ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT (ESR) Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) Apache Abandonment Project

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT (ESR) Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) Apache Abandonment Project Applicant Name: Apache Canada Ltd. (Apache) Application Date: 11 March 2010 CEA Act Registration Date: 8 July 2010 National Energy Board File Number: OF-Fac-Gas-A Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Number: CEA Act Law List Trigger: paragraph 74(1)(d) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) CEA Act Determination Date: 27 May 2011

2 SUMMARY This report is an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) for an application by Apache Canada Ltd. (Apache), pursuant to paragraph 74(1)(d) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act), to abandon in place a five kilometre long sweet dry gas pipeline from W4M in Alberta to W3M in Saskatchewan. The physical activities associated with this abandonment were completed in 2005 and included: removing service fluids, internal purging and cleaning of underground pipe; and physically separating the pipeline from any in-service piping, and cutting, capping and sealing of pipe to be left in the ground. No additional works or activities were carried out by Apache. The National Energy Board (NEB or Board) is the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator for this project. In this role, the NEB coordinates the involvement of federal departments with an interest in the project. No other federal departments identified themselves as Responsible Authorities or Federal Authorities in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge. This ESR was prepared as part of the NEB s responsibilities under the CEA Act and incorporates information provided by Apache. The analysis in this ESR is based on evidence on the record, which can be found in the Board s Regulatory Document Index at the following Internet hyperlink: On 18 April 2011, the Board issued a draft ESR for a two week public comment period. The Board did not receive any comments on the draft ESR.. The NEB is of the view that, if the project is approved and, taking into account the environmental protection measures that Apache has implemented and its ongoing routine maintenance activities, the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview On 11 March 2010, Apache Canada Ltd. (Apache) submitted an application to the National Energy Board (NEB or Board), pursuant to paragraph 74(1)(d) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act), requesting leave to abandon in place a pipeline that is no longer in service. The project is subject to an environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act). For the purposes of this EA, the Project is defined as the abandonment in place of a five kilometre (km) long, 88.9 millimetre (mm) outside diameter (OD) sweet dry gas pipeline within a 7.62 metre wide reclaimed area of the 15 metre wide Right-of-Way (RoW), commencing at a point in W4M in Alberta and terminating at a point in W3M in Saskatchewan. The physical activities associated with this abandonment were carried out in 2005, in accordance with the abandonment procedures described in Canadian Standards Association Z662-07, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. Apache performed its abandonment activities at the pipeline s end points, which are both located within existing industrial sites. Section 4.0 provides a description of the work associated with the Project. 1.2 Rationale for the Project Apache removed the subject pipeline from service in 2005 as there were no further economic reasons to continue operating it. Apache has since requested leave to abandon this pipeline. 1.3 Baseline Information and Sources This Environmental Screening Report (ESR) is based on information provided to the NEB in Apache s application, its Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESEA), and its responses to information requests. Filed information pertaining to the Project application can be found on the NEB s website ( within Regulatory Documents. For more details on how to obtain documents, please contact the Secretary of the NEB at the address specified in Section 10.0 of this report. 2.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS The application for this Project was filed pursuant to paragraph 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act, which triggers the CEA Act Law List Regulations, requiring an ESR. Page 1 of 13

4 2.1 Government Participation in the EA Coordination Process On 30 November 2010, the NEB issued a Federal Coordination Notification (FCN) letter, pursuant to section 5 of the CEA Act Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements (Federal Coordination Regulations), to identify the potential involvement of federal departments in the EA process. No other federal departments declared themselves as Responsible Authorities (RAs) or Federal Authorities (FAs) in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge. The NEB sent the FCN letter to provincial agencies in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment requested a copy of any reports generated as a result of the EA process. 2.2 Opportunities for Public Input into the EA On 14 December 2010, the NEB released Hearing Order MHW , describing the process and requirements of the written public hearing for the Project. The NEB process allowed for a number of opportunities for the public (including government agencies, Aboriginal groups and landowners) to participate and provide input into the EA. Parties could provide comments on the draft Scope of the Environmental Assessment (Scope of the EA or Scope) and List of Issues, file a letter of comment, or participate as an Intervenor. The Government Participant option was provided to government authorities to allow them to participate without becoming Intervenors. There were no Intervenors, letters of comment filed, or Government Participants in this proceeding Draft Scope of the EA The draft Scope of the EA was attached to the Hearing Order MHW as Appendix VI and parties were given an opportunity to provide their suggested amendments or additions by 25 January The Board did not receive any comments on the draft Scope NEB Hearing Process As described in Hearing Order MHW , the Board held a written public hearing process for the Project. The evidentiary portion of the hearing ended on 31 March Draft EA Report On 18 April 2011, the NEB sent a letter to interested parties inviting comments on the draft ESR. No comments were received. Page 2 of 13

5 3.0 SCOPE OF THE EA The Scope of the EA was determined through consultation with any actual and potential RAs and FAs, and the public, in accordance with the CEA Act and the Federal Coordination Regulations. The Scope is attached as Appendix 1 and is composed of three parts: 1. Scope of the Project; 2. Factors to be considered; and 3. Scope of the Factors to be considered. 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Project is the abandonment in place of a 5 km long, 88.9 mm OD sweet natural gas pipeline commencing at W4M in Alberta and terminating at W3M in Saskatchewan. All physical activities associated with the Project were completed in 2005 and occurred at the initial and terminal end points only. The physical activities involved: emptying the pipeline of service fluids, and purging and cleaning the pipeline with pigs pushed by compressed air; and physically separating the pipeline from any in-service piping, and cutting, capping and sealing it below ground level. No additional activities were carried out by Apache. 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT Approximately 1 km of the route lies within Alberta with the remaining 4 km located in Saskatchewan. Both end points lie within sites under provincial jurisdiction. Survey information, including that collected during a site visit in October 2010 and a desktop exercise, was used for the assessment and was provided by Apache in its ESEA. Human Occupancy and Resource Use The Project crosses private lands exclusively. It is located in Cyprus County northeast of the Hamlet of Hilda, Alberta, and southwest of Burstall, in Division 3, Rural Municipalities 232 (Deer Folks) and 142 (Enterprise), Saskatchewan. Each centre has a population of less than 500 people. Residential/agricultural properties are located in SE W3M and NW W4M, which are approximately 1.1 km and 1.3 km from the RoW, respectively. The Project does not traverse any federally-owned or administered land. Current land use is pasture and farmland. Apache s consultation with landowners and occupants indicated that land use is not expected to change. The surrounding properties are primarily prairie/pasture, interspersed with cultivated lands. There are no parks or protected areas in the region. Page 3 of 13

6 Agriculture and oil and gas activities are the dominant industrial activities in this region. Recreational activities in the area include hunting, camping and fishing. Terrain and Soils The topography along the RoW was classified as rolling with several gentle to moderate slopes. The start point topography is rolling with a minor topographical depression. The end point topography was described as flat. Soils in the region are predominantly Orthic Brown Chernozems, interspersed with Solonetzic soils. Soil conditions at the pipeline RoW start point were described as sandy loam. Soil conditions at pipeline RoW end point were described as sand interspersed with gravel. Vegetation Vegetation along the RoW predominantly consists of mixed grasses