Avifauna (marine birds) are studied because of their social, cultural, and aesthetic value to society, their Base Case Assessment contribution to local and global biodiversity, and their role in the marine food chain.
Stand-alone Case British Columbia supports large populations of breeding, migrant, and wintering marine birds. In addition Assessment to their variety and abundance, avifauna is an important component of the ecosystems in which they are Mitigation Measures found.
Avifauna requires different habitats during breeding, non-breeding, and staging periods, each of which can Other Modules with Related Information be susceptible to human disturbances.
● Accidental Releases
● Marine Fish and Fish
Habitat
● Marine Mammals
● Water Quality
● Wildlife
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=15610/23/2006 11:51:10 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Avifauna Home » Subject Areas » Marine Avifauna » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the Stand-alone Case terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for Assessment the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and
Mitigation Measures ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project may have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Confined Channel Assessment Area The Confined Channel Assessment Area is the area where measurable effects from shipping on the marine environment are most likely to occur. This area includes condensate and oil carrier shipping routes,and where navigation to and from the marine terminal will be escorted by tugs. This area includes the confined waters between the north entrance to Principe Channel (north approach) through Kitimat Arm to the Terminal, and between the entrance to Caamaño Sound (south approach) and the Terminal.
Marine Avifauna Spatial Boundaries In the marine assessment, the Project Effects Assessment Area varies by measurable parameter, depending on the biology of the key indicator resource and the zone of influence. The zone of influence for accidental releases could extend beyond the Project Effects Assessment Area.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=16210/23/2006 11:56:37 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Avifauna Home » Subject Areas » Marine Avifauna » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key potential Project issues addressed in the marine avifauna environment are: Base Case Assessment ● the potential to alter habitats Stand-alone Case ● Assessment the potential to impact water quality (i.e., increased sediment suspension and low sediment quality; hydrocarbon introduction) Mitigation Measures ● sensory disturbances from increased noise levels and activities at the marine terminal
● physical injury
Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=16110/23/2006 11:56:44 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Avifauna Home » Subject Areas » Marine Avifauna » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project. Assessment Marine avifauna is in itself a valued ecosystem component. Mitigation Measures Key Indicator Resources Marine Species of Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects Concern and selected for assessment purposes.
For marine avifauna these are: ● Species of Concern 1. Marbled Murrelet (PDF - 35KB) 2. Common Goldeneye
3. Surf Scoter 4. Bald Eagle
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For marine avifauna these are:
1. habitat loss 2. habitat fragmentation 3. mortality risks
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=15710/23/2006 11:56:50 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Avifauna Home » Subject Areas » Marine Avifauna » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters The coastal region of British Columbia supports large populations of marine birds that are an integral Base Case Assessment part of the coastal marine ecosystem. Seabirds make extensive use of coastal wetlands as well as
Stand-alone Case nearshore and offshore habitats including islands, islets, and cliffs for breeding, migration, and wintering.
Assessment The coast is also an important corridor for millions of migrating birds, especially shorebirds and Mitigation Measures waterfowl. The coastline near the entrance to Douglas Channel, with its many small estuaries, islands, and bays, are important for spring and fall migrants.
A number of birds are permanent residents in the Kitimat area; however, the majority of birds congregate in the area at certain times of the year such as during the wintering period or while migrating.
Species of Concern All species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the Federal Species-at-Risk Act, and the Province of British Columbia were cross-referenced with known species distributions to ascertain potential Project effects related to encounters with avifauna and their critical habitat in the study area. The only marine avifauna species of concern is marbled murrelet.
Field Surveys Baseline wildlife field surveys for key species were conducted in the study area. These surveys focused on identifying potential environmental effects on wintering, migratory, foraging, and breeding areas within the marine environment.
Information on the number and location of marine birds during the non-breeding period, i.e., wintering and migratory staging, was collected from:
❍ nautical charts
❍ a series of six seasonally-based aerial surveys, conducted throughout the fall, winter, and
spring
Information on marbled murrelet foraging behaviour during breeding were collected from:
❍ nautical charts
❍ a series of vessel surveys in Douglas Channel, conducted on three separate occasions
❍ data collection site visits, timed as close to tide changes as possible
A series of surveys were conducted, with the objectives of:
❍ determining where marbled murrelet forage during the breeding period within the study area
❍ determining the number and location of marine birds within the study area during the non-
breeding period (i.e., wintering and migratory staging)
Surveys were based on the following Resource Information Standards Committee methods(British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands): http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=158 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:56:57 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
❍ Inventory Methods for Marbled Murrelets in Marine and Terrestrial Habitats
❍ Inventory Methods for Waterfowl and Allied Species
❍ Inventory Methods for Seabirds
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=158 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:56:57 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Avifauna Home » Subject Areas » Marine Avifauna » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing.
Assessment The measurable parameters will be assessed for the following potential effects from Project construction Mitigation Measures and operational activities:
● acoustic and/or sensory disturbances
● habitat alteration
● physical injury
Construction
● tree clearing, which could potentially cause:
❍ physical injury
❍ foraging efficiency impacts
❍ change in prey availability
❍ nesting habitat impacts
● installation of power lines, which could increase the potential for electrocution
● under water or near-shore blasting, which could cause physical injury
● accidental hydrocarbon releases, which could cause toxicological effects
● habitat alteration, which could:
❍ increase prey availability
❍ effect avifauna health
● increased sedimentation from dredging and other activities, which could affect adjacent bird habitat
Operations
● accidental hydrocarbon releases, which could potentially cause toxicological effects
● night lighting on vessels or at the marine terminal, which could lead to physical injury
● altered prey availability in the near-shore area
● presence of additional power lines, which could increase the risk of electrocution
● fresh-water discharge near the marine terminal, which could affect water temperature and salinity
● increased wave action, which could affect invertebrate distribution in the near-shore area
● accidental introduction of oil and other hydrocarbons, which could alter habitat
Mitigation measures identified for the Project will minimize the risks and potential impacts to marine avifauna.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=159 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:57:06 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Avifauna Home » Subject Areas » Marine Avifauna » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on marine
Stand-alone Case avifauna are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to be Assessment followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall adaptive measure is mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● Goldeneye and Surf Scoter
● Marbled Murrelet
● Bald Eagle
Goldeneye and Surf Scoter
● establish reasonable buffer zones around sensitive habitat, with construction vessels instructed to avoid these areas
● impose speed restrictions in localized areas to protect sensitive habitat and large bird populations
● use noise-generating devices to scare away nearby birds before blasting; over the course of a few minutes, incrementally increase the intensity of the warning tones
● alert vessels to the hazards of bird strikes from deck lighting, particularly on nights when visibility is poor
● instruct workers at the marine berths to report any collisions of birds with structures
● release processed freshwater at a substantial distance away from the marine terminal, timed with outgoing tides to limit the effect on water temperature and salinity at the marine berths
Marbled Murrelet
● minimize tree removal as much as possible
● avoid operating in old-growth forests wherever possible
● flag potential nesting habitats prior to the start of construction and avoid encroachment into forested areas outside the Project Development Area as much as possible; forested lands outside the Project Development Area area will be designated as no-clearing areas and clearly shown on Project construction plans
● establish a one and a half tree length buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation around known nest sites in or near the Project Development Area, to protect the nest from sensory disturbance from loud (i. e., greater than 80 decibels) and disruptive activities where possible; the buffer will remain in place until a professional biologist confirms that the young have fledged or are otherwise no longer present.
● if work is suspended during rough weather or foggy conditions, turn off non-essential lighting to reduce the potential of attracting birds
● minimize tank height as much as possible to reduce the risk of collisions
Bald Eagle
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=160 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:57:13 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
● establish a one-and-a-half tree length no-clearing buffer zone around any active bald eagle nest in or near the Project Development Area where possible; establish a larger area free of human disturbance during the nesting season whenever possible. In the Skeena region, bald eagle eggs might be present from about February 5 to June 25, with young at the nest from about April 1 to August 31.
● avoid clearing during the summer months to avoid nesting and rearing periods, with the preferred clearing time between September and January
● adjust infrastructure design to accommodate the nest of any bird directly protected under the British Columbia Wildlife Act, whether an active nest or not; if redesign is not feasible or if an adequate buffer area cannot be maintained, a provincial biologist will be consulted and an alternative nest management plan will be developed to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies
● cover energized surfaces with protective devices manufactured for wires, conductors, power line insulators, and power line bushings
● install perch deterrents such as triangles, single dowels, multiple points, and anti-perching irons; triangles are very effective for large- to medium-sized raptors, but placement is important because raptors have been known to use triangles as perching devices.
● provide safe, alternative perch sites away from energized conductors for perching birds, particularly raptors
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=160 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:57:13 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Marine Fish and Fish Habitat
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Habitat
Study Area Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Key Issues Marine fish depend on the marine environment for all or part of their life cycle, which includes the physical, Measurable Parameters biological, and chemical aspects of the habitat required to suppor them. Base Case Assessment Within the study area, the marine fish and aquatic resources studied in this assessment include: Stand-alone Case Assessment ❍ species present in the area (including commercially and culturally important marine fish and Mitigation Measures aquatic species) Other Modules with ❍ endangered species or habitats Related Information
❍ commercial fishing grounds
● Accidental Releases ❍ Aboriginal harvesting areas and grounds
● Marine Avifauna ❍ species that have commercial, cultural, or recreational value ● Marine Mammals
Marine fisheries and aquatic resources of note include:
❍ invertebrate fisheries - prawn, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and Dungeness crab
❍ other commercial or recreational fisheries - halibut, salmonids (all five species of Pacific salmon
are present in the area), other forage fishes (e.g., Embiotocidae, Osmeridae), and bivalves
❍ native fisheries – eulachon and intertidal bivalves
❍ odontocetes, mysticetes, and pinnipeds related to tourism operations
❍ marine fish and resources at-risk as per IUC Guidelines and the Species-at-Risk Act (Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=163 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:51:16 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Marine Fish and Fish Habitat » Study Area Habitat
Study Area Study Area Key Issues Project Development Area Measurable Parameters The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the Base Case Assessment terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for Stand-alone Case the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and Assessment ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as Mitigation Measures described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project may have measurable effects).
Confined Channel Assessment Area The Confined Channel Assessment Area is the area where measurable effects from shipping on the marine environment are most likely to occur. This area includes condensate and oil carrier shipping routes,and where navigation to and from the marine terminal will be escorted by tugs. This area includes the confined waters between the north entrance to Principe Channel (north approach) through Kitimat Arm to the Terminal, and between the entrance to Caamaño Sound (south approach) and the Terminal.
Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Spatial Boundaries In the marine assessment, the Project Effects Assessment Area varies by measurable parameter, depending on the biology of the key indicator resource and the zone of influence. The zone of influence for accidental releases could extend beyond the Project Effects Assessment Area.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=16910/23/2006 11:57:19 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Marine Fish and Fish Habitat » Key Issues Habitat
Study Area Key Issues Key Issues The key Project issues addressed in the marine fish and fish habitat environment are the potential for: Measurable Parameters
Base Case Assessment ● impact to water quality due to disturbed sediment, which may include increased suspended
Stand-alone Case sediments and/or re-suspension of contaminants
Assessment ● increased risk of fish and other resident species mortality
Mitigation Measures ● altered habitats
● excessive sound disturbances
● restricted access to fishing grounds, damage to fishing gear (for commercial and subsistence fisheries)
Previous reports related to North Coast development consistently identify marine fishery resources as a primary concern and of cultural value.
Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=16810/23/2006 11:57:25 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Marine Fish and Fish Habitat » Measurable Parameters Habitat
Study Area Measurable Parameters Key Issues Valued Ecosystem Component Measurable Parameters Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Base Case Assessment measurably affected by the Project. Stand-alone Case Marine fish and fish habitat is in itself a valued ecosystem component. Assessment
Mitigation Measures Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects Marine Species of and selected for assessment purposes. Concern For marine fish and fish habitat these are:
● Species of Concern 1. Sediment and water quality
(PDF - 35KB) 2. Eelgrass 3. Rockweed 4. Riparian habitat 5. Sea Cucumber 6. Mussels 7. Dungeness Crab 8. Eulachon 9. Pacific Herring 10. Rockfish 11. Chum Salmon 12. Species At Risk Act species 13. Commercial and subsistence fisheries
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For marine fish and fish habitat these are:
1. habitat loss 2. avoidance of habitats 3. mortality risks
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=16410/23/2006 11:57:34 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Marine Fish and Fish Habitat » Base Case Assessment Habitat
Study Area Base Case Assessment Key Issues
● Measurable Parameters Objectives
● Base Case Assessment Species of Concern
● Stand-alone Case Background Data Collection
Assessment ● Baseline Mapping
Mitigation Measures ● Sampling
● Sedimentation Analysis Marine Species of Concern ● Noise Analysis
● Seismic Activity
● Species of Concern Objectives (PDF - 35KB) Our assessment objectives for marine fish and fish habitat within the study area were to:
❍ identify and describe commercially-important marine fish and aquatic species
❍ identify and describe culturally-important marine fish and aquatic species
❍ identify and describe commercial fishing grounds
❍ identify and describe Aboriginal harvesting (commercial or subsistence) areas and grounds
❍ identify the effects of tanker shipping on marine fish and aquatic resources
Species of Concern Marine fisheries and aquatic resources of concern include:
❍ boccacio (species of special conservation status, listed by Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the Federal Species-at-Risk Act, and the Province
of British Columbia
❍ invertebrate fisheries - prawn, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and Dungeness crab
❍ other commercial or recreational fisheries - halibut, salmonids (all five species of Pacific salmon
are present in the area) and other forage fishes (e.g., Embiotocidae, Osmeridae), and bivalves
❍ native fisheries – eulachon and intertidal bivalves
❍ odontocetes, mysticetes, and pinnipeds (as they relate to tourism operations)
Background Data Collection We collected existing information on marine fisheries through:
❍ library database searches to identify existing technical reports summarizing marine fish and
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=165 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 11:57:40 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
aquatic resource research and assessments completed in Kitimat Arm, Douglas Channel, and
similar projects in other jurisdictions
❍ communication with the regulatory agencies, Haisla, and other involved First Nations,
commercial fishers, fishery-related unions, and local businesses
Baseline Mapping To aid in identifying existing marine resource data gaps in the study area, we created a geographic- information-system (GIS) map layer for marine fish and fish habitat based on the compilation of marine fish and fish habitat information.
Sampling Using a 14-metre beach seine, we sampled fish within the intertidal and shallow subtidal areas, with hauls conducted during high and low tide for each habitat type near the marine port. Beach seining occurred in the spring, summer, and fall of 2006 to ensure accurate representation in the samples of juvenile and adult marine fish using the port area. The fish, held in ambient seawater while in captivity, were identified and then released. For each habitat type in the near-shore area, the number of seine hauls was stratified according to the percentage of habitat type present.
There were two SCUBA surveys of the shallow subtidal benthic habitat near the proposed marine terminal site. A large section of the coastline was also surveyed using underwater towed-sled technology, to gather information on key species assemblages, predominant subtidal habitat, and potential areas of high species diversity and abundance. Transect surveys were also used to determine species presence and relative abundance of fish and invertebrates, conducted in summers of 2005 and 2006.
Fish within deeper subtidal habitats were sampled using multi-panel gillnets, set near the surface, at mid water, and near bottom depths at various locations near the marine port. To increase the safe release of live specimens, gillnets were checked frequently. While being held in ambient seawater, the fish were identified and measured for standard length, then released near the collection point.
A purse seine collected swimming species samples, and a baited long-line set for deep-living species.
Dungeness crabs were sampled using baited standard wire box traps at ten locations near the marine terminal, conducted in the spring, summer, and fall of 2006. After being sexed and measured, the crabs were released alive.
Baited shrimp pots were set near the proposed jetty site, with captured shrimp identified and enumerated by species.
Sedimentation Analysis The life stage of a species can affect its sensitivity to increased sedimentation and observation suggests that eggs and larvae are more sensitive to inorganic suspensions than are adults of the same species.
Reports on a variety of fish indicate sub-lethal effects of sediments suspended in water at concentrations of approximately 650 milligrams per litre or greater. A number of species respond behaviourally to increased sediments in the water column, such as reduced feeding and alteration of swimming patterns. However, not all fish avoid highly turbid waters; studies have found:
❍ no gross physical effects from shallow water overboard spoil disposal on 44 species of fish
sampled in a Chesapeake Bay study
❍ no changes in catch rates attributable to disposal activities in the Chesapeake Bay study
❍ no mortality of fish or motile shellfish at a dredging site in a Mobile Bay, Alabama study
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=165 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 11:57:40 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
❍ no net migration away from the site was detected in the Mobile Bay, Alabama study
Hydrocarbon contaminants in the sediments of Kitimat Arm have accumulated from atmospheric deposition and strongly adsorbed to particles. As a result, most are not bio-available. However, some of the lower-weight contaminants in sediment can be bio-available in crab, likely because of ingestion of sediment during feeding.
Noise Analysis
● Noise Effects on Marine Fish
● Noise Effects on Fish Eggs and Larvae
Noise Effects on Marine Fish
Hearing Ability
All fish species have the ability to hear, which they use to locate prey, detect and avoid predators, and to communicate. The effects of elevated noise within the marine environment on fish is unclear, although evidence suggests that some types of sound can result in behavioural and physiological effects in fish. Estimates vary on hearing ability among fish species but the range of hearing for most fish is generally below 1000 hertz although some fish can hear sound up to 3000 hertz. For instance, the hearing ability of salmonids and flatfish are limited in bandwidth and intensity in comparison with teleosts (e.g., herring, cod, perch).
Primarily fish are hearing generalists or hearing specialists. Hearing generalists use their ears, possibly assisted with energy re-radiated from their swim bladder. Although hearing generalists such as salmon are functionally deaf above 380 hertz, they are likely to be sensitive to the particle motion component of the sound field.
Hearing specialists have acoustically coupled ears and swim bladders or other gas-filled structures, allowing them to detect the pressure component of the sound field. This coupling increases hearing sensitivity – discern quieter sounds, hear a greater range of sounds, finer directional hearing – compared to generalists.
Noise Effects on Fish
The effect of elevated noise within the marine environment on fish is unclear. Evidence suggests that some types of sound can result in behavioural and physiological changes although the potential effects of human-generated noise within the marine environment is dependent upon a number of factors including ambient noise levels and the hearing ability of the receptor species.
Noise can reduce hearing ability or induce temporary hearing loss and thus impair the detection of predators and prey, reception of acoustic communication, and inhibit orientation. Sounds at 10-hertz frequencies can cause avoidance responses in juvenile spring Chinook, whereas higher frequencies in the optimal hearing range for salmonids, e.g., 150 hertz, did not cause behaviour changes, even at high intensity.
Noise can also elicit a physiological stress response shown to effect changes in pulse rate and growth and development as well as alterations of basic physiological processes such as increases in cortisol or changes in thyroid function; changes in cortisol and other biochemical parameters in Atlantic salmon and European sea bass were reported after air-gun detonation or underwater explosions.
Fish are often able to escape from areas where noise is present but if deterred from important areas such as feeding or spawning grounds, the effects are potentially harmful. In some cases, sound can damage ears and rupture swim bladders resulting in immediate mortality.
Physiological and environmental cues for homing behaviour in some species of fish, such as the rockfish are unknown; however, it is clear that most species are able to return to their home ranges after http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=165 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 11:57:40 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
disturbance.
Detonation of explosives in or near water produces post-detonation compressive shock waves (changes in pressure levels), characterized by a rapid rise to a high peak pressure followed by a rapid decay to below ambient hydrostatic pressure. However, shock waves produced by underwater blasting do not travel far.
Noise Effects on Fish Eggs and Larvae Few studies have provided information on the effects of noise exposure on fish eggs and larvae, although some studies suggest that, in some cases, noise affects the viability and growth of fish eggs. Studies that have examined the effects of sound on cultured fish indicate that high levels of ambient sound can be detrimental to eggs and decrease larval growth rates. Observations through field studies concluded that effects appear to be minimal with no mortality. Most marine fish hatch with an undeveloped ear, and auditory structures become fully functional some time later. As fish larvae are at substantial risk of predation while in the pelagic environment, increases in the rate of auditory development may be a selective advantage if sound is an important cue.
Reports suggest some retinal tissue damage in cod larvae exposed at 1 metre from an airgun source. However, any observed larval mortality generally occurred after exposures within 0.5 metres to 0.3 metres of the airgun source.
Current Ambient Noise Noise from biological sources as well as from human activity is present in the area. The study area is currently subject to a number of human-generated in-air and sub-marine acoustic sources including fishing, commercial, and recreational vessels; commercial traffic through the Port of Kitimat includes deep-sea ships and towed barges. Timber harvesting activities, commercial and recreational fishing activities, recreational use of the area, and over-flights by fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft also generate in-air acoustic emissions.
A field study (September 2005) of ambient noise at several locations from Emsley Cove, (south of Kitimat) to Caamano Sound recorded a wide array of biological noises including marine mammal calls and unidentified non-mammalian noises.
Seismic Activity Modelling suggests that mortality rates of fish eggs and larvae caused by exposure to seismic energy are so low compared to natural mortality that the effects of seismic activity is regarded as insignificant.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=165 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 11:57:40 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Marine Fish and Fish Habitat
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Habitat
Study Area Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Key Issues Marine fish depend on the marine environment for all or part of their life cycle, which includes the physical, Measurable Parameters biological, and chemical aspects of the habitat required to suppor them. Base Case Assessment Within the study area, the marine fish and aquatic resources studied in this assessment include: Stand-alone Case Assessment ❍ species present in the area (including commercially and culturally important marine fish and Mitigation Measures aquatic species) Other Modules with ❍ endangered species or habitats Related Information
❍ commercial fishing grounds
● Accidental Releases ❍ Aboriginal harvesting areas and grounds
● Marine Avifauna ❍ species that have commercial, cultural, or recreational value ● Marine Mammals
Marine fisheries and aquatic resources of note include:
❍ invertebrate fisheries - prawn, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and Dungeness crab
❍ other commercial or recreational fisheries - halibut, salmonids (all five species of Pacific salmon
are present in the area), other forage fishes (e.g., Embiotocidae, Osmeridae), and bivalves
❍ native fisheries – eulachon and intertidal bivalves
❍ odontocetes, mysticetes, and pinnipeds related to tourism operations
❍ marine fish and resources at-risk as per IUC Guidelines and the Species-at-Risk Act (Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=163 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:51:16 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Marine Fish and Fish Habitat
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=163 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:51:16 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Marine Fish and Fish Habitat » Stand-alone Case Assessment Habitat
Study Area Stand-alone Case Assessment Key Issues There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Measurable Parameters work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects Base Case Assessment assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Stand-alone Case ● Assessment Marine Fish
● Mitigation Measures Marine Invertebrates
● Marine Fish Habitat
● Commercial and Subsistence Fishery
Marine Fish
● Water Quality
● Acoustic and Sensory Disturbance
● Operations
Water Quality
Sedimentation and Suspended Solids
Blasting and dredging to place the marine port and site runoff from site preparation and construction of the land facilities will likely increase total suspended solids. However, the ability to cope with increased levels of suspended solids within the marine environment varies considerably between species.
Increased suspended sediments in the area during migration might potentially cause damage if fish are in the affected area for extended periods. Increased suspended solids may:
❍ be ingested by fish
❍ temporarily reduce feeding rates of adult and juvenile fish due to increased turbidity and
reduced abundance of plankton food sources
❍ reduce feeding rates in adult and larval fish
❍ mechanically damage gills
❍ smother eggs
❍ diminish adhesion of the eggs to river substrate
❍ affect local population dynamics by deterring or altering natural migration, homing behaviour,
and/or spawning behaviour
The mitigation measures for the Project address this risk.
Contaminants
Blasting and dredging for the marine facilities may potentially release human-generated contaminants
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=166 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 11:57:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
such as metals or hydrocarbons resident in the sediment from prior industrial and municipal activity in Kitimat Arm. Contaminants associated with previous activities may include metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and chlorinated phenols. Even though most contaminants present in sediment are bound to organic compounds and not soluble in seawater, the risk of bioaccumulation is present.
Acoustic and Sensory Disturbance
Blasting
Construction activities have the potential to increase acoustic levels within the study area from a number of sources including vessel engine noise, blasting, piling, drilling, and dredging.
Blasting, if required, will produce short-term, high intensity acoustic changes in the environment with the potential to cause physical damage to fish species. Hearing specialists may be more susceptible to the effects of blasting than hearing generalists.
Boccacio and rockfish are susceptible to acoustic damage and sedimentation from blasting; however, they are likely to return upon termination of the noise.
Dredging and Drilling
Underwater noise propagation from dredging, drilling, and associated construction equipment depends on several factors including water depth, bottom substrate, and the activity performed. The greatest acoustical affects will result from cable winch operation.
Acoustic levels will be highest in the immediate area of the dredging activities. Little or no change will occur in ambient levels at the northern end around Kitimat Port or Emsley Point to Coste Point at the southern end.
Acoustic and sensory disturbances may cause behavioural effects such as fish moving away from the area. Modeling will assess the extent and level of acoustic disturbance from dredging and drilling activities within the Project Development Area.
Marine Vessels
Construction vessels (tugs and barges transporting dredged materials) produce greater acoustic emissions compared to dredging and drilling. However, underwater noise generated by tugs and barges will be similar to that of other ships and boats already operating in the area (e.g., pleasure boats, fishing vessels, tugs, and container ships).
Operations Routine operation of the marine terminal may reduce water quality (change in salinity, temperature) from routine freshwater discharge and minor increases in sedimentation associated with runoff due to changes in the shoreline structure.
The presence of additional vessels and associated noise from activity at the port facility will increase acoustic levels in the area, which can potentially alter fish migration patterns and/or habitat use.
Marine Invertebrates
● Water Quality
● Displacement and Mortality
● Operations
Water Quality
Sedimentation and Suspended Solids
Construction activities, particularly dredging, will increase suspended solids for a short duration. The http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=166 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 11:57:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
ability of benthic invertebrates to cope with increased levels of suspended sediments varies among species. This may in turn have a potential effect on the local mussel population.
Contaminants
Blasting and dredging for the port facility may potentially release human-generated contaminants such as metals or hydrocarbons resident in the sediment from prior industrial and municipal activity in Kitimat Arm. Long-term exposure to released contaminated sediments may affect marine invertebrate health, primarily through the interference with gills and respiration.
Displacement and Mortality Dredging and blasting areas may temporarily displace marine invertebrate habitat. Blasting on the shoreline may cause direct mortality of organisms or indirectly through burial, destroy adjacent inshore fish habitat, and/or cause temporary avoidance of the area by mobile marine invertebrate species. Direct interaction with dredging equipment may also cause direct mortality, or functional impairment possibly leading to eventual mortality.
Approximately 240 square metres will be disturbed during the installation of the port facility, and equipment and construction operations will affect an additional area, contributing to a loss or the functional impairment of mussels. The lost habitat will also affect sea cucumber habitat but mortality will likely be very low (less than 0.5 percent of the affected habitat area).
Operations The presence of the port facility infrastructure will reduce habitat, and could potentially contribute to a loss of mussels.
Marine Fish Habitat
● Sedimentation and Suspended Solids
● Disturbance and Displacement
● Operations
Sedimentation and Suspended Solids Blasting and dredging for the port facility and site runoff from site preparation and construction of the tank facility will likely increase sedimentation and suspended solids for a short period of time. Sediment deposits can inhibit attachment and survival.
Depending on currents and tidal influences, increased sedimentation and suspended solids could affect the growth and survival of marine aquatic vegetation by burial, reduced light, interference with photosynthesis, or prey abundance. The ability to cope with increased levels of suspended sediments varies considerably between species.
Reduced levels of light in the marine environment due to turbidity or colouration may potentially harm marine aquatic vegetation growth and survival. Increased sediment levels can affect light attenuation and ultimately the photosynthetic efficiency of macroalgae such as rockweed and alter the depth of the zone in which phytoplankton reside.
Disturbance and Displacement Approximately 240 square metres will be disturbed during the installation of the port facility, and equipment and construction operations will affect an additional area, contributing to the loss of macroalgae. However, marine construction can also result in the creation of potential habitat for macroalgae.
Blasting
Blasting on shore may cause direct mortality of organisms and potentially destroy adjacent in-shore fish habitats. http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=166 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 11:57:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Dredging and Drilling
Construction activities will alter the habitat in the Project Development Area through dredging, the creation of terraces along the underwater rock face to support components of the port infrastructure, and introduction of physical structures in the marine environment. Dredging will also result in a temporary increase in suspended sediments that may alter habitat in a localized area for a short period of time.
Marine Vessels
Increased wave action from additional vessel traffic during construction may affect marine aquatic vegetation beds; however, the effects from vessel movement would be of short duration (minutes to hours).
Operations The presence of port facility infrastructure will alter fish habitat and habitat use. The port facility will create an addition of 6960 cubic metres of hard substrate, which inhibits attachment and survival of algal spores.
Routine operation of the marine terminal may result in minor increases in sedimentation associated with runoff due to changes in the shoreline structure. The presence of the port facility infrastructure may cause localized changes to site-specific current circulation and sediment transport. In turn, these changes could result in localized changes in water quality (e.g., turbidity, substrate grain size). Changes in sediment transport could result in smothering of habitat from accumulated sediment.
There is a potential for loss of high-quality fish habitat may cause resident fish species to leave home territories, reducing localized fish abundance and diversity.
Increased wave action from additional vessel traffic may affect marine aquatic vegetation beds; however, the effects from vessel movement would be of short duration (minutes to hours).
Commercial and Subsistence Fishery During construction, Project-related vessels in the Project Development Area and while navigating in the study area have the potential to interfere with fishery vessels and fishing gear. There will also be some restricted areas within the Project Development Area.
Static gear typically left unattended in the water, such as prawn and crab traps, have the highest potential risk for damage, and will have to be removed from the work area prior to the commencing construction.
Operations The main source of potential disturbance to commercial and subsistence species during operations will be the activity of vessels. Due to the restricted and often unpredictable timing of some fisheries (such as the salmon fishery between July and August), there is a potential for some limited negative effects from vessel movement.
The presence of the marine infrastructure will displace any fishing grounds formerly in this limited area.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=166 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 11:57:48 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Fish and Fish Home » Subject Areas » Marine Fish and Fish Habitat » Mitigation Measures Habitat
Study Area Mitigation Measures Key Issues Enbridge Gateway Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce Measurable Parameters the extent and duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects Base Case Assessment on marine fish and fish habitat are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best Stand-alone Case management practices to be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Assessment Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● Marine Fish
● Marine Invertebrates
● Marine Habitat
Marine Fish
● Boccacio
● Chum Salmon
● Dungeness Crab
● Herring
● Rockfish
Boccacio
● encourage boccacio to temporarily vacate the near-shore area before blasting by emitting underwater sounds below 1000 hertz frequency
● use blasting and dredging technology that limits acoustic disturbance and sedimentation
● install temporary booming around the marine construction site to protect boccacio from accidental hydrocarbon release
Boccacio are likely to return upon termination of the noise and will likely benefit from an increase in available habitat once invertebrate communities (food sources) have established around the pilings.
Chum Salmon Adult chum salmon are in the study area during July and August. Since construction of the marine terminal is tentatively scheduled to begin in September 2008 and continue until October 2009, mitigation for chum will focus on the 2009 returning salmon.
● reduce in-water operations during July and August 2009
● monitor routine water and sediment plumes to help maintain quality within acceptable parameters
● install permanent booming around the marine construction site to protect chum from accidental hydrocarbon release
Dungeness Crab Dungeness crab use the near-shore environment from March to July.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=167 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 11:57:56 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
● adhere to work windows restricting dredging and blasting as specified in Project permits whenever possible; where construction requirements and timing windows conflict, appropriate mitigation measures will be developed in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to relax the timing windows
● if surveys show substantial populations or spawning grounds, capture and release away from areas affected by sedimentation prior to construction
Herring
● restrict construction activities during herring spawning (late winter or spring) whenever possible and develop appropriate mitigation measures with Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Measures to protect eelgrass will also benefit herring, as herring deposit eggs on eelgrass.
Rockfish
● encourage rockfish to temporarily vacate the near-shore area before blasting by emitting underwater sounds below 1000 hertz frequency
● use blasting and dredging technology that limits acoustic disturbance and sedimentation
● install temporary booming around the marine construction site to protect rockfish from accidental hydrocarbon release
Rockfish are likely to return upon termination of the noise and will likely benefit from an increase in available habitat once invertebrate communities (food sources) have established around the pilings.
Marine Invertebrates
● Eulachon
● Mussels
● Sea Cucumber
Eulachon Eulachon spawn in the lower reaches of 15 rivers and streams in British Columbia, including a spawning ground at Bish Cove.
● restrict construction activities during eulachon migration and spawning (between February and March) whenever possible and develop appropriate mitigation measures with Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Mussels Mussels will benefit from the construction of the marine terminal, as there will be a net increase in hard surfaces and will probably colonize the new structures quickly.
Sea Cucumber No specific sea cucumber protection measures are recommended; however, populations may benefit from sediment and erosion control measures.
Marine Habitat
● Eelgrass
● Rockweed
● Marine Riparian Area
● Water Quality/Sediment
Eelgrass A small patch of eelgrass (20 square metres) is present one kilometre north of the marine terminal site.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=167 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 11:57:56 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
● adhere to work windows restricting dredging and blasting in May and June as this is a sensitive time for the photosynthesis of eelgrass whenever possible and develop appropriate mitigation measures with Fisheries and Oceans Canada as appropriate
● to limit sedimentation, strategically place a silt curtain up-current of the eelgrass bed during marine construction operations
Rockweed Rockweed will benefit from the construction of the marine terminal, as there will be a net increase in hard surfaces and will probably colonize the new structures quickly.
Marine Riparian Area
● construct artificial rock habitat for fish and seaweeds
● limit vegetation removal within 30 metres of the shoreline
● revegetate the shoreline with native saltwater-tolerant plants
Water Quality/Sediment
● implement an appropriate storm water management system
● regularly monitor sediment plumes and water quality during construction
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=167 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 11:57:56 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Marine Mammals
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Mammals Home » Subject Areas » Marine Mammals Study Area
Key Issues Marine Mammals
Measurable Parameters During their breeding, feeding, and migrating activities, marine mammals are dependent on marine Base Case Assessment habitats during part or all of their life cycle. They are also the most likely to interact with human activities.
Stand-alone Case Both of these characteristics make them susceptible to a variety of Project effects.
Assessment Many marine mammal populations in British Columbia waters have declined and now protected under Mitigation Measures federal legislation through the Species at Risk Act and the Fisheries Act - Marine Mammals Regulations, as well as the provincial Endangered Species and Ecosystems (British Columbia Ministry of Other Modules with Environment). This broad group is the focus of study in the assessment, and includes: Related Information
❍ baleen whales, such as humpbacks
● Accidental Releases ❍ toothed whales, such as dolphins, porpoises, and killer whales
● Marine Avifauna
❍ seals ● Marine Fish and Fish
❍ sea lions Habitat
❍ sea otters
Species such as river otters that use but are not dependent on marine habitats are not included in the assessment.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=170 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:51:22 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Marine Mammals
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=170 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:51:22 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Mammals Home » Subject Areas » Marine Mammals » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the Stand-alone Case terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for Assessment the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and
Mitigation Measures ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the .
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project may have measurable effects).
Confined Channel Assessment Area The Confined Channel Assessment Area is the area where measurable effects from shipping on the marine environment are most likely to occur. This area includes condensate and oil carrier shipping routes,and where navigation to and from the marine terminal will be escorted by tugs. This area includes the confined waters between the north entrance to Principe Channel (north approach) through Kitimat Arm to the Terminal, and between the entrance to Caamaño Sound (south approach) and the Terminal.
Marine Mammals Spatial Boundaries In the marine assessment, the Project Effects Assessment Area varies by measurable parameter, depending on the biology of the key indicator resource and the zone of influence. The zone of influence for accidental releases could extend beyond the Project Effects Assessment Area.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=17610/23/2006 11:58:03 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Mammals Home » Subject Areas » Marine Mammals » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues addressed in the marine mammal environment are the potential for: Base Case Assessment ● habitat alteration through reduced water quality (e.g., increased sediment suspension and sediment Stand-alone Case quality, hydrocarbon introduction) Assessment ● acoustic disturbances from construction activities, including vessel activity Mitigation Measures ● vessel noise during operations
● physical injury to marine mammals
Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=17510/23/2006 11:58:07 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Mammals Home » Subject Areas » Marine Mammals » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Project. Assessment Marine mammals is in itself a valued ecosystem component. Mitigation Measures Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the Valued Ecosystem Components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
For the marine mammals these are:
1. Northern Resident Killer Whales 2. Eastern North Pacific Humpback Whales 3. Stellar Sea Lions
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected Valued Ecosystem Components and/or Key Indicator Resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For marine mammals these are:
1. habitat avoidance 2. physical injury
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=17110/23/2006 11:58:15 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Mammals Home » Subject Areas » Marine Mammals » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Species of Concern Base Case Assessment ● Data Collection Stand-alone Case ● Spatial Analysis Assessment ● Acoustic Modeling Mitigation Measures Varieties of marine mammals occur along the British Columbia coast and in Kitimat Arm and Douglas Marine Species of Channel. Many of these species occur irregularly, while others migrate along traditional routes. Killer Concern whales, Dall’s porpoises, pacific harbour seals, humpback whales, grey whales, and northern sea lions are likely to occur within Douglas Channel. Sei, fin, sperm, Pacific right, and blue whales may be
● Species of Concern encountered towards the western end (open ocean) of the study area.
(PDF - 35KB) Species of Concern All species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the Federal Species-at-Risk Act, and the Province of British Columbia were cross-referenced with known species distributions to ascertain potential Project effects related to encounters with mammals and their critical habitat in the study area. Marine mammal species of concern include:
❍ blue whale
❍ fin whale
❍ grey whale
❍ harbour porpoise
❍ humpback whale
❍ killer whale (resident)
❍ killer whale (transient)
❍ sei whale
❍ stellar sea lion
Data Collection An information review and data collection provided existing information and sighting reports on species, numbers, locations, known rookeries, haul-outs, and predominant behaviours. Three aerial fixed-wing aircraft surveys over Douglas Channel provided information on:
❍ the spring or fall migration periods of transient species and populations
❍ winter marine mammal residency
❍ potential summer marine mammal residency
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=172 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:58:26 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Spatial Analysis A spatial analysis was conducted documenting potential marine mammal species of concern and their critical habitat within the study area.
Acoustic Modeling Modeling of ship-based noise emissions within the study area:
❍ measured current surrounding background noise levels at selected locations in Douglas
Channel and Kitimat Arm
❍ measured present container and other vessel traffic noise
❍ measured surrounding underwater noise levels in Douglas Channel
❍ calculated transmission loss measurements using an artificial sound source
❍ predicted noise levels in the vicinity of the deep water port
❍ predicted noise levels through channel cross-sections for wide, average, and narrow channel
widths
❍ predicted noise levels reaching specific estuaries and ecologically sensitive areas
A calibrated noise model estimated the level and spatial extent of sounds to and from the marine terminal produced by many classes of commercial vessels including tankers and support vessels and various types of underwater construction equipment.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=172 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:58:26 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Mammals Home » Subject Areas » Marine Mammals » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Assessment ● Water Quality Mitigation Measures ● Acoustic and Sensory Disturbance
● Physical Disturbances and Injury
Water Quality Land-based site preparation activities might alter marine habitat and water quality by introducing additional suspended sediment to the marine environment, which could affect marine mammals by reducing foraging efficiency or change prey availability.
Blasting and dredging for the marine facilities may potentially release human-generated contaminants exposing marine mammals to such as metals or hydrocarbons resident in the sediment from prior industrial and municipal activity in Kitimat Arm. Contaminants associated with previous activities may include metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and chlorinated phenols.
Operations Routine waste and storm water discharges in the normal course of marine terminal operations may reduce water quality increase turbidity levels, and potentially release contaminants. Minor increases in sedimentation associated with runoff due to changes in the shoreline structure could possibly reduce efficiency or change prey availability.
Acoustic and Sensory Disturbance Blasting will produce short-term, high-intensity acoustic changes in the environment with the potential to cause physical damage to marine mammals.
Exceptionally loud construction-related activities such as blasting and helicopter operation may temporarily displace hauled-out stellar sea lions.
Operations Noise may affect northern resident killer whales and other marine mammals from marine terminal operations and vessels. However, little is known about the reactions of northern resident killer whales to construction noise. The majority of construction noise is concentrated below 1 kiloHertz and therefore may not preclude prey detection and communication activities that occur within the 0.5 to 25 kiloHertz frequency range. Studies on the hearing of toothed whales have observed that sensitivity deteriorates with decreasing frequency below approximately 10 kilohertz.
Physical Disturbances and Injury Construction of terminal facilities will require the use of small workboats, harbour tugs, and equipment barges and could strike marine mammals causing physical injury mortality. According to the Fisheries and Ocean Canada vessel-strike database, no vessels have struck northern resident killer whales in the study area. Available literature on pinniped vessel strikes is limited.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=173 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:58:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Steller sea lion haul-out correlates strongly with prevailing environmental conditions and social or behavioural interactions. Studies of hauled-out steller sea lions in Alaska suggest that human-induced physical disturbances (i.e., human presence at haul-outs) result in measurable, short-term effects.
Operations During operations, the use of small outboard engine workboats will be required to assist in accidental release contingency activities, berth inspections, and other operations-related activities. By virtue of increased marine vessel traffic, the potential for possible vessel strikes causing physical injury or mortality to marine mammals also increases.
Project operations activities might cause masking and habitat avoidance behaviour in steller sea lions.
Indirect effects on killer whales could result from changes in availability of salmonids, their primary prey, from Project operations.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=173 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:58:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Marine Mammals Home » Subject Areas » Marine Mammals » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on marine
Stand-alone Case mammals are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to Assessment be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge
General Measures
● restrict construction vessel speed to 10 knots when operating in the study area to reduce the potential for collisions with whales
● schedule noisy activities such as blasting and rock hammering during the winter period whenever possible
● minimize blasting during peak Chinook and chum runs from May through October, when killer whales are more likely to be in the area
● avoid high acoustic activities when whales are in the vicinity
● when construction requirements conflict with timing windows, develop appropriate mitigation measures with Fisheries and Oceans Canada
● use acoustic harassment devices to encourage marine mammals to move away from the area during blasting operations
● use bubble curtains and acoustic blankets when blasting and drilling to reduce acoustic disturbance on marine mammals
● conduct marine mammal surveillance during blasting, up to and beyond the radius of the zone of influence based on blasting specifications
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=17410/23/2006 11:58:41 AM MARINE SPECIES OF CONCERN
Federal British Columbia SARA COSEWIC Provincial Abundance in Common Name G Ranka Schedule 1b Statusc S Rankd Statuse Study Area Blue Whale G3G4 3 E S1N B Very Low Boccacio G4 + T - - Unknown/Low Fin Whale G3G4 - SC S1N B Low Grey Whale G4 3 SC S2N B Medium Harbour Porpoise G4G5 3 SC S3 B Medium Humpback Whale G3 3 T S1N B High Killer Whale- Transient G4G5 3 T S2 R Medium Killer Whale-Resident G4G5 3 T S2 R High Marbled Murrelet G3G4 3 T S2B, S4N R Present Sei Whale G3 3 E SHN B Very Low Steller Sea Lion G3 3 SC S2B, S3N R High NOTES: 3 = listed in Species At Risk Act, Schedule 1 + = currently under review to be added to Species At Risk Act, Schedule 1, November 2005 aG Rank = global rank (Natureserve): 1 = critically imperiled 2 = imperiled 3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction 4 = apparently secure 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure bSchedule 1 = Schedule 1 of Species At Risk Act 2005 cCOSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) status: E = endangered – facing imminent extirpation or extinction T = threatened – likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed SC = special concern – characteristics make it particularly sensitive to human activities and natural events dS Rank = subnational rank (British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resources). Modifiers used with rankings are as follows: B = indicates breeding status for a migratory species N = indicates non-breeding status for a migratory species N/A = conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities 1 = Critically imperiled 2 = Imperiled 3 = Vulnerable 4 = Apparently Secure 5 = Secure eBritish Columbia (Ministry of Sustainable Resources) Status ranks are as follows: R = red (endangered or threatened) B = blue (species of concern) Y = yellow (all other species)
Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Non-Traditional Land Use
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Non-Traditional Land Use Home » Subject Areas » Non-Traditional Land Use Study Area
Key Issues Non-Traditional Land Use
Measurable Parameters Study of non-traditional land use encompasses non-Aboriginal activities and organizations with tenures Base Case Assessment and dispositions that permit their use of Crown land and/or resources within the Enbridge Gateway Project
Stand-alone Case study area. These include: Assessment ● Agreements Mitigation Measures ● Applications
Other Modules with ● Approvals Related Information ● Corridors
● Designated natural areas
● Aboriginal Traditional ● Leases Knowledge ● Licenses
● Freshwater Fish and ● Map reserves
Fish Habitat ● Notations
● Orders-in-Council for establishing ecological reserves, ● Heritage Resources parks, and other protected areas
● Marine Avifauna ● Permits
● ● Marine Fish and Fish Recreational sites and areas
Habitat ● Rights-of-way
● Titles ● Marine Mammals Activity areas are not legally designated but are nevertheless considered because of their value, e.g., ● Social-Economic hiking areas outside of provincial park boundaries. Agriculture and private land not directly in the right-of- way but nevertheless possibly affected by the Project is also considered. ● Vegetation Information on Aboriginal traditional land use can be found in Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=183 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:51:25 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Non-Traditional Land Use
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=183 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:51:25 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Non-Traditional Land Use Home » Subject Areas » Non-Traditional Land Use » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The Enbridge Gateway Project route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Stand-alone Case Columbia. For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical Assessment area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations,
Mitigation Measures marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Non-traditional Land Use Spatial Boundaries The non-traditional land use spatial boundaries are bounded by the intersection of all non-traditional land use tenures, dispositions, and activity areas within the Project Development Area.
In some cases, base case assessment data collection went beyond the Project Development Area. Land uses and units in quarter sections or within 500 metres of the right-of-way centreline were included in baseline information. A 15-kilometre buffer area on either side of the pipeline was used for calculating the future development case.
While the final description of potential Project effects will be limited to the Project Development Area, a wider area was used for the effects assessment process.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=18910/23/2006 11:58:51 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Non-Traditional Land Use Home » Subject Areas » Non-Traditional Land Use » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues related to non-traditional land use are the potential for: Base Case Assessment ● the permanent and temporary loss of land use Stand-alone Case ● Assessment change of access to the land
● Mitigation Measures sensory disturbances to wildlife Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=18810/23/2006 11:58:58 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Non-Traditional Land Use Home » Subject Areas » Non-Traditional Land Use » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Social Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project. Assessment For non-traditional land use these are: Mitigation Measures 1. forestry 2. trapping, hunting and recreational fishing 3. designated recreation areas, non-consumptive recreation activities, and protected areas 4. granular, mineral, and oil and gas resources 5. agriculture and private land activities
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued social components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
There are no key indicator resources for non-traditional land use.
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected Valued Social Components and/or Key Indicator Resources that are tracked from base case conditions, to assess the significance of Project effects.
For non-traditional land use these are:
1. loss of resource use potential 2. loss of recreational potential 3. loss of ecological integrity
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=18410/23/2006 11:59:06 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Non-Traditional Land Use Home » Subject Areas » Non-Traditional Land Use » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Data Collection Base Case Assessment ● Forestry Stand-alone Case ● Trapping Assessment ● Hunting Mitigation Measures ● Recreational Fishing
● Designated Recreation Areas, Non-consumptive Recreation Activities, and Protected Areas
● Granular, Mineral, and Oil and Gas Resources
● Agriculture and Private Land Activities
● Work Still To Be Done
Data Collection Information was gathered from the following sources:
❍ academic literature
❍ professional reports
❍ publicly and privately held maps
❍ government websites and publications
❍ in-house land use and land cover mapping creation
❍ discussions with land managers, municipal and provincial government representatives, land
and water resource organizations and individuals
❍ information gathered through Project-related Aboriginal, consultation, and social-economic
studies and activities
❍ mapping land and water surface cover
❍ affected land and water resource users and disposition holders
Forestry
Alberta[1] Within the study area in Alberta, there are:
❍ 20 industrial sample plots (research sample plots that are not to be disturbed; under the
protection of companies holding forestry management agreements)
❍ 8 coniferous timber licenses
❍ 3 deciduous timber licenses http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=185 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 11:59:14 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
❍ 2 deciduous timber permits
British Columbia [2] Within the study area in British Columbia , there are: British Columbia Forest Districts
● 17 forest licenses. Forest license holders have exclusive rights to
manage the forest and harvest an allowable annual cut, along ● Prince George
with protection, management, and reforestation responsibilities. ● Fort St. James
● ● 6 woodlot licenses the Prince George, Fort St. James, and Nadina
Nadina Forest Districts. Woodlots are small tenures; 400 ● Vanderhoof
hectares on the coast and 600 hectares in the interior. Woodlot ● Peace
license holders have similar rights and responsibilities as forest
licence holders.
● 4 timber sale areas in the Peace, Vanderhoof, Prince George, and Nadina Forest Districts.
British Columbia Timber Sales develops and auctions off harvestable blocks to forestry
stakeholders.
● 1 salvageable non-replaceable forest license in the Fort St. James Forest District.
Trapping In Alberta , there are 40 registered fur management areas, all located within the Green Zone. A registered fur management area is a parcel of public land allocated by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development to a trapper.
Hunting Thousands of resident hunters and hundreds of non-resident hunters seek big game in wildlife management units in Alberta and British Columbia.
In 2005, 42 guide-outfitters in British Columbia and 29 in Alberta operated in wildlife management units intersected by the study area.
Recreational Fishing Recreational fishing is enjoyed by many people in rivers and the ocean within the study area. Rod-and- reel or fly-fishing is done in streams and boats on larger rivers. Marine fishing is done from boats with rod-and-reel, down-riggers, and out-riggers. There is also a commercial industry serving non-residential fishers in the two provinces, including both freshwater and marine fishing guides and lodge operations.
Designated Recreation Areas, Non-consumptive Recreation Activities, and Protected Areas The study area intersects the following recreation and protected areas:
❍ Tazdli Wiyez Bin (Burnie-Shea Lakes) Provincial Park (proposed)
❍ Morice River Ecological Reserve
❍ Great Beaver Lake Forest Recreation Site
❍ Greg Duke Memorial Forest Recreation Site
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=185 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 11:59:14 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Granular, Mineral, and Oil and Gas Resources
Alberta Within the study area, there are:
❍ 274 oil and gas sector pipeline agreements
❍ 44 mineral surface leases
❍ 20 pipeline installation leases for pipeline-support infrastructure such as pump stations,
compressor sites, or metering facilities
❍ 4 surface material leases between Townships 60 and 64, within the same quarter section as
the study area. Two are active pits: a sand and gravel pit held by Lehigh Inland, and a clay pit
held by Klassen Brothers. Neither is in the study area.
❍ 2 coal lease applications: Transalta Utilities Corporation and Devon Canada Corporation
❍ 2 right-of-entry agreements granted to pipeline operators by the Surface Rights Board
British Columbia Within the study area, there are:
❍ 46 active private aggregate pits within 15 kilometres of the right-of-way. The closest operation
is Canfor’s 737 cubic kilometre pit, 432 metres away. Kentron’s Sandhill Pit, outside of Kitimat,
is 791 metres away.
❍ 15 gas and oil pipeline rights-of-way
❍ 4 four drillsite or wellsite rights-of-way
❍ 2 sand and gravel reserves for quarries within 300 metres of the right-of-way, held by British
Columbia Ministry of Transportation
❍ 1 mineral claim
❍ 1 gas and oil pipeline reserve
❍ 1 meter site right-of-way
❍ 1 campsite permit
❍ no active mines
Principal oil and gas stakeholders are Pacific Northern Gas, Burlington Resources (now Conoco Phillips), and Westcoast Energy (now Duke Energy).
Agriculture and Private Land Activities
Alberta In Alberta , the pipeline traverses 245 kilometres of private land in the eastern portion and 245 kilometres of Crown land in the western portion. More than 90% of the British Columbia portion of the route is on Crown land, with the remaining ten percent private lands near Fort St. James, Burns Lake, and Kitimat.
All identified crop farmers are in Alberta, east of Whitecourt, involved in farming of wheat, oats, barley, and canola. Forty land owners operate ranches and dairy farms between Edmonton and Whitecourt.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=185 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 11:59:14 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
There are two mixed farming operations (ranching, beef farming, and crop production) in the vicinities of Sangudo and Morinville.
British Columbia There are two private landowners involved in ranching and beef farming in the Fort St. James area.
Work Still To Be Done In some instances we were constrained in our data collection due to:
❍ the proprietary nature of forestry and trapping data
❍ over- or under-representation of trapping activities for commercial reasons
❍ the unavailability of visual sensitivity data and information on active aggregate pit operations in
Alberta
❍ limited access to government agency representatives as a consequence of organizational
restructuring
[1] The Project passes through five forest management areas.
[2] The Project passes through six forest districts.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=185 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 11:59:14 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Non-Traditional Land Use Home » Subject Areas » Non-Traditional Land Use » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Assessment ● Forestry Mitigation Measures ● Trapping, Hunting, Recreational Fishing
● Designated Recreation Areas, Non-consumptive Recreation Activities, and Protected Areas
● Granular, Mineral, and Oil and Gas Resources
● Agriculture and Private Land Activities
After going through the exercise of identifying the affected non-traditional land use stakeholders, it was primarily through outreach and communication with them that the potential Project effects were determined.
Potential effects may come from construction activity; little or no effects are associated with operations or abandonment or decommissioning (and likely an increase in the harvestable timber land base at that time).
The greatest concern is likely to be in forestry, trapping, and hunting. Potential Project effects on forestry operations include loss of some harvestable timber land base, interference with logging traffic, and potential conflicts with access to timber resources on the opposite side of the right-of-way.
Project effects on trapping, hunting, and recreational fishing could potentially include sensory and habitat disturbances on fur-bearing and game animals during clearing, as well as damage or encroachment on trappers’ trail systems, staging sites, trapping sites, parking sites, or cabins.
Project effects on designated recreation and protected areas could potentially include visual and auditory disturbances in the Greg Duke Memorial Recreation Site, the proposed Tazdli Wiyez Bin (Burnie–Shea Lakes) Provincial Park, the Upper Kitimat valley adjacent to Monkman and Clague Mountain Local and Regional parks, as well as disrupting outdoor recreational and eco-tourism activities and wilderness resource values (e.g. grizzly bears).
For all land and resource users there may be temporary reductions in access to the land. In the long- term, groups that now have access, e.g., trappers, hunters, eco-tourists, may lose access to certain areas.
Forestry
Pre-Construction/Construction Vegetation clearing of the right-of-way, facilities, and temporary workspaces may potentially alter forestry by:
❍ clearing timber for the right-of-way, potentially altering the amount of harvestable land and/or
affecting the proportion of annual allowable cut in the year of construction
❍ the potential to increase the risk of transporting pine beetle-infested logs to new areas or pine
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=186 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 11:59:20 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
beetles escaping from decked logs during the summer, which may contribute to the spread of
mountain pine beetle
❍ intersecting approved British Columbia Timber Sales blocks, reforested cutblocks, industrial
sample plots, and silviculture plots, reducing block value and/or limiting access to timber
resources and/or orphaning timber stands
❍ altering wildlife tree patches and biodiversity reserves, compromising forest stewardship and
management responsibilities
❍ interfering with logging traffic and creating other road use conflicts, which could disrupt forestry
operations
❍ increasing wear and tear on road surfaces, which could increase road maintenance costs
Operations Operation of the pipeline and its associated facilities may potentially alter forestry by:
❍ intersecting approved British Columbia Timber Sales blocks, reforested cutblocks, industrial
sample sample plots, and silviculture plots, altering the amount of harvestable land base and
affect allowable annual cut
❍ altering wildlife tree patches and biodiversity reserves, compromising forest stewardship and
management responsibilities
❍ interfering with logging traffic and creating other road use conflicts which may disrupt forestry
operations
❍ increasing wear and tear on road surfaces, potentially increasing road maintenance costs
❍ restricting blasting, disrupting forestry operations
Tanker and escort navigation can potentially alter forestry by:
❍ increasing wake from oil tankers, which could disrupt log booms
Trapping, Hunting, and Recreational Fishing
Pre-Construction/ Construction Vegetation clearing of right-of-way, facilities, and temporary workspaces, in-stream ditching and backfilling, and site reclamation could potentially alter trapping, hunting, and recreational fishing by:
❍ altering the productive capacity of freshwater fish and fish habitat, which could change the
fishing potential
❍ intersecting active trapping and hunting management areas, which could affect the trapping,
guide-outfitting, and hunting resource base
❍ disrupting habitat and causing sensory disturbances to wildlife such as furbearing and game
animals, possibly affecting wildlife movement and patterns
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=186 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 11:59:20 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
❍ encroaching or damaging trappers’ trail systems, staging sites, trapping sites, parking sites, or
cabins, disrupting trapping operations
Operations Operation of the pipeline and its associated facilities, including helicopter surveillance, may potentially alter trapping, hunting, and recreational fishing by:
❍ increasing access for recreational hunters and the public, infringing on guide-outfitter
operations and disrupting trapping operations
❍ creating sensory disturbances for wildlife, possibly affecting wildlife movement and patterns,
affecting the trapping, guide-outfitting and hunting resource base
Decommissioning Removal of aboveground facilities and restoration of the right-of-way and facility sites could possibly alter trapping, hunting, and recreational fishing by:
❍ creating sensory disturbances for wildlife, possibly affecting wildlife movement and patterns,
affecting the trapping, guide-outfitting, and hunting resource base
Designated Recreation and Protected Areas and Non-consumptive Recreation Activities
Pre-Construction/ Construction Vegetation clearing of right-of-way, facilities, and temporary workspaces, in-stream ditching and backfilling, and site reclamation may possibly alter designated recreation and protected areas and non- consumptive recreation activities by:
❍ producing visual and acoustic effects, which could disturb the aesthetic outdoor recreational
and eco-tour experience
❍ creating potential sensory disturbances for wildlife, possibly affecting wildlife movement and
patterns, which could reduce wilderness resource values
❍ intersecting active snowmobile trails, possibly increasing risk the of collision with construction
equipment
Operations Operation of the pipeline and its associated facilities, including helicopter surveillance, may possibly alter designated recreation and protected areas and non-consumptive recreation activities by:
❍ producing visual and acoustic effects, including the visibility of the right-of-way and
aboveground facilities, potentially disturbing the aesthetic outdoor recreational and eco-tour
experience that could reduce wilderness resource values
❍ increasing access, possibly increasing intensity of use, poaching, and conflicts between
motorized and non-motorized use
Tanker and escort navigation could potentially alter designated non-consumptive recreation activities by:
❍ increasing wake from oil tankers, increasing the risk of capsizing recreational boaters and http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=186 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 11:59:20 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
damage to boats moored in Douglas Channel
Granular, Mineral, and Oil/Gas Resource Extraction
Pre-Construction/ Construction Site preparation (vegetation clearing) of right-of-way, facilities, and temporary workspaces may possibly alter granular, mineral, and oil and gas resource extraction activities by:
❍ intersecting existing granular pits and known mineral and oil and gas deposits, that might
conflict with planned activities by tenure holders
Decommissioning The removal of aboveground facilities and restoration of the right-of-way and facility sites may possibly alter granular, mineral, and oil and gas resource extraction activities by:
❍ intersecting granular pits and known mineral and oil and gas deposits, that might conflict with
planned activities by tenure holders
Agriculture and Private Land Activities
Pre-Construction/ Construction Vegetation clearing of right-of-way, facilities, and temporary workspaces, in-stream ditching and backfilling, and site reclamation could potentially alter or disrupt agriculture and private land activities by:
❍ intersecting active agricultural areas
❍ displacing livestock and farm equipment
❍ restricting movement of livestock and farm equipment
❍ disrupting crop planting or harvesting activities
❍ potential for damaging or spoiling crops
❍ potential for soil damage
❍ operating construction vehicles and equipment on agricultural and private land
❍ increasing weed infestation
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=186 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 11:59:20 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Non-Traditional Land Use Home » Subject Areas » Non-Traditional Land Use » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on non-
Stand-alone Case traditional land use are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management Assessment practices to be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan. Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● General Measures
● Forestry
● Pine Beetle Control
● Trapping, Hunting, and Recreational Fishing
● Wildlife Disturbances
● Designated Recreation Areas, Non-consumptive Recreation Activities, and Protected Areas
● Granular, Mineral, and Oil/Gas Resources
● Agriculture and Private Land Activities
General Measures
● effective and open channels of communication with land and resource users throughout the life of the Project, especially before starting new activities
● access agreements with specific groups
● advance notice of Project activities to potentially-affected land and resource users
Forestry
● develop agreements with forestry companies for road access or right-of-way crossing to harvest timber
● determine, in coordination with forestry stakeholders, ways to minimize loss of harvestable timber land base. (e.g., minimal right-of-way , with additional widening where required on a site-specific basis)
● work with forestry stakeholders to identify ways to avoid intersecting with essential plots
● develop pipeline crossing agreements to accommodate present and future forestry traffic
● develop road use and maintenance agreements with forestry companies that hold maintenance obligations and/or use the roads for forestry operations
● equip Project vehicles with two-way radios, setting them to the same frequency as forestry vehicle radios; keep radios on while using forestry access road to maintain a high level of safety and eliminate road use conflicts
● coordinate timber hauling with mainline construction to ensure wood is removed from the right-of- way
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=187 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 11:59:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Pine Beetle Control
● determine appropriate end destinations for all cut timber to prevent the spread of the pine beetle
● clear the infested areas of the right-of-way in the fall and winter when the beetles are dormant
● process felled trees before spring (prior to beetle flight season) so beetles will not escape from the wood to infest new areas
● follow all British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range clearing, handling, and hauling guidelines and requirements for beetle-infested wood
Trapping, Hunting, and Recreational Fishing
● minimize furbearing species' habitat disturbance during construction by avoiding prime denning and breeding habitat
● advance notifice to trappers before embarking on construction activities
● post public notice with relevant Wildlife Management Units before engaging in construction activities
Wildlife Disturbances
● minimize furbearing species' habitat disturbance during construction by avoiding prime denning and breeding habitat such as mature riparian forests and old-growth stands (favoured by marten)
● take additional precautions to limit construction disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat during temporal overlaps with breeding and denning seasons of essential trapping species such as marten, weasel, beaver, and muskrat
● institute appropriate noise control measures
● compensate affected trappers in the event of lost revenue according to established industry and provincial protocols
Designated Recreation Areas, Non-consumptive Recreation Activities, and Protected Areas
● work with regulators to identify appropriate mitigation measures
● work with the British Columbia Ministry of Forests to find route alternatives that will avoid crossing the Greg Duke Memorial Recreation Site
● follow established landscape design guidelines in Visual Landscape Design Training Manual, (British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range), to minimize disturbances of the viewscape, especially for above-ground facilities and in areas of special visual concern.
Granular, Mineral, and Oil/Gas Resources
● notice in advance of construction start to all oil/gas and mineral tenure holders with dispositions in the study area, to coordinate planned activities where practicable
● negotiate with adjacent or nearby pipeline right-of-way holders to share or closely parallel existing right-of-ways (e.g., the Alliance Pipeline) to minimize the disturbed area and maximize land area for potential future development activities
Agriculture and Private Land Activities
● advance notice of the construction schedule to ranchers and livestock owners so that livestock can be moved to other pastures
● close gates after Project vehicles have gone through
● provide trench plugs and gaps in the windrowed soil storage along the right-of-way
● temporarily fence the right-of-way if the farmer does not have other pasture lands reasonably close to the affected parcels of land
● identify cattle watering locations with livestock owners; identify alternative cattle watering locations or options with the land owner if there is direct overlap between cattle watering locations and
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=187 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 11:59:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
proposed watercourese crossing locations
● compensate affected private landholders for disrupting agricultural practices
● minimize motorized traffic with a traffic management strategy, which could include busing workers to the worksite
● post signs and notify farmers, ranchers, and other private land owners of construction schedules
● follow provincial, federal, and corporate health and safety regulations and procedures; all contractors are required to follow Gateway’s health and safety regulations and procedures
● thoroughly clean construction equipment at wash stations before moving to and from locations where noxious and controlled weed infestation are known to exist
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=187 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 11:59:27 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Social-Economic
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Social-Economic Home » Subject Areas » Social-Economic Study Area
Key Issues Social-Economic
Measurable Parameters The social-economic assessment covers four major categories: Base Case Assessment
Stand-alone Case ❍ employment and economy Assessment ❍ social and cultural well-being Mitigation Measures
❍ human health risk Other Modules with Related Information ❍ infrastructure and services
● Aboriginal Traditional
Knowledge
● Atmospheric
Environment
● Human Health Risk
● Non-Traditional Land
Use
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=19110/23/2006 11:51:31 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Social-Economic Home » Subject Areas » Social-Economic » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The Enbridge Gateway Project route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat , British Stand-alone Case Columbia . For the terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical Assessment area needed for the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations,
Mitigation Measures marine terminal, and ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Social-economic Spatial Boundaries The Project Effects Assessment Area was divided into six regions. Given The Six Social- the community-regional-national nature of social-economic effects, the Economic Regions boundaries necessarily extended beyond the 500-metre from right-of-way centre line buffer to reflect physiographic and social-economic differences ● Coastal British including: Columbia
❍ regional economic base ● Central British Columbia
❍ transportation linkages ● Northeast British
Columbia ❍ the provincial border
● Northwest Alberta ❍ statistical reporting unit boundaries
● Central Alberta ❍ potential Project effects, including the nature and duration of
● Edmonton Region Project construction activities
● Communities In each region, the selection of communities that might be affected by the
Project was based on the following criteria: ● Population by Region
❍ population greater than 1000 and within a 40-kilometre radius of the right-of-way
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=197 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:59:35 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
❍ population less than 1000 and within a 10-kilometre radius of the right-of-way or major facilities
❍ presence of traditional land and resource use areas that could be directly affected by Project
facilities or operations
❍ populations large enough to provide a significant number of employees for construction and
operation jobs
❍ potential to provide services during the Project construction or operations[1]
Based on these criteria and 2001 Census information, the social and economic effects assessment incorporated:
❍ 8 cities
❍ 13 towns
❍ 3 villages
❍ 18 municipal or regional districts
❍ 30 Indian Reserves (based on the Statistics Canada reporting units)[2]
[1] Some of these communities are more than 40 kilometres from the pipeline corridor.
[2] Statistics Canada does not have separate census information for many of the communities or Reserves that might be affected by the Project. The predominantly non-Aboriginal communities (e.g., Sherwood Park , Bear Lake , Thornhill) are covered under the appropriate regional district or county. Reserves not covered by the 2001 census (approximately 32 Reserves) are assumed to have characteristics similar to other Reserves in the same geographic area.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=197 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:59:35 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Social-Economic Home » Subject Areas » Social-Economic » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The potential Project issues addressed in the social and economic environment are: Base Case Assessment
Stand-alone Case ❍ effects on national and provincial economies Assessment ❍ regional employment opportunities Mitigation Measures
❍ regional population and demographic changes
❍ individual, family, and community well-being
❍ changes to traditional culture
❍ effects on health conditions and demand on health care services
❍ human health risk
❍ community services and infrastructure
❍ regional transportation
Through public consultation, issues were raised relating directly to local employment, procurement opportunities for local businesses, and the general effect on the regional economy. People also wanted to know how issues such as youth unemployment, lack of training, and potential drug abuse would be addressed.
Since the key issues related to health risks are also directly linked to Project bio-physical effects, they are addressed separately in the Human Health Risk module. Key issues associated with land and resource use are covered in Non-traditional Land Use module.
Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=19610/23/2006 11:59:50 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Social-Economic Home » Subject Areas » Social-Economic » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters ● Valued Social Component Base Case Assessment ● Key Indicator Resource Stand-alone Case ● Measurable Parameters Assessment
Mitigation Measures Valued Social Component Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project.
For social-economic these are:
1. national and provincial economy 2. regional employment 3. regional population changes 4. community services and infrastructure 5. individual, family, and community wellness 6. human health risk 7. regional transportation 8. traditional culture
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued social components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
For social-economic these are:
1. Gross Domestic Product 2. employment 3. income 4. government revenue 5. direct employment 6. regional business opportunities 7. non-camp-based employment 8. housing and accommodation 9. utilities and infrastructure 10. recreation and leisure activities 11. well-being, and delivery of protection and social services 12. health conditions and health care services 13. education 14. exposure to emissions 15. road traffic
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=192 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 11:59:57 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
16. language retention 17. traditional land use
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued social components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For social-economic these are:
1. Gross Domestic Product 2. employment 3. income 4. government revenue 5. direct employment 6. indirect employment 7. incidence of crime 8. incidence of disease 9. chemicals of concern 10. average annual daily traffic 11. ability to speak traditional language 12. participation in traditional harvesting
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=192 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 11:59:57 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Social-Economic Home » Subject Areas » Social-Economic » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters Data Gathering Base Case Assessment Data Collection Stand-alone Case A description of base case conditions was prepared using published statistical data, other secondary Assessment materials, and primary research through key informant interviews. The latest available census data Mitigation Measures (2001) was used for the assessment.
Study area service providers and other informed publics were consulted to Social-economic verify baseline conditions and identify key issues. A number of quantitative studies were (generally based on observing what people do) and qualitative (typically coordinated with based on what people say) indicators were used to characterize Enbridge
Gateway Project social effects. ● Aboriginal Traditional
Field Studies Knowledge Field studies were completed to address the differences in social indicators ● Heritage Resources and the level of available data between Alberta and British Columbia.
● Human Health Risk Data Analysis ● Non-traditional Land Use Information was analyzed and combined with the results of available traditional knowledge studies relevant to the area. Data was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively, to depict similarities and differences among communities and regions.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=19310/23/2006 12:00:05 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Social-Economic Home » Subject Areas » Social-Economic » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Assessment ● Economic Effects Mitigation Measures ● Social Effects
● Abandonment/Decommissioning
Project construction will benefit Alberta , British Columbia , and the rest of Canada in four ways:
❍ direct employment on Project construction
❍ direct employment for Aboriginal people on the pipeline
❍ indirect employment as a result of purchasing goods and services needed for construction from
Canadian businesses
❍ increased economic production (gross domestic product)
Project physical works and activities will:
❍ create direct and spin-off economic activity for the Canadian, Alberta , and British Columbia
governments
❍ create direct and spin-off employment in Canada , Alberta , and British Columbia
❍ generate income and employment for Aboriginal businesses
❍ create direct and spin-off labour income in Canada , Alberta , and British Columbia
❍ generate tax revenues for Canada , Alberta , and British Columbia
Statistical data on Aboriginal communities is incomplete in some cases; additional fieldwork is underway in both Alberta and British Columbia .
Economic Effects[1]
● Employment, Goods and Services
Economic multipliers that describe direct, indirect, and induced effects of spending were used to estimate the regional economic effects of the Project, based on the results of Input-Output Models for both Alberta (Alberta Finance, Statistics 2005) and British Columbia (British Columbia Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services, 2005), particularly indirect and induced employment statistics and direct employment statistics.
Statistics used in the analysis include:
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=194 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 12:00:17 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
❍ gross national product
❍ labour income
❍ government revenues
❍ employment rates
❍ indirect and induced employment statistics
❍ direct employment statistics
Employment, Goods and Services Based on a total Project cost of $3.7 billion, there will likely be nearly 62,000 person-years of direct and indirect employment created. Canadian gross domestic product would increase by about $4.1 billion.
A workforce of about 1200 people in total would be required for the construction portion of the Project. In forming its workforce, the Project will first draw on the local labour market, which could create multiple benefits for local communities.
In mid-2006 unemployment rates were low in both Alberta and British Columbia , indicating limited potential to hire locally. If local unemployment remains low and there are no local workers to hire, or specialized skills are unavailable locally, the Project will bring in external labour. It is expected that the bulk of the workforce will likely have to be imported from communities outside the Project area. This could decrease local economic benefits and potentially add pressure on communities and infrastructure.
The largest regional employment benefits will likely occur in the Edmonton area, where much of the workforce is expected to reside, and in coastal and central British Columbia where construction activities are scheduled to last for four or more construction seasons. In the coastal British Columbia region specifically, external workers will have continuous employment for almost three years.
Project operations would provide direct employment for about 96 people. A workforce of about 48 people would be required in Kitimat, with 20 each in Prince George and Grande Prairie and eight in Edmonton . Another 70 to 80 people may be indirectly employed in businesses supplying goods and services required for Project operations.
Social Effects[2]
● Population Increase
● Housing and Local Accommodation
● Infrastructure
● Recreation and Leisure Facilities
● Social Well-being
● Traffic Volume and Safety
● Traditional Culture
● Human Health Risk
At a regional level, Project construction and operations may potentially affect directly or indirectly about 1.1 million people living in the study area.
Statistics used in the analysis include:
❍ average annual daily traffic statistics
❍ incident statistics for crime, social problems
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=194 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 12:00:17 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
❍ incident statistics for health issues, youth school enrolment
❍ incident statistics of traditional land use
❍ infrastructure capacity prediction based on estimated temporary population increase
❍ predicted increase in housing demand based on estimated labour influx
❍ use of Aboriginal language statistics
Population Increase As a result of low local unemployment, there will likely be a substantial short-term population increase due to the influx of external workers associated with construction, which might increase local benefits but strain the capacity of temporary accommodation (hotels, campgrounds) and possibly increase the potential for local community disturbances. However, regional population increases are expected to be of a temporary nature during construction and expected to have little impact during operations.
Housing and Local Accommodation Construction and operation activities might affect demand for housing in local communities and may affect the capacity of temporary accommodation (hotels, campgrounds). However, the majority of workers will be lodged in short-term construction camps apart from the local communities for 8 of the 12 construction spreads estimated at this time, bringing fewer community benefits but might make it easier to manage social and housing effects. Workers are likely to shift from one spread to another, moving from one camp to another accordingly.
For the other four spreads, initial plans call for workers to be housed in within the communities. In the coastal British Columbia region specifically, external workers will be locally housed, especially near Kitimat.
Infrastructure Construction and operation activities might place demands on local utilities and infrastructure such as waste disposal facilities and sources of potable water.
Recreation and Leisure Facilities Construction and operation activities might place demands on local recreational and leisure facilities, possibly:
❍ increasing the need for law enforcement support
❍ necessitating additional social services for individuals and families (if there is increased
incidence of social problems)
❍ increasing demands on regional health care facilities because of the needs of Project workers
❍ diverting youth from further education opportunities
Social Well-being If there is an introduction of a large number of temporary workers, adjacent communities may potentially experience an increase in social issues and concerns.
Traffic Volume and Safety Hauling pipe and equipment and labour force commuting might affect traffic volumes.
Traditional Culture
● Exposure to non-Aboriginal workers might reduce the use of Aboriginal languages.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=194 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 12:00:17 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
● Wage employment might reduce traditional land use.
● There may be direct disturbance of land and resources used for traditional purposes.
Human Health Risk See Human Health Risk module.
Abandonment/Decommissioning The timing and scope of work required for decommissioning and abandonment cannot be determined at this time. The life of the pipeline and associated facilities will depend on the length of time the oil sands operations can economically produce oil to support the pipeline, and whether oil sands deposits are developed, processed, and moved to offshore markets via the pipeline.
The scope and scale of future decommissioning activities will be determined by the regulations in place at that time, but without knowing what those regulations will be, the costs and employment effects of decommissioning cannot be estimated.
[1] Social effects are related to economic and demographic changes.
[2] Social effects are related to economic and demographic changes.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=194 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 12:00:17 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Social-Economic Home » Subject Areas » Social-Economic » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Enbridge Gateway Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce Base Case Assessment the extent and duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects
Stand-alone Case on social-economic are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management Assessment practices to be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan. Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● Employment and Business Opportunities
● Infrastructure
● Wellness
Mitigation of the Project’s economic and social effects focuses primarily on identifying benefit enhancements and prevention and management measures, working with stakeholders to identify such opportunities.
Employment and Business Opportunities
● Seasonal Workers
● Procurement
Recognizing that communities have different employment and education capacity, and infrastructure to support labour force development, the intent is consult with the contractors, unions, communities, educational institutions, and government agencies who share responsibility for identifying, developing, recruiting, and retaining workers.[1]
The following measures are potential mechanisms and initiatives that can be used to provide equitable access to education and training for employment for communities impacted by the Project, as well as optimize local/regional hiring objectives for temporary and permanent positions.
❍ openly communicate employment opportunities and skill requirements to interested
organizations, government agencies, and communities in a timely fashion, using such
resources as local and regional print, radio and television media, and Internet-based tools.
❍ investigate and enhance local and Aboriginal hiring on Project construction, including training
and educational training opportunities in advance. Provide full access to information about
training and employment opportunities to the non-traditional workforce and liaise with relevant
organizations to encourage participation in training and employment.
❍ continue discussions with local communities, Aboriginal groups, Chambers of Commerce,
major contractors, unions, and government (Human Resources and Skills Development)
regarding construction workforce requirements and strategies to reduce barriers to access. http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=195 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 12:00:23 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
❍ establish on-the-job support systems and resources to help develop worksite and life skills
Seasonal Workers Large projects can lead to community effects resulting from unemployed migrants arriving in communities in the hope of finding work. Gateway will work with communities and contractors in an effort to dissuade unqualified people from relocating in hopes of gaining Project-related employment. This type of speculative relocation can be managed by:
❍ advertising hiring procedures for people living outside the study regions
❍ setting up remote hiring halls or processes
❍ limiting local hiring to local residents
Problems in the adjacent communities associated with the presence of a large number of seasonal workers can be effectively mitigated through:
❍ project security measures at work sites and in camps
❍ policies covering on- and off-the-job behaviour, including termination for non-compliance
In accommodating any required influx of external workers, there will be an effort to strive to balance community benefits with social costs, especially when regional variations are taken into consideration. By housing workers in construction camps, potential short-term population effects can be isolated and managed, and camp policies can dictate how the workforce interacts with local residents.
Procurement Whenever practicable and in accordance with Project needs, Gateway intends to implement procurement practices that will provide business opportunities for local/regional and Aboriginal businesses. Gateway recognizes that successful bidding practices may require development and training.
Another proposed measure is to provide local/regional and Aboriginal businesses with comprehensive and timely information about Project requirements, including timing and specification of goods and services required by the Project.
Infrastructure
● Transportation Infrastructure and Traffic
● Housing and Accommodation
● Recreation
Transportation Infrastructure and Traffic Construction plans will assess the impacts of increased traffic and will ensure adequate mitigation measures are developed and implemented; joint planning, information sharing, cooperation, and coordination between the Project transportation and logistics functions, local communities, and British Columbia and Alberta transportation authorities will be essential.
Transportation infrastructure and motor vehicle safety effects can be managed with adequate human and financial resources and timely planning. Enbridge’s Health and Safety Management System and the Contractor Safety Management System will be implemented and safe motor vehicle transportation and motor vehicle safety will be promoted to employees and contractors associated with the Project.
Potential effects on traffic congestion and safety can be effectively mitigated by the use of pilot vehicles and by limiting truck movements to off-peak traffic hours. With careful scheduling, there should be no noticeable Project effects on traffic volumes. http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=195 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 12:00:23 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Housing and Accommodation In 8 of the 12 construction spreads estimated at this time, workers will be housed in construction camps. Mitigating adverse effects on social well-being from interactions between regional residents and construction workers will depend on establishing Project security and appropriate camp policies.
Recreation The construction camps, sized to accommodate the direct workforce, will include recreation and leisure areas offering a variety of recreational amenities, which should reduce Project-related demand on community based recreation facilities.
Wellness
● Education
● Health
● Public Safety and Protection
Measures that are effective in mitigating the Project effects on individual, family, and community wellness will also reduce Project effects on the delivery of social services.
Education While the potential for employment may entice some local students to contemplate leaving school prematurely, this can be minimized by posting education requirements for the workforce in advance and providing training programs to encourage people to remain in school. This would allow youth and all potential workers to fully understand whether they are eligible and allow them to make appropriate decisions on continuing their education.
Establishing appropriate training and educational programs should encourage youth to stay in school and provide opportunities for future employment on the Project and other projects.
Health Greater demand on local health care facilities from potential increases in motor vehicle accidents, increased health and safety incidents, and human health risk from exposure to emissions can be mitigated through:
❍ health and safety training for all construction personnel
❍ provision of basic medical services in camps
❍ appropriate transportation plans
❍ dust control
❍ use of low-sulphur fuels
❍ regular inspections of transportation equipment
Further, in conjunction with provincial health agencies, regional hospitals, and local health centres:
❍ design Project health and work environment guidelines, procedures, and protocols
❍ jointly develop relevant steps and procedures for accessing public health care facilities with
health care personnel and hospital administrators, in the event this would be required
❍ ensure construction contractors and subcontractors comply with protocols, procedures, and
guidelines that will be developed jointly with provincial public health and regional health
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=195 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 12:00:23 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
authorities
Public Safety and Protection Public and individual safety is the highest priority for the Project and the following measures will be recommended:
● account for safety consideration when planning contractor delivery schedules
● develop policies on security and employee behaviour while on the job or in the construction camps
● ensure contractors and subcontractors implement alcohol, drug, and other safety programs that meet Project requirements
● engage in ongoing discussions with the RCMP[2], starting at the planning and design stage, regarding Project activities and plans that could influence RCMP workload
[1] Different job skills will be required at different stages of the Project cycle.
[2] With Gateway management, contractors, and camp management.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=195 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 12:00:23 PM Communities by Social-Economic Region (based on Statistics Canada Reporting Units)
Statistics Canada British Columbia Alberta Reporting Units Coastal Region Central Region Northeast Region Northwest Region Central Region Edmonton Region Regions Kitimat-Stikine: Electoral Bulkley-Nechako: Peace River: County of Grande Lac Ste. Anne Strathcona County Areas C (Part 1), E Electoral Areas B, C, D, Electoral Areas D, E Prairie County Sturgeon County Skeena-Queen E, F, G Municipal District of Woodlands County Charlotte: Electoral Area Fraser-Fort George: Greenview No. 16 C Electoral Area G Major population Kitimat Burns Lake Dawson Creek Beaverlodge Barrhead Bon Accord centres (cities, towns, villages) Port Edward Fort St. James Tumbler Ridge Fox Creek Mayerthorpe Bruderheim Prince Rupert Fraser Lake Grande Prairie Sangudo Edmonton Terrace Houston Wembley Whitecourt Fort Saskatchewan Price George Gibbons Smithers Legal Vanderhoof Morinville Spruce Grove St. Albert Stony Plain Westlock Indian Reserves Hartley Bay First Nation Babine 25 East Moberly Lake Duncan’s First Nation Alexis 133 Alexander 134 Kitamaat 2 Babine 6 169 Duncans 151A Alexis Nakota Sioux Alexander First Kitamaat Village Council Cheslatta 1 Saulteau First Nation Horse Lake First Nations Nation (Haisla) Cheslatta Carrier Nation West Moberly First Nation Driftpile First Nation Enoch Cree Nation Nation Kitselas Indian Band Fort George (Shelley) 2 Horse Lakes 152B Driftpile River 150 Stony Plain 135 West Moberly Lake Kitsumkalum Indian Lake Babine First Sturgeon Lake 154 Paul Band 168A Band Nation Sturgeon Lake Cree Sawridge 150G Kitsumkaylum 1 Lheidli T’enneh Nation Sawridge First Nation Kshish 4 and 4A McLeod Lake Sucker Creek 150A Statistics Canada British Columbia Alberta Reporting Units Coastal Region Central Region Northeast Region Northwest Region Central Region Edmonton Region Kulkaya (Hartley Bay) 4 McLeod Lake 1 Sucker Creek First Kulspai 6 Nahdleh Whut’en Nation Nak’azdli (Necoslie) 1 Swan River 150D Nak’azdli Indian Band Swan River First Nation Nautley (Fort Fraser) 1 Wabamun 133A North Tacla Lake 7A Saik’uz First Nation Stellaquo (Stella) 1 Stellat’en First Nation Stony Creek 1 Takla Lake First Nation Woyenne 27 Ye Koo Che 3 Yekooche First Nation
Note: Detailed 2001 Census of Canada data are only available for the 30 largest of the 60 Indian reserves in the study area.
Population by Region The overall Project study area has a population of about 1.1 million people, based on the 2001 census. British Columbia: The three regions have a combined population of about 174,000 people (15.3 percent). Alberta: The two Alberta regions outside Edmonton have a combined population of about 96,100 (8.4 percent). The Edmonton Region has a population of about 867,700 (76 percent).
Region Total Population Total (%) Coastal BC 45,641 4.0 Central BC 106,386 9.4 Northeast BC 21,986 1.9 Northwest Alberta 65,320 5.7 Central Alberta 30,714 2.7 Edmonton Region 867,675 76.3 Total 1,137,722 100.0 Source: Modified from Statistics Canada 2001, Internet site.
Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Soils
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Soils Home » Subject Areas » Soils Study Area
Key Issues Soils
Measurable Parameters The quality and productive capability of soils are important to the ecosystems they support. Base Case Assessment
Stand-alone Case
Assessment
Mitigation Measures
Other Modules with Related Information
● Aboriginal Traditional
Knowledge
● Human Health Risk
● Non-Traditional Land
Use
● Terrain
● Vegetation
● Wildlife
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=19910/23/2006 11:51:36 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Soils Home » Subject Areas » Soils » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the Stand-alone Case terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for Assessment the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and
Mitigation Measures ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Soils Spatial Boundaries The soils zone of influence is equivalent to the 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline).
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=20510/23/2006 12:00:28 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Soils Home » Subject Areas » Soils » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues related to soils are the potential for: Base Case Assessment ● surface erosion and potential loss of soil productivity Stand-alone Case ● Assessment surface soil deterioration
● Mitigation Measures soil acidification Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=20410/23/2006 12:00:33 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Soils Home » Subject Areas » Soils » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Project. Assessment For soils these are: Mitigation Measures 1. soil capability in agricultural areas 2. soil quality in non-agricultural areas
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
There are no key indicator resources for soils.
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For soils these are:
1. changes in soil capability[1] 2. soil capacity 3. soil salinity 4. soil fertility
[1] Changes related to texture, structure, salinity, fertility, stoniness, rooting restrictions, slope class of the terrain, and drainage patterns.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=20010/23/2006 12:00:38 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Soils Home » Subject Areas » Soils » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing. Assessment ● Malmo Soils (Thick Topsoil) in Agricultural Areas Mitigation Measures ● Solonetzic and Gravelly Soils in Agricultural Areas
● Thick Peat Soils (Muskeg)
Soil Attributes The measurable parameters were assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, and the final effects characterized by selecting the most limiting parameter for each effect. ● drainage patterns
Soil capability is assessed by examining changes to soil attributes. To ● fertility measure surface erosion and losses, we generally assess soil quality by ● rooting restrictions measuring selected soil properties similar to those used to assess soil
capability.such as ● salinity
The key Project effects for soils are potentially: ● slope class of the terrain
● stoniness ❍ changes in soil physical, chemical, and biological properties
arising from alterations in soil moisture regime, compaction, ● structure
admixing, topsoil erosion, and on-site contamination ● texture
❍ changes in soil acidity arising from acidification induced by
deposition of airborne acidifying substances
❍ surface erosion and potential loss of soil productivity because of site clearing, soil stripping,
and construction activities
❍ surface soil deterioration and loss due to admixing of topsoil and subsoil, compaction, rutting,
erosion, contamination, and alteration of soil drainage patterns due to site clearing and
construction activities
❍ soil acidification arising from input of acidifying emissions from operational activities at marine
terminal and pump stations
Generally, most potential effects will be on surface soil affecting agricultural areas as a result of construction activity. We anticipate little or no effect on agricultural soils associated with pipeline and associated infrastructure operations if best management practices for soil handling are effectively applied during construction, operations, and decommissioning activities.
The effect of surface soil deterioration and loss is measured by assessing potential degradation of soil physical, chemical and biological properties by admixing; compaction, rutting and puddling; wind and
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=202 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 12:00:53 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
water erosion; contamination; change in soil moisture status due to alteration of local water tables; and soil loss. The impacts acidifying substances deposits on soils were assessed based on the loading rate and the sensitivity of the soil to acid inputs.
Admixing of topsoil and subsoil materials has the greatest potential to occur during the construction phase of the Project due to clearing, topsoil salvage, grading, trenching, backfilling, and clean-up activities.
Wind and water erosion are most likely during the construction phase of the Project when soil is exposed.
Contamination of soils by organic or inorganic sources may be possible during construction.
Changes in soil moisture conditions could result from road building and soil stockpiling that involves water diversion.
Malmo Soil (Thick Topsoil) in Agricultural Areas Soils of the Malmo soil series are identified as a soil type with a thick A-horizon (more than 25 centimetres in depth). The Malmo series is classified as a weakly calcareous, non-saline Eluviated Black Chernozem, developed on fine textured glaciolacustrine deposits.
Soils in the study area with thick topsoil layers generally have A-horizons that can be more than 30 centimetres thick and even upwards to of 70 centimetres. Identifying where this soil depths is likely to occur is important for preserving soil capability through prevention of soil loss.
Malmo soils are located in the Eastern Alberta Plains physiographic region which is characterized as an agricultural area. Although their distribution is local in extent, these soils form dominant or co-dominant portions of various map units along an approximate 40-kilometre section from east of Morinville to Deadman Lake .
Soil loss in areas of thick topsoil may result from insufficient salvage and replacement depths, burial or mixing of unsalvaged topsoil, and tracking and burial of salvaged topsoil in locations with less than adequate extra workspace.
Other soil series in the Eastern Alberta Plains have variable topsoil thickness (i.e., Angus Ridge ; Lacombe; Ponoka; Navarre ) but do not require specific protection measures because average topsoil thickness is not greater than 25 centimetres.
Solonetzic and Gravelly Soils in Agricultural Areas Solonetzic soils are characterized by Solonetzic B-horizons with columnar or prismatic structure, hard to very hard consistency when dry, exchangeable calcium to sodium ratios less than or equal to 10; and saline or saline-sodic parent material, notably saline till and glaciolacustrine deposits. Soils in agricultural areas that are solonetzic or gravelly require special soil salvage and replacement procedures.
Approximately 11% of the study area consists of Solonetzic soils including Black and Gray Solodized Solonetzic, Dark Gray Solod and Black Solonetzic soils. These soils are associated with calcareous, saline, moderately fine glacial till and fine glaciolacustrine deposits. To a lesser extent, saline-sodic soils along this segment have formed from decaying saline-sodic bedrock (i.e., Kavanagh soil series).
Soils with gravelly subsoils located within a narrow section are located east of Whitecourt along the Athabasca River valley, and associated with recent fluvial deposits. This soil type generally consists of finer textured topsoils and upper subsoils of variable thickness overlying gravelly lower subsoils.
Thick Peat Soils (Muskeg) Thick peat soils are defined as recent organic deposits that are typically more than 1 metre in depth. Approximately 9% of the study area is situated on organic deposits; of this, approximately 55% (5% of the study area) is considered to have peat thicker than 1 metre. Organic terrain is most commonly encountered within non-agricultural areas: in Alberta, between Whitecourt and the Alberta/British Columbia border; in British Columbia, between Bear Lake and Houston.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=202 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 12:00:53 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Soils Home » Subject Areas » Soils » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Enbridge Gateway Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce Base Case Assessment the extent and duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects
Stand-alone Case on soil are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to be Assessment followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● Construction
❍ Soil Handling and Salvage
❍ Admixing
❍ Compaction, Rutting and Structure Loss
❍ Wind and Water Erosion
❍ Contamination
❍ Change in Soil Moisture Conditions
❍ Soil Loss
Construction During construction, Project effects on soil will generally be mitigated through:
❍ minimizing the extent of surface disturbance
❍ minimizing soil mixing
❍ minimizing soil compaction and puddling
❍ managing soil erosion risk
❍ reducing soil loss
❍ ameliorating soil contamination
❍ ameliorating any other impacts to soil physical, chemical and biological properties
Soil Handling and Salvage During construction, soil handling and salvage will be supervised in agricultural areas. We will use appropriate practices for topsoil salvage, storage and replacement.
Admixing
● strip and replace topsoil in non-frozen and dry conditions when possible
● salvage and replace topsoil during daylight hours
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=203 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 12:00:59 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
● handle, salvage, and replace problem soil areas with the assistance of a soils specialist
● stockpile topsoil, subsoil, and spoil separately and ensure that piles are physically separated
● identify areas requiring special handling requirements (i.e., saline-sodic, gravely, or very stony soils), under the supervision of a soils specialist
● replace topsoil evenly over sub-grade material
Compaction, Rutting, and Structure Loss
● curtail construction activities in excessively wet conditions on fine textured soils that are susceptible to compaction
Wind and Water Erosion
● on long-term stockpiles (one year or longer), maintain slope lengths and gradients based upon Universal Soil Loss Equation guidelines and stabilize with vegetation cover and manage surface runoff
● use erosion control materials (seed-impregnated mats; netting; organic mulches such as certified straw, native hay, wood fibre, peat moss, wind chips/bark, or brush matting; tackifiers; blankets; or hydroseeding) in addition to vegetation cover to reduce soil surface exposure
● incorporate organic material (litter or peat) at the time of salvage into coarse-textured (sandy) soils or those deficient in organic matter
● locate stockpiles on higher ground to minimize potential for groundwater saturation and salinization whenever site conditions warrant
● identify erosion problems during final clean-up, and conduct remedial work immediately to restore the affected area(s)
Contamination
● in the event of an accidental release, immediately contain, control, and recover toxic materials (such as fuel, oil, lubricants, condensate, or antifreeze) on any contaminated ground surface or below the ground surface to limit the impact area; measures for ameliorating contaminated soil will be evaluated and implemented based on the extent of disturbance, the chemical properties of the unaffected soil, and remediation criteria
Change in Soil Moisture Conditions
● construct ditches to control and direct the flow of surface water from the construction area
● install culverts as required to manage drainage; consider both preventing water build-up and flooding in wetland areas due to road construction, as well as prevention of water flow and subsequent drying of wetlands in other areas
● design and construct temporary and permanent all-weather roads to minimize altering natural drainage patterns
● restore natural drainage conditions to avoid loss of soil and ground instability due to inundation or saturation
Soil Loss
● Admixing mitigation measures will also reduce soil loss.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=203 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 12:00:59 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Terrain
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Terrain Home » Subject Areas » Terrain Study Area
Key Issues Terrain
Measurable Parameters Terrain is the physical characteristics and integrity of the land, with a particular focus on unique terrain Base Case Assessment features such as areas of mass wasting, gullying, depth to bedrock, and geology.
Stand-alone Case Assessment
Mitigation Measures
Other Modules with Related Information
● Non-Traditional Land
Use
● Soils
● Vegetation
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=20710/23/2006 11:51:41 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Terrain Home » Subject Areas » Terrain » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the Stand-alone Case terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for Assessment the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and
Mitigation Measures ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Terrain Spatial Boundaries The terrain zone of influence is equivalent to the 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline).
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=21310/23/2006 12:01:07 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Terrain Home » Subject Areas » Terrain » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues related to terrain are the potential to impact: Base Case Assessment ● mass wasting events (including debris flows, earth flows, and general slope failure) Stand-alone Case ● Assessment shoreline erosion
Mitigation Measures Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=21210/23/2006 12:01:15 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Terrain Home » Subject Areas » Terrain » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Project. Assessment For terrain this is: Mitigation Measures 1. terrain integrity
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
There are no key indicator resources for terrain.
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For terrain these are:
1. areas of mass wasting 2. areas of gullying
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=20810/23/2006 12:01:23 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Terrain Home » Subject Areas » Terrain » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Physiographic Regions Base Case Assessment ● Terrain Classification Stand-alone Case ● Field Program Assessment ● Analysis Mitigation Measures ● Work Still To Be Done
Physiographic Regions The pipeline crosses six physiographic sub-regions – three in Alberta and three in British Columbia. To analyze soil effects, these regions were further broken down into agricultural and non-agricultural areas. The agricultural areas are primarily associated with approximately the first 200 kilometres in Alberta, and then pockets of agricultural land in the interior of BC around Fort St. James and Burns Lake areas.
Alberta The Alberta regions are based on the Northern Alberta Ecosite Guidebook (Canadian Forest Service) and West Central Alberta Ecosite Guidebook (Canadian Forest Service).
Eastern Alberta Plains: Grasslands with aspen groves, with a gradual transition to closed aspen and balsam poplar forests at the northern extent of the sub-region. Due to clearing for agriculture, little natural vegetation remains. Terrain is generally flat.
Southern Alberta Uplands: Variety of vegetation types including aspen and balsam poplar stands, and through succession, white spruce, and balsam fir. Peat-accumulating wetlands exist on more poorly drained sites. Much of the land has been cleared for agriculture. Terrain is generally flat to undulating.
Alberta Plateau: Variety of vegetation types including aspen and balsam poplar stands, and through succession, white spruce, and balsam fir. At higher elevations and further west, coniferous forests are more common and interspersed with localized wetlands. The land has largely been converted to agricultural, industrial, and residential use.
British Columbia The British Columbia regions are based on the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (British Columbia Ministry of Forests).
Rocky Mountains: Mixed stands of aspen and spruce, lodgepole pine, and black spruce at lower to middle elevations. The topography ranges from rolling foothills to more rugged mountain terrain.
Interior Plateau: Mixed stands of aspen and spruce, lodgepole pine, and black spruce at lower to middle elevations. The topography ranges from generally flat plateaus to rolling foothills.
Coast Mountains: Dense coniferous forests of white spruce and sub-alpine fir with occasional black spruce. Forestry is the most common land use activity. The topography is generally rugged mountain terrain.
Terrain Classification Field data acquisition and terrestrial ecosystem mapping was coordinated with Soils, Vegetation, and
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=209 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 12:01:31 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Wildlife.
Assessment procedures for terrain integrity follow British Columbia provincial mapping and assessment standards including:
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook (British Columbia Ministry of Forests)
Guidelines and standards for terrain mapping in British Columbia (Resources Inventory Standards Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands)
Terrain Classification System for British Columbia (Ministry of Environment)
These standards are recognized as the most thorough in the industry and therefore applied across Alberta and British Columbia.
Existing information from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resources) and terrain stability mapping relative to the pipeline route was gathered; much of this data was at 1:20,000 with some providing needed background material at 1:10,000.
Models were created by scanning 1:30,000, 1:40,000, and 1:60,000 scale aerial photography and merging it with 20-metre Digital Elevation Model data[1].
Existing digital data, including Biogeoclimatic Regions (British Columbia) and Natural Regions (Alberta) as well as any other applicable British Columbia government digital terrain mapping, were draped on these digital images so that the data could be viewed in the subsequent classification process and field program.
Preliminary digitized terrain mapping was developed for the study area. Homogeneous terrain units were delineated on the basis of:
❍ drainage
❍ geomorphic processes
❍ parent material
❍ slope
❍ surface expression
❍ vegetation (to a lesser extent)
Between 14,000 and 22,500 polygons were delineated along the route at 1:10,000, which provided the necessary detail required for evaluations and assessments[2]. The minimum polygon size was 1 square cubic metre (an area equivalent to less than one hectare at 1:10,000) unless significantly contrasting terrain types were found (e.g., rock outcrop in a morainal plain; small wetlands in a well-drained lacustrine plain).
From the preliminary mapping, potential field program study sites were selected, based on provincial Site Series Manuals, and preliminary codes established to facilitate the field program. Digitized mapping combined with global positioning system (GPS) coordinates enabled the selected sites to be accurately and efficiently located in the field.
Field Program The field program was conducted in 2005. From about 750 ground observations sites, data was collected on:
❍ drainage
❍ erosion potential
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=209 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 12:01:31 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
❍ geological modifying processes
❍ parent material
❍ slope
❍ surface expression
❍ terrain stability
Analysis Analysis of the terrain in the study area included:
❍ geological and geotechnical hazards
❍ geological setting and bedrock
❍ granular aggregate materials
❍ river crossings
❍ slopes
❍ surface geology
❍ terrain description
Detailed landform mapping at a scale of approximately 1:7,500 was completed. Gullies were noted with tick marks for the purpose of calculating gullies per kilometre. The mapping exceeds the minimum 80% accuracy level required by British Columbia guidelines.
Work Still To Be Done Additional field work in spring/summer 2006.
[1] For a small segment of the pipeline corridor (approximately 70 kilometres west of Burns Lake), 1:15,000 scale photographs were used as no alternate small-scale imagery was available.
[2] Terrain stability and gully erosion was mapped at a scale of 1:1,500.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=209 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 12:01:31 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Terrain Home » Subject Areas » Terrain » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing.
Assessment The key Project effects for terrain are the potential to impact: Mitigation Measures
❍ mass wasting events (debris flows, earth flows, general slope failure) resulting from site
preparation, road construction, blasting, and installation of infrastructure facilities
❍ changes in slope stability as evidenced by landslides
❍ changes in terrain caused by surface erosion processes
❍ changes in shoreline erosion through wave action
❍ shoreline erosion as a result of increased wave activity near the marine terminal
Potentially problematic terrain is characterized by slopes exceeding 27% with excessive groundwater seepage or, where groundwater seepage is not an issue, slopes generally in excess of 60%: ● Rocky Mountains
❍ Potentially ❍ approximately 88% are classed as stable unstable: 23% ❍ 9% are classed as potentially unstable: topography suggesting (105 hectares) mass wasting but no signs of active mass wasting are evident ❍ Unstable: 5%
❍ 3% are classed as unstable: evidence of active mass wasting, (23 hectares)
including landslides ● Coastal Mountains
The Rocky Mountains and Coastal Mountains are the two most sensitive ❍ Potentially physiographic regions showing the greatest amount of potentially unstable unstable: 45% and unstable terrain. (302 hectares) Very little terrain has been classed as either potentially unstable or
unstable in the Eastern Alberta Plains, Southern Alberta Uplands, Alberta ❍ Unstable: 8% Plateau, or the Interior Plateau with the exception of major river crossings (55 hectares) (e.g., Smoky, Wapiti); these areas are characterized by relatively subdued topography.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=21010/23/2006 12:01:37 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Terrain Home » Subject Areas » Terrain » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on terrain are
Stand-alone Case outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to be followed Assessment during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
While landslides are difficult to prevent, we will conduct pre-construction assessments to help develop engineering solutions that may reduce their probability. The pipeline route, wherever possible, will be placed on terrain that is considered stable, with an attempt to avoid terrain considered to be either unstable or having a high likelihood of instability and/or gully erosion.
Several measures have been identified to either minimize or avoid any possible effects on terrain integrity. These include:
❍ for all sites or areas identified as being either unstable or potentially unstable, complete a
detailed on-site/area investigation by a qualified geotechnical engineer or geoscientist to
develop mitigation strategies to ensure slope failure or accelerated gully erosion does not
occur, or is limited with respect to pipeline safety.
❍ in areas exhibiting groundwater seepage, proper water management techniques (e.g., culverts)
will be developed and implemented
❍ on areas showing gully erosion, install erosion control devices such as siltation fences to
control soil loss
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=21110/23/2006 12:01:42 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Vegetation
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Vegetation Home » Subject Areas » Vegetation Study Area
Key Issues Vegetation
Measurable Parameters Vegetation is important for maintaining the diversity and functioning of natural ecosystems (wildlife, birds, Base Case Assessment atmosphere, soil, and watercourses); timber for forestry; plants for food, fuel, medicine, and cultural
Stand-alone Case purposes; scenic values; and wildlife-related businesses.
Assessment
Mitigation Measures
Other Modules with Related Information
● Atmospheric
Environment
● Aboriginal Traditional
Knowledge
● Hydrology
● Non-Traditional Land
Use
● Soils
● Terrain
● Water Quality
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=21510/23/2006 11:51:46 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Vegetation Home » Subject Areas » Vegetation » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the Stand-alone Case terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for Assessment the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and
Mitigation Measures ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Vegetation Spatial Boundaries The vegetation zone of influence is equivalent to the 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline).
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=22110/23/2006 12:01:48 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Vegetation Home » Subject Areas » Vegetation » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues related to vegetation are the potential for changes in: Base Case Assessment
Stand-alone Case ❍ rare or uncommon vegetation communities Assessment ❍ local or regional structural diversity including mature or old growth forest stands Mitigation Measures
❍ wetland integrity and associated local or regional community diversity
❍ landscape diversity characteristics including large core patch areas
Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=22010/23/2006 12:01:55 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Vegetation Home » Subject Areas » Vegetation » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project. Assessment For vegetation this is: Mitigation Measures 1. vegetation diversity
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
There are no key indicator resources for vegetation.
Measurable Parameters[1] Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
For vegetation these are:
1. ecosite phase/site series of limited distribution 2. old growth forest 3. rare plants and rare plant communities 4. wetlands 5. non-native species
[1] Measurable parameters were selected on the basis of regulatory status, stakeholder concern, ecological vulnerability, and precedents set by other environmental impact assessments.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=21610/23/2006 12:02:03 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Vegetation Home » Subject Areas » Vegetation » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Sub-regions Base Case Assessment ● Vegetation Classification Stand-alone Case ● Field Programs Assessment ● Analysis Mitigation Measures ● Work Still To Be Done
Field data acquisition and terrestrial ecosystem mapping was coordinated with Soils, Terrain, and Wildlife.
Sub-regions
● Alberta Sub-region Characteristics
● British Columbia Sub-region Characteristics
The pipeline crosses six physiographic sub-regions that are similar in vegetation, soil, and landform features. In order to analyse Project effects on vegetation, these regions were further refined into ten sub-regions – four in Alberta and six in British Columbia .
Alberta Sub-region Characteristics The Alberta sub-regions are based on the Northern Alberta Ecosite Guidebook (Canadian Forest Service,) and West Central Alberta Ecosite Guidebook (Canadian Forest Service) and other available literature.
Central Parkland: Grasslands with aspen groves, with a gradual transition to closed aspen and balsam poplar forests at the northern extent of the sub-region. Due to clearing for agriculture, little natural vegetation remains. Terrain is generally flat.
Dry Mixed Wood: Variety of vegetation types including aspen and balsam poplar stands, and through succession, white spruce and balsam fir. Peat-accumulating wetlands exist on more poorly drained sites. Much of the land has been cleared for agriculture. Terrain is generally flat to undulating.
Central Mixed Wood: Variety of vegetation types including aspen and balsam poplar stands, and through succession, white spruce and balsam fir. At higher elevations and further west, coniferous forests are more common and interspersed with localized wetlands. The land has largely been converted to agricultural, industrial, and residential use.
Lower Foothills: Coniferous forest interspersed with localized wetlands. There has been limited clearing for agriculture, forestry, and oil/gas activity. The topography is generally low relief with the exception of locally incised river and stream valleys.
British Columbia Sub-region Characteristics The British Columbia sub-regions are based on the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (British Columbia Ministry of Forests).
Boreal White and Black Spruce: Mixed stands of aspen and spruce,
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=217 (1 of 5)10/23/2006 12:02:12 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
lodgepole pine, and black spruce at lower to middle elevations. The topography ranges from generally flat plateaus to rolling foothills to ● British Columbia more rugged mountain terrain. Biogeoclimatic Zones Engelmann Spruce: Mixed stands of aspen and spruce, lodgepole pine, and black spruce at lower to middle elevations. The topography (PDF - 3.5MB) ranges from generally flat plateaus to rolling foothills to more rugged mountain terrain.
Sub-boreal Spruce: Dense coniferous forests of white spruce and sub-alpine fir with occasional black spruce. Forestry is the most common land use activity. Topography is gently rolling.
Alpine Tundra: Essentially a treeless region with dwarf shrubs, herbs, mosses, and lichens at higher elevations. There is some forestry, and oil/gas activity in the eastern alpine tundra areas. The topography ranges from generally flat plateaus to rolling foothills to more rugged mountain terrain.
Mountain Hemlock: Mountain hemlock, western hemlock, amabilis fir, cedar, Douglas fir, and white pine at lower to middle elevations – species depends strongly on the elevation and precipitation. Forestry is the most common land use activity. The topography is generally rolling to rugged mountainous terrain.
Coastal Western Hemlock: Mountain hemlock, western hemlock, amabilis fir, cedar, Douglas fir, and white pine at lower to middle elevations – species depends strongly on the elevation and precipitation. Forestry is the most common land use activity. The topography is generally rolling to rugged mountainous terrain.
Vegetation Classification To conform to the different vegetation classification schemes used by Alberta and British Columbia , different naming conventions were used to classify ecological data. In British Columbia , the vegetation classification is guided by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (Ministry of Sustainable Resources), at 1:20,000 scale mapping. This system provides a uniform method of describing vegetation, soil, and terrain characteristics based on air photo interpretation and field data collection. The system also provides a comprehensive database, designed to be scientifically accurate and as efficient as possible, particularly for collecting data in remote locations with limited access. ‘Site series’ (ecological unit names) are based upon the British Columbia Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (Ministry of Forests) system.
In Alberta , the vegetation sampling strategy is guided by the British Columbia ’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping; ‘ecosite’, ‘ecosite phase’, and ‘plant community’ (ecological unit names) are based on the Ecological Land Classification (Canadian Forest Service).
Wetlands (bog, fen, swamp, marsh) in both British Columbia and Alberta are classified according to the Canadian Wetland Classification System (Environment Canada) which broadly encompasses classes used in both provinces.
Field Programs
● Visual Inspections
● Ground Inspections
● Detailed Inspections
The field programs were initiated in 2005, to inventory the vegetation communities in the study area for subsequent Project effects assessment, with supporting data and digital and map products.
The first step was a reconnaissance flight over the study area to verify the historical vegetation map information and identify potential measurable parameter features and other plant habitats of concern. http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=217 (2 of 5)10/23/2006 12:02:12 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
A second reconnaissance over-flight, over a 30-kilometre wide-area, collected data to interpret and verify the satellite-imagery data survey points, identifying all major vegetation types present.
Preliminary vegetation maps for the study area were prepared at the 1:20,000 scale[1], identifying sites for closer inspection – about one plot per kilometre in the ratio of 75% visual, 20% ground inspection, and 5% detailed plots. Using an ecosystem-based approach, the field programs developed ecological unit descriptions[2] (‘site series’ in British Columbia ; ‘ecosite’ in Alberta ) and collected detailed data not otherwise currently available on:
❍ soils
❍ terrain characteristics
❍ vegetation structure
❍ wildlife presence and habitat use
Visual Inspections Visual inspections, 75% by helicopter 50 metres above ground at approximately one-kilometre intervals along the pipeline route, were used to either verify the accuracy of the preliminary vegetation map or provide additional information, with photographs taken of both typical and atypical vegetation.
Data collected from visual inspections included:
❍ percent coverage of terrestrial lichen and moss cover
❍ species and coverage (to the nearest 10%) of the dominant trees, shrubs, and forbs
❍ structural stage of the community
❍ terrain information
Ground Inspections Ground inspections (20%) were conducted in areas of homogenous vegetation type generally larger than two hectares in area (i.e., data for transitional zones or eco-zones was not collected), and used to provide basic ecological data and confirm identified vegetation types. Study sites were 20 metres x 20 metres in size located at least 30 metres from any disturbance or edge to avoid edge effects, with photographs taken of both typical and atypical vegetation.
Ground inspections recorded:
❍ average tree and shrub height
❍ dominant arboreal, terrestrial lichen, and moss cover
❍ dominant vascular species
❍ general site characteristics and parameters (e.g., slope, aspect, moisture regime, topographic
position)
❍ incidental rare plant and rare plant communities
❍ representative tree diameter (at breast height) and age
❍ tree and shrub species composition and cover
Detailed Inspections http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=217 (3 of 5)10/23/2006 12:02:12 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Detailed inspections (5%) were reserved for the measurable parameters, Vegetation Measurable sensitive vegetation types, and other plant communities that have not been Parameters adequately described in either British Columbia or Alberta , based on a 1. ecological units of systematic, statistically-robust sampling regime utilizing transects and quadrates. Access to sampling sites for each field team was via helicopter limited distribution to maximize sampling intensity and selectively sample required vegetation 2. non-native species types. 3. old growth forest Data collected included all of the information gathered during the ground inspection plus all vascular and dominant non-vascular species and their 4. rare plants and rare
associated covers, with photographs taken of both typical and atypical plant communities vegetation. Data recorded included: 5. wetlands
❍ aspect
❍ cover and height by species
❍ forest health
❍ forest seral stage
❍ moisture and nutrient conditions
❍ percentage of downed wood
❍ slope
❍ topographical location
❍ tree heights, age, and diameter
❍ vegetation species composition
Analysis The information collected in the field program was used to develop vegetation mapping products to determine the baseline conditions within the study area, to subsequently identify the Project effects. Products included:
❍ a base map representing vegetation resources within the study area at 1:20,000 scale,
including uncommon community types, measurable parameters, rare plant occurrences, and
traditional land use areas
❍ a base map representing broad ecosystem units suitable for wildlife habitat analyses
❍ digital products to support analyses of Project impacts to vegetation
❍ digital products to support modeling of Project impacts on wildlife habitat
❍ baseline data for Project construction and reclamation planning
Work Still To Be Done There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, including a detailed study of rare plants and species-at- risk.
[1] Based on Resource Inventory Committee ( British Columbia ) Level-5 survey standards.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=217 (4 of 5)10/23/2006 12:02:12 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
[2] Adapted from Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Ecosystem Mapping Inventory Standards (British Columbia Forests Service)
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=217 (5 of 5)10/23/2006 12:02:12 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Vegetation Home » Subject Areas » Vegetation » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing.
Assessment The following attributes will be used to assess changes to vegetation diversity: Mitigation Measures
❍ characteristics of vegetation communities, including species, terrain, soil, and moisture
conditions
❍ proportion of ecological units (‘site series’ in British Columbia; ‘ecosite phase’ in Alberta)
❍ unique ecological units
❍ presence of old forest based on age criteria for each species (for example, aspen (deciduous)
is considered ‘old’ if greater than 100 years; cedar and hemlock (coniferous) are considered
‘old’ if greater than 250 years)
❍ presence of rare plants – native plants in low numbers or only present in restricted areas
❍ presence of wetlands – bogs, fens, swamps, marshes
❍ introduction of non-native plant species
At this time, the areas of potential concern are Rocky Mountain Pass near Tumbler Ridge and the Coastal Mountain Pass near Mount Nimbus. These areas have unique plant communities and present greater challenges for revegetation.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=21810/23/2006 12:02:16 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Vegetation Home » Subject Areas » Vegetation » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Enbridge Gateway Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce Base Case Assessment the extent and duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects
Stand-alone Case on vegetation are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices Assessment to be followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan. Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
Some measures have been identified to either minimize or avoid possible Project effects on vegetation. These include:
❍ plant seed mixtures to include native species where practical, to stabilize the ground surface so
native vegetation can take root and mature
❍ plant shrubs along watercourse crossings where appropriate and practical
❍ use fertilizers to encourage growth
❍ control invasive species through weed control
❍ monitor the right-of-way for two to three years following completion of construction to assess
the degree vegetation and/or weeds have established
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=21910/23/2006 12:02:24 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Water Quality
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Water Quality Home » Subject Areas » Water Quality Study Area
Key Issues Water Quality
Measurable Parameters Surface water quality describes the quantity of substances in the water and sediments, which can have Base Case Assessment effects on aquatic populations and on human drinking water supplies. Water quality indicates the
Stand-alone Case suitability of water to support aquatic life, which is a key component used in the freshwater fish habitat Assessment assessment.
Mitigation Measures Water quality assesses the chemistry of water, by quantifying the amount of ions, nutrients, organics, metals, and suspended sediment found in water. Knowledge of these parameters in a waterbody is Other Modules with important in order to assess the impact of human activity. Sediment quality is an integral part of water Related Information quality as analysis of the substrate texture, and composition can be used to predict sediment suspension and release in a disturbed habitat.
● Freshwater Fish and
Fish Habitat
● Hydrogeology
● Hydrology
● Marine Avifauna
● Marine Fish and Fish
Habitat
● Marine Mammals
● Soils
● Terrain
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=22310/23/2006 11:51:51 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Water Quality Home » Subject Areas » Water Quality » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the Base Case Assessment terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for
Stand-alone Case the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and Assessment ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview. Mitigation Measures For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=22910/23/2006 12:02:31 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Water Quality Home » Subject Areas » Water Quality » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues addressed in water quality are the potential to impact: Base Case Assessment
Stand-alone Case ❍ surface runoff transporting sediment from land into streams and surface water bodies Assessment ❍ sediment load in watercourses Mitigation Measures
❍ introduction of new contaminants into watercourses
Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=22810/23/2006 12:02:37 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Water Quality Home » Subject Areas » Water Quality » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project. Assessment For water quality this is: Mitigation Measures 1. surface water quality
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
There are no key indicator resources for water quality.
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from the base case assessment to assess the significance of Project effects.
For water quality these are:
1. water quality 2. substrate texture and chemical composition
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=22410/23/2006 12:02:42 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Water Quality Home » Subject Areas » Water Quality » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters See also Base Case Assessment
Stand-alone Case ● Hydrology Assessment
Mitigation Measures While data is available for the major watersheds, the majority of waterbodies (excluding ephemeral) crossed by the pipeline in the study area do not have water quality information. A water quality database was developed based on available historical data records to describe water quality in the major watershed basins.
An analysis of pipeline crossings upstream of industrial activity with licensed water withdrawals for human consumption immediately downstream determined the number of sites surveyed in fall 2005, and re-sampled in spring 2006 for a high-water assessment.
Potential sources of contamination associated with Project construction include metal mining and pulp and paper mill operations upstream of pipeline crossings; six mines and two pulp and paper mills were identified. Sites downstream of these facilities were sampled and analyzed for sediments (texture and metals) and water quality (potability, total suspended solids, and metals).
Water samples from licensed potable water withdrawals within 5 kilometres downstream of pipeline crossings were collected and analyzed for:
❍ temperature
❍ dissolved oxygen
❍ pH (acidity)
❍ conductivity
❍ potability
❍ total suspended solids
❍ nutrients
❍ organics
❍ metals
Bottom sediment analysis included texture, organics, and metals.
The field program incorporated quality assurance and quality control procedures to ensure accuracy and reliability of the sampling and analysis procedures.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=22510/23/2006 12:02:48 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Water Quality Home » Subject Areas » Water Quality » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing.
Assessment Construction Mitigation Measures The surface water quality effects will be primarily from altered runoff and See also substrate disturbance. The measurable parameters could be affected by the following site preparation and temporary and permanent road ● Hydrology development activities:
❍ vegetation clearing and grading on approach slopes to water
bodies, which could increase total suspended solids concentrations in runoff
❍ blasting and grading related to site preparation, which could increase acid rock drainage in
some areas
❍ in-stream activities associated with trenched crossings, disturbing substrate that could
introduce sediment into the water stream
❍ installing vehicle crossing structures in watercourses, disturbing substrate that could introduce
sediment into the water stream
❍ water released by hydrostatic testing
❍ wastewater release from construction camp operations
Operations Releases from the permanent facilities associated with operations could potentially result in altered runoff water quality and/or altered water quality. Less permeable surfaces associated with facility sites could affect total suspended solids concentrations in runoff. Emissions associated with the marine terminal operations could potentially affect local water quality of surrounding watercourses.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=22610/23/2006 12:02:58 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Water Quality Home » Subject Areas » Water Quality » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on water
Stand-alone Case quality are outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to be Assessment followed during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures ● Design and Construction Measures
● Controlling Runoff
● Channel Substrate Disturbance Mitigation
● Project-related Release Mitigation
● Watercourse Mitigation
● Restoration and Revegetation
● Effects and Compliance Monitoring
One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
Design and Construction Measures Mitigation measures in the design and construction of temporary and permanent access roads could include:
❍ minimizing the number of crossings
❍ selecting appropriate types and sizes of vehicle crossings a site-specific basis
❍ constructing access road crossings at stable channel sections and avoiding crossings where
the channel bed and banks are unstable.
❍ providing cross-drainage where roads might cross wetlands, swales, or overland drainage
paths
❍ where practical, using ice/snow fill bridges or snow fill around culverts for temporary access
road crossings during winter construction; when ice bridges are used, preventing the freezing
of the waterbody to the bed to not obstruct flows
❍ placing crossings perpendicular to the channel
❍ maintaining the maximum practical separation between watercourses and access roads except
at crossings
❍ removing temporary crossings before spring break-up unless they have been specifically
located and sized to have the capacity to convey the 1:25 year annual peak discharge
❍ locating pump stations away from watercourses; the further facilities are from watercourses and http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=227 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 12:03:06 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
the larger the watershed, the lower the impacts. Pump stations should be situated at least 200
metres from the nearest surface watercourse and, where possible, within watersheds with
drainage areas of at least 2 to 4 square kilometres.
❍ trucking-in or locally-sourcing domestic water for the construction camps, and treated to
potable water standards
Controlling Run-off Controlling run-off is most effectively mitigated by minimizing the active footprint as much as possible throughout construction, and by restoring the vegetative cover on sites not required for permanent facilities as soon as possible after construction. Beyond that, there are some specific stormwater measures that can be implemented:
❍ equip pipeline facility sites with on-site stormwater management systems
❍ at the marine terminal, capture runoff in stormwater retention ponds
❍ test water to ensure it complies with water quality standards before controlled release into the
environment
Channel Substrate Disturbance Mitigation Loading of total suspended solids in streams is most effectively mitigated through appropriate crossing design and procedures.
Isolating, removing the top layer of bottom sediment, and backfilling with non-contaminated material will help to contain contaminated bottom sediments and prevent their transport downstream.
Crossing designs based on site conditions and aquatic resource sensitivity and associated risk levels will mitigate impacts on downstream areas from in-stream activities.
Project-related Release Mitigation Wastewater from construction camps will be collected and trucked for disposal.
All hydrostatic test water will be sampled and sent to a laboratory for testing, and discharged into the same drainage basin, unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities. Alternatively, hydrostatic test water may be trucked to a wastewater treatment facility for disposal.
Watercourse Mitigation To reduce the potential for recurrent disturbances to or degrade the stability of watercourse crossings:
❍ design temporary and permanent access road crossings to the appropriate design discharge
without adversely affecting the hydrology or hydraulics of the channel being crossed
❍ place pipeline below the 1:100 year scour depth of the channel
❍ pipeline sagbends set back sufficiently from the top-of-bank to minimize risk of lateral channel
movement; this may require deep burial of the pipeline some distance beyond the top-of-bank
line on either or both sides of the channel, as assessed by a qualified river engineer
❍ route the pipeline and access roads to avoid areas of increased local scour such as at severe
bends or channel confluences
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=227 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 12:03:06 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
The pipeline crosses mountainous terrain as well as cross alluvial fans or steep, downcutting channels at some points. Burial design across alluvial fans will be cognisant of the potential for sudden channel avulsions and debris flows, possibly requiring additional depth of cover over an extended pipeline reach. At crossings of degrading channels, the potential for future downcutting will be taken into account in assessing pipe cover requirements.
Restoration and Revegetation The right-of-way areas and temporary roads developed for construction will be re-contoured and re- vegetated to reduce runoff coefficients. It is expected that a full vegetative cover will be restored along the pipeline right-of-way and temporary workspaces over time, partially mitigating the effects of construction clearing and stripping although potential residual effects on surface flows may occur.
Effects and Compliance Monitoring Compliance monitoring will ensure compliance with regulatory requirements associated with permits and licenses for the Project
Effects monitoring will continue for the lifetime of the Project. Annual inspections of the right-of-way, and specifically the watercourse crossings, will monitor ongoing sediment control measures and long-term channel stability.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=227 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 12:03:06 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Wildlife
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Wildlife Home » Subject Areas » Wildlife Study Area
Key Issues Wildlife
Measurable Parameters Wildlife examines the Project effects on a variety of terrestrial wildlife species (mammals, birds, Base Case Assessment amphibians) that inhabit the study area, taking into account diversity, habitat values, and species of
Stand-alone Case concern.
Assessment
Mitigation Measures
Other Modules with Related Information
● Aboriginal Traditional
Knowledge
● Acoustic Environment
● Atmospheric
Environment
● Hydrology
● Non-Traditional Land
Use
● Social-Economic
● Soils
● Terrain
● Vegetation
● Water Quality
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=23110/23/2006 11:51:57 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Study Area
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Wildlife Home » Subject Areas » Wildlife » Study Area Study Area
Key Issues Study Area
Measurable Parameters Project Development Area Base Case Assessment The pipeline route goes from the Bruderheim area in Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. For the Stand-alone Case terrestrial assessment, the Project Development Area generally refers to the physical area needed for Assessment the permanent and temporary right-of-way, pump stations, initiating pump stations, marine terminal, and
Mitigation Measures ancillary facilities (e.g., construction camps) required for construction and operation of the Project as described in the Project overview.
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Project Effects Assessment Area For the terrestrial assessment, in general the Project Effects Assessment Area is the Project Development Area plus a 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline). However, the boundaries may vary by discipline depending on the biological or human environment characteristics of the discipline and the zone of influence (the area where the Project is reasonably likely to have measurable effects).
For the marine terminal, the Project Development Area includes the tank and port facilities, extra workspace and support facilities required during construction, and restricted zones around the marine terminal infrastructure.
Wildlife Spatial Boundaries The wildlife zone of influence is equivalent to the 1-kilometre wide corridor (500 metres on either side of the centreline).
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=23710/23/2006 12:03:11 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Key Issues
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Wildlife Home » Subject Areas » Wildlife » Key Issues Study Area
Key Issues Key Issues
Measurable Parameters The key Project issues related to wildlife are the potential to impact: Base Case Assessment
Stand-alone Case ❍ habitat availability Assessment ❍ physical injuries Mitigation Measures
❍ infringement on minimum habitat area
❍ isolation of habitat patches
❍ disruption of landscape-scale dispersal linkages
Prevention and mitigation measures will reduce the extent and duration of Project effects in most cases.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=23610/23/2006 12:03:16 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Wildlife Home » Subject Areas » Wildlife » Measurable Parameters Study Area
Key Issues Measurable Parameters
Measurable Parameters Valued Ecosystem Component Base Case Assessment Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern that could be Stand-alone Case measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project. Assessment For the wildlife these are: Mitigation Measures 1. species diversity 2. habitat connectivity
Key Indicator Resources Subset components of the valued ecosystem components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes.
For wildlife these are:
1. Coastal tailed frog 2. Grizzly bear 3. Keen’s myotis 4. Marbled murrelet 5. Marten 6. Moose 7. Mountain goat 8. Northern goshawk 9. Pond-dwelling amphibians 10. Sharp-tailed grouse 11. Short-eared owl 12. Songbirds 13. Trumpeter swan 14. Waterfowl 15. Western screech owl 16. Woodland caribou 17. Caribou 18. Grizzly bear 19. Mountain goat 20. Northern goshawk 21. Songbirds
Measurable Parameters Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosystem components and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=232 (1 of 2)10/23/2006 12:03:24 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Measurable Parameters
For wildlife these are:
1. habitat availability 2. local habitat fragmentation 3. mortality risk 4. landscape-scale permeability 5. patch size and connectivity
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=232 (2 of 2)10/23/2006 12:03:24 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Wildlife Home » Subject Areas » Wildlife » Base Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Base Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters ● Historical Information Base Case Assessment ● Field Program Stand-alone Case
Assessment Historical Information
Mitigation Measures ● Alliance Pipeline Project
● Kitimat Liquid Natural Gas Project (proposed) The wildlife assessment program ● Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping is dependent on ● FoothillsModelForest information from
Considerable information was available at relevant scales, including previous wildlife surveys, species
● Aboriginal Traditional range delineations, habitat suitability mapping, and ecological studies. Among this collection is
Knowledge information from other projects.
● Acoustic Environment Alliance Pipeline Project In western Alberta, some portions of the Gateway Pipeline Project route in Relevant Alliance ● Atmospheric the study area parallels the Alliance Pipeline project (Morinville to west of Pipeline Information Environment Fox Creek). Accordingly, some of the information in its regulatory [1] application and associated environmental assessments was applicable to ● ● Hydrology amphibian call surveys this Project.
● ● Non-Traditional Land raptor nest surveys Alliance expended relatively little effort on areas overlapping the Project
Use resulting in a number of data gaps that had to subsequently be addressed ● sharp-tailed grouse (lek) in the field program. ● Social-Economic surveys
Kitimat Liquid Natural Gas Project (proposed) ● ● Soils songbird surveys Similarly, the Kitimat Liquid Natural Gas import terminal and pipeline in ● ● terrestrial habitat Terrain western British Columbia is in close proximity to the Project, and likewise had applicable information in its regulatory applications and associated mapping and ● Vegetation environmental assessments. classification ● Water Quality Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping ● ungulate pellet group Existing information from Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (British surveys Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resources) projects either within or in
close proximity to the study area provided Project-relevant information[2], ● water bird surveys some with wildlife habitat interpretations. ● winter track surveys From these projects, species accounts and Relevant Terrestrial ratings tables were created for the species Ecosystem Mapping applicable to the Project, used to guide the Projects development of species-habitat relationships.
FoothillsModelForest The FoothillsModelForest covers roughly 2.75 million hectares (27,500 square kilometres ) in
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=233 (1 of 3)10/23/2006 12:03:37 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
portions of JasperNational Park, WillmoreWildernessPark, and the West ● BabineRiver* Fraser Mills Ltd. forest management area.
Within the model forest boundaries are three ● Carbon landscape unit* natural regions – Boreal Forest, ● ChelaslieRiver RockyMountain, and Foothills – and many
forest uses including timber production, ● Chetwynd Burnt River petroleum and coal extraction, tourism, and ● Dala Creek* recreation.
● The study area overlapping the Gosnell Creek FoothillsModelForest includes the Rocky ● Huckleberry Creek Mountains north of JasperNational Park; WillmoreWildernessPark protected areas; and ● Kitimat Liquid Natural the west-central Alberta portion of the Gas Terminal (proposed) FoothillsModelForest. * Although the FoothillsModelForest is a large ● KitimatTimberForest land base compared to Project, a number of relevant studies have been or are currently Licence #41* being conducted in the FoothillsModelForest, ● McGregorModelForest many of them relevant to species and habitats potentially affected by the Project. Of ● North River particular relevance are: ● Sukunka landscape
● coarse woody debris unit*
● elk and wolf predation ● SutherlandRiver*
● fire effects research ● Tanizul* ● forest regeneration and management
(stand-level, species-level) ● Targe Creek
● grizzly bear ● TweedsmuirRiver
● habitat suitability and supply modeling ● WolverineRiver ● natural ecosystem disturbance
● riparian zones and corridors * included wildlife habitat ● stream classification interpretations ● sustainable forest management indicators
● woodland caribou
Field Program To establish baseline conditions, a number of field programs were Field Program Surveys undertaken. This included a raptor acoustic survey primarily for Northern goshawk.
Detailed terrain ecosystem mapping was completed for the study area, providing the basis for habitat assessments for the various measurable parameters within the study area and used to refine the pipeline route to avoid wildlife spatial or temporal avoidance as much as possible.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=233 (2 of 3)10/23/2006 12:03:37 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Base Case Assessment
● song birds
● waterfowl staging areas
● Trumpeter swans
● Coastal tailed frog
● Mountain goat
● Raptor sticknest
● pond dwelling
amphibians
● Marbled murrelet
[1] Conducted in 1996 and 1997.
[2] At the 1:20,000 scale.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=233 (3 of 3)10/23/2006 12:03:37 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Stand-alone Case Assessment
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Wildlife Home » Subject Areas » Wildlife » Stand-alone Case Assessment Study Area
Key Issues Stand-alone Case Assessment
Measurable Parameters There is fieldwork and analysis still underway, therefore this is only a preliminary evaluation based on Base Case Assessment work done to date. A more comprehensive and conclusive assessment based on the complete effects
Stand-alone Case assessment process, including mitigation measures, will be included with the regulatory filing.
Assessment The key Project effects related to wildlife are the potential to impact: Mitigation Measures ● habitat availability caused by vegetation and site clearing
● habitat availability caused by sensory disturbance (i.e., reduced
habitat effectiveness) ● Summary of Project
● physical injuries caused by Project interactions Effects by Measurable
● physical injuries caused by human access into wildlife habitats Parameters Species
● infringement on minimum habitat area caused by fragmentation of (PDF - 30KB) larger habitat patches
● isolation of habitat patches caused by movement barriers
● disruption of landscape-scale dispersal linkages caused by movement barriers
Reduced habitat availability and increased risk of physical injuries are the primary factors that could potentially cause a given species to be locally extirpated from the study area, in turn reducing species diversity.
Similarly, infringing on minimum habitat area requirements, isolating habitat patches, and disrupting landscape-scale linkages are the primary factors that could contribute to habitat fragmentation[1], thus reducing wildlife functional habitat connectivity. The mitigation measures address these Project risks.
[1] The actual means by which fragmentation affects a given species will be a function of the scale at which that species uses its habitat.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=23410/23/2006 12:03:44 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Wildlife Home » Subject Areas » Wildlife » Mitigation Measures Study Area
Key Issues Mitigation Measures
Measurable Parameters Project effects managed with proper prevention and mitigation strategies will reduce the extent and Base Case Assessment duration of the effects in most cases. General measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on wildlife are
Stand-alone Case outlined below; details on site-specific objectives and the best management practices to be followed Assessment during the Project will be part of the Project’s Environmental Protection and Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measures One overall measure is adaptive mitigation management: continuous monitoring during and after Project activities so that changes can be made as needed in response to new issues and situations that emerge.
● Regulations
● General Protection Measures
Regulations
● Federal Regulatory Requirements
● Alberta Regulatory Requirements
● British Columbia Regulatory Requirements
● Regional Guidelines
The Project will comply with federal and provincial statutes, and meet the spirit and intent of provincial and federal policies and guidelines for the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat as well as the regional guidelines and policies supporting these over-arching requirements.
Federal Regulatory Requirements
Species At Risk Act (SARA)
For the protection of special wildlife and species at risk, the federal Species Acts Consolidated in At Risk Act consolidates a number of federal Acts. The purpose of Species the Species At Risk Act At Risk Act is to “prevent Canadian indigenous species, sub-species, and distinct populations of wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct; to ● Canada Wildlife Act provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened species; to encourage the management of other species to prevent them from ● Migratory Birds becoming at risk.” Convention Act
Under the Species At Risk Act, the Committee on the Status of ● Wild Animal and Plant Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) provides scientific Regulations of the assessments of the status of species. From these assessments, the federal government, through the Governor-in-Council, decides which International and Inter-
species are added to the at-risk list; when Parliament passed the Act in provincial Trade Act 2002, 233 species were included in Schedule 1[1].
For the Project, Schedule 1 provided the initial list of wildlife species-at- risk. The at-risk species relevant to the Project are:
❍ Woodland caribou (boreal population), listed as ‘Threatened’ ( Alberta and BC)
❍ Woodland caribou (southern mountains population), listed as ‘Threatened’ ( Alberta and BC) http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=235 (1 of 6)10/23/2006 12:03:50 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
❍ Peregrine falcon (anatum sub-species), listed as ‘Threatened’ ( Alberta and BC)
❍ Marbled murrelet, listed as ‘Threatened’ (BC)
Migratory Birds Convention Act
The Migratory Birds Convention Act prohibits the killing or capturing of migratory birds, as well as any damage, destruction, removal, or disturbance of active nests. It also allows the federal government to pass and enforce regulations to protect various species of migratory birds and their habitats. The Act applies to migratory game birds (ducks, geese, swans, shorebirds), migratory insectivorous birds, and other migratory non-game birds.
Section 6 of the Act prohibits the disturbance or destruction of a nest, egg, nest shelter, or duck box of a migratory bird. Section 35 also prohibits, with some exception, deposit of harmful substances in waters frequented by migratory birds anywhere in Canada .
Project activities must align with the requirements of the Act, requiring mitigation of potential adverse effects as well as pre-clearing nest searches, where appropriate, to ensure that nests are not destroyed or disturbed.
Alberta Regulatory Requirements The Alberta Wildlife Act protects most vertebrate animals from direct harm or harassment except as allowed by regulation (e.g., hunting or trapping). Legal designation provides additional protection for selected listed species and their residences.
Thirteen species are currently managed as listed species (i.e., ‘Endangered’ or ‘Threatened’) in Alberta . Of these, four species – woodland caribou, northern leopard frog, trumpeter swan and peregrine falcon – occur within the Project area, all listed as ‘Threatened’ in Alberta.
In addition, the general status of all species in Alberta has been assessed by the provincial government, based on the following categories:
❍ At Risk
❍ May Be At Risk (risk of extinction)
❍ Sensitive (sensitive to human activities or natural events)
❍ Secure
‘May Be At Risk’ species receive a detailed status assessment, which is used to determine whether there is reason to recommend that a species be converted to ‘At Risk’ and given legislative protection as ‘Endangered’ or ‘Threatened’ under the Act.
Presently 11 species are considered as ‘At Risk’ in Alberta , three of which may be present in the study area:
❍ Northern leopard frog
❍ Peregrine falcon
❍ Trumpeter swan
In addition, 14 species are considered as ‘May Be At Risk’, 6 of which may be present in the Project study area:
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=235 (2 of 6)10/23/2006 12:03:50 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
❍ Short-eared owl
❍ Grizzly bear
❍ Long-tailed weasel
❍ Northern myotis
❍ Wolverine
❍ Canadian toad
The general status ranks were used as selection criteria for key indicator species.
British Columbia Regulatory Requirements The British Columbia Wildlife Act protects most vertebrate animals from direct harm or harassment except as allowed by regulation (e.g., hunting or trapping). Legal designation provides additional protection for selected ‘Red-listed’ and ‘Blue-listed’ species and their residences. Legal designation as ‘Endangered’ or ‘Threatened’ under the Act increases the penalties for harming a species, and also enables the protection of habitat in Wildlife Management Areas. Presently in BC, three species – white pelican, burrowing owl, and Vancouver Island marmot – are listed as ‘Endangered’. None of the species occurs within the Project study area .
Section 34 of the Act also specifically protects the nests of eagles, peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons, osprey, and herons year-round – all of which occur in the study area, and the nests of all other birds when these birds or their eggs are in the nest. This portion of the Act dovetails with the federal requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
British Columbia species-at-risk affected by forest or range management are included in the province’s Identified Wildlife Management Strategy. The needs of ‘Identified Wildlife’ species are met through a combination of wildlife habitat areas, general wildlife measures, and higher-level plan recommendations, all of which are legal requirements.
‘Identified Wildlife’ species that may be affected by the Project include:
❍ Tiger salamander
❍ Coastal tailed frog
❍ Great blue heron
❍ Marbled murrelet
❍ Short-eared owl
❍ Keen’s long-eared myotis
❍ Woodland caribou (3 populations: mountain, boreal, northern)
❍ Grizzly bear
❍ Wolverine
Regional Guidelines Both Alberta and British Columbia rely on regional and sub-regional integrated resource planning to make consensus-based land and resource management decisions.
The Project study area traverses portions of eight land and resource management plan (LRMP) areas,
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=235 (3 of 6)10/23/2006 12:03:50 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
as well as the largely agricultural White Zone in Alberta . The eight land-use planning areas are:
❍ Dawson Creek Land and Resource Management Plan
❍ Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan
❍ Kalum South Land and Resource Management Plan
❍ Lakes Land and Resource Management Plan
❍ Morice Land and Resource Management Plan
❍ Northern East Slopes Resource Planning Area
❍ Prince George Land and Resource Management Plan
❍ Vanderhoof Land and Resource Management Plan
The integrated resource plans cover sub-regional areas of approximately 15,000 to 20,000 square kilometres. Each of these land and resource management plans specifies resource management objectives and strategies and establishes the direction for land use. The plans are functionally connected to both higher-level and lower-level plans (operational rules of forest practices, riparian area management, and biodiversity management).
The management directives outlined in the integrated resource plans are used to guide lower-level plans. However, higher-level regional plans also guide the management direction of the integrated resource plans. Resource development projects, such as timber tenures, long-range forest management plans, oil and gas exploration, and linear facilities to name a few, must operate under the umbrella of the integrated resource plan.
Each of the integrated resource plans includes wildlife and wildlife habitat management direction, but the amount of information is dictated by a combination of the wildlife sensitivities of each planning area and the level of participant and resource agency input to each plan.
General Protection Measures
● Spatial Avoidance
● Temporal Avoidance
● Access Control
Typically wildlife and wildlife habitat mitigation strategies can be grouped into one of three categories:
Avoidance: Eliminating effects on wildlife species and their habitats by siting or design of a project. Avoiding Project effects will be accomplished by the combination of spatially and temporally avoiding key habitats or habitat features.
Minimization: Reducing or controlling effects on wildlife species and their habitats through project modification or implementation under special conditions. Minimizing Project effects will be accomplished through an active program of access control throughout the life of the Project.
Compensation: Replacing unavoidably lost wildlife habitat through enhancement or rehabilitation of existing habitats, or, as a last resort, creating new habitats
Spatial Avoidance Spatial avoidance is the Project’s primary wildlife protection measure, routing the pipeline and locating facilities to physically avoid, wherever feasible, sensitive wildlife habitats and habitat features. Specific wildlife and habitat features purposely avoided by the pipeline right-of-way include known:
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=235 (4 of 6)10/23/2006 12:03:50 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
❍ Grizzly bear den sites
❍ Mountain goat winter ranges
❍ Trumpeter swan nesting wetlands
❍ Ungulate winter ranges
❍ Waterfowl staging and breeding wetlands
❍ Woodland caribou calving areas
Temporal Avoidance If spatial avoidance of a habitat feature is not reasonably feasible and the pipeline right-of-way will be in close proximity to wildlife habitat features, Project-related activities in the vicinity of these habitat features will be restricted to seasons or times of non-critical wildlife use where possible. This general wildlife protection measure will ensure that the specific seasonal needs of wildlife species (breeding, calving, movement) are met whenever possible.
Generally, site preparation for the right-of-way and pump stations is planned for the fall or winter season, thus avoiding the critical spring nesting period for birds and the spring calving period for ungulates in most areas. If any area contains early winter habitat for northern ecotype caribou, additional mitigations may need to be put in place.
Sensitive periods have been identified for a few wildlife species and species groups inhabiting the right- of-way, and many of these periods have been included as restricted activity periods (Alberta) or reduced risk timing windows (British Columbia) as per provincial or regional-level recommended land use guidelines. Sensitive periods have been identified for:
❍ Moose winter ranges ( Alberta , British Columbia )
❍ Mountain goat winter ranges ( Alberta , British Columbia )
❍ Trumpeter swan nesting wetlands ( Alberta )
❍ Ungulate winter ranges ( Alberta , British Columbia )
Access Control Roads and trails influence wildlife in a number of ways, including reducing the presence of habitat features, increasing negative edge effects, and altering movement patterns. However, the most adverse effect on wildlife is increased mortality risk due to additional trapping, hunting, poaching, and negative interactions with humans as a result of easier access into wildlife habitats.
An access management plan will be developed, providing guidelines for access during construction of the Project on:
❍ the type, amount ,and distribution of development
❍ industrial and public use
❍ reclamation of all forms of linear features, when appropriate (e.g., pipeline rights-of-way,
temporary and permanent roads, cut lines and trails, seismic lines, transmission corridors)
After construction, the Project will endeavour to be access-neutral, meaning leaving the access into any given area in a condition that meets the environmental management objectives that were in place before the Project, unless a regulatory or stakeholder position identifies otherwise. Temporary access roads
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=235 (5 of 6)10/23/2006 12:03:50 PM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mitigation Measures
will be deactivated, and travel on permanent roads will be monitored and controlled (i.e., types and speed of vehicles).
[1] The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada had assessed these species as at-risk using new updated assessment criteria and current information.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=235 (6 of 6)10/23/2006 12:03:50 PM Summary of Project Effects by Measurable Parameter Species tailed frog Coastal- bear Grizzly myotis Keen’s Murre Marbled Marten Moose goat Mountain goshawk N am dwelling P g tailed S owl Short-eared Songbirds swan Trumpeter Waterfowl screech Western caribou Woodland rouse o h orthern n a p r d hibians p - - let
Species Diversity
Habitat availability 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Mortality Risk 9 9 9 9 9 9
Habitat
Connectivity
Landscape-scale- permeability 9
Patch size and connectivity 9 9 9 9 9 9
Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Glossary
Project Overview Maps Subject Areas ESA Consultation Activities
Home » Glossary
Glossary
Abandonment The permanent ceasing of operations and discontinuation of service but the pipeline, facilities, and utilities are left in place in an as-is condition, subject to the regulatory guidelines of the day. Aboriginal The collective name for the original peoples of Canada and their descendants, including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. Aboriginal traditional knowledge Cultural knowledge based on direct observation or information passed on orally from Aboriginal community members, developed from centuries of living off the land. Access road A temporary or permanent road that provides access to the Project Development Area. Accidental release An unpredictable release of oil or condensate requiring corrective action or cleanup. Admixing The mechanical mixing of discrete layers of soil during stripping and salvage operations. Aliphatic A group of organic compounds with an open chain structure including paraffins and olefins. Ambient The normal or existing conditions at a given location. Anthropogenic Materials made or modified by humans. Application Case Effects from the Project after mitigation measures have been applied. Archaeological Relating to the material remains of past human life and activities such as fossils, artifacts, and monuments. Artifacts An object showing human workmanship or modification, e.g., a tool. Atmospheric attenuation Reduced sound levels from 1) physical dissipation or absorption over distance, or 2) by means of noise control measures applied to a sound source. Base Case Conditions existing prior to the Project. Benthic Invertebrate organisms that live at the bottom of seas, lakes, ponds, or streams. Bilge The part of the underwater body of a ship between the flat bottom and the vertical topsides. Bioaccumulation The storing of substances within the body of an organism at higher concentrations than is found in the environment. Bitumen http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=31 (1 of 4)10/23/2006 11:52:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Glossary
A highly viscous hydrocarbon mixture, heavier than pentanes. In its natural state, not usually recoverable at a commercial rate through a well because it is too thick to flow. Block valves Valves used to isolate a section of a pipeline. Borden Blocks A national inventory system (Museum of Civilization) using a combination of letters and numbers (e.g., DjQj-1), where the uppercase letters refer to units that are two degrees of latitude by four degress of longitude in size, and the lowercase letters refer to subdivided units ten minutes on a side. The numerical reference identifies the order in which the archeological site was recorded in the block, e.g., 1 = first recorded entry. Brachiopods A group of marine invertebrates with bivalve shells. Chemicals of potential concern Contaminants in airborne emissions or carried to surface soil or surface water, potentially causing human health risks. Compliance Adhering to regulatory and permitting requirements enforceable by law. Condensate A mixture consisting mainly of pentanes and heavier hydrocarbons recovered as a liquid. Construction camps Temporary accommodation to house construction employees and contractors. Contingency Plans, protocols, and equipment to prevent and respond to an accidental release. Decibel A unit (one-tenth of a bel) used in the comparision of two power levels relating to sound intensities, with one of the pair usually being taken as the standard. Discipline The professional expertise and standards applied to the analysis of the environmental, social, and economic effects of the Project through the effects assessment process. Emissions Substances discharged into the air typically from facilities and machinery. Environmental alignment sheets Documentation specifying locations where mitigation measures will be be applied. Ephemeral Lasting or of use for only a short time; transitory. Extirpated A species that has been completely destroyed or removed from a particular area. Foraminifera A group of large marine unicellular and microscopic organisms, usually with chalky shells. Future development case The Application Case plus the effects of any future planned developments in the assessment area, for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects. Geomorphology A science dealing with the land or submarine relief features of the earth surface. Glaciolacustrine Deposits that formed in lakes fed by melting glaciers. Greenhouse gas Any gas which absorbs heat radiated by the earth and subsequently warms the atmosphere, contributing to potential climate change. Common greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Groundwater http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=31 (2 of 4)10/23/2006 11:52:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Glossary
Subsurface water that occurs beneath the water table in soils and geological formations (in the pores/voids within rocks both unconsolidated and consolidated) that are fully saturated. It is the water within the Earth that supplies water wells and springs. Hazardous material A material that because of its quantity, concentration and physical or chemical characteristics, either individually or in combination of other substances is, or poses a threat to the environment, humans or other living organisms. Heritage resources Works of nature or by humans valued for their palaeontological, archaeological, prehistoric, historic, cultural, natural, scientific, or aesthetic interest. Hydrocarbon An organic compound containing only carbon and hydrogen such as oil and condensate. Hydrostatic testing A quality-control check of the structural soundness of a pipeline or facility before operations begin. In this test, the line, tank or vessel is filled with water or a glycol-water mixture and pressurized to a designated point, with pressure maintained for a specific period. Any ruptures or leaks revealed by the test are repaired. The test is repeated until no problems are noted. Invertebrate An animal without a backbone and internal skeleton. Key indicator resource Subset component(s) of valued ecosystem/social components considered most vulnerable to Project effects and selected for assessment purposes. Leq A noise measurement used to quantify sound that constantly varies over time, such as that commonly occurring in outdoor environments. It is defined as the steady, continuous sound level over the measured time period that has the same acoustic energy as the actual fluctuating sound levels that occurred during the same time period. Measurement periods commonly used for Leq measurements and criteria are the daytime (07:00 - 22:00 hrs) and nighttime (22:00 - 07:00 hrs) periods. Lithology A term usually applied to describe composition and texture of sediments and rocks. Measurable parameter Measures or values associated with selected valued ecosytem/social resources and/or key indicator resources, tracked from base case conditions to assess the significance of Project effects. Mitigation The elimination, reduction, or control of adverse Project effects through avoidance, replacement, restoration, compensation or other means. Noxious A group of problem plants, commonly referred to as weeds, that are designated under a Weed Control Act by a province or municipality for control or removal. Overburden Any loose material which overlies bedrock (often used as a synonym for Quaternary sediments and/or surficial deposits). Pelagic Relating to organisms living in the open sea. Pig An inline device for pipeline cleaning and inspection. Manifolds are installed on either end of sections of pipe and the pigs are propelled through the pipeline. Pinnipeds A group of aquatic carnivorous mammals including seals and sea lions in which the limbs are modified into flippers. Product The oil and condensate products related to the Project.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=31 (3 of 4)10/23/2006 11:52:33 AM Gateway Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment - Glossary
Residual effects Project effects that remain after all environmental protection and mitigation measures have been implemented. Riparian Areas adjacent to a waterbody such as rivers, streams, lakes, or ponds with a different density, diversity, and productivity of plant and animal species relative to nearby uplands. Rookeries A breeding ground or colony of gregarious birds and mammals. Spawning areas Areas where aquatic animals, usually fish, produce or deposit their eggs. Stand-alone Case Effects from the Project alone. Upwelling The upward movement of water in the marine ecosystem. Valued Ecosystem Component Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern, that can be measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project. Valued Social Component Key resources or resource characteristics of high management or public concern, that can be measurably affected by the Enbridge Gateway Project. Watercourse crossing The location where a pipeline or access road crosses a stream, river, or lake. Wetlands An area that is saturated by surface or groundwater, with vegetation adapted for life under those conditions such as swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries.
http://consultation.enbridge.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=31 (4 of 4)10/23/2006 11:52:33 AM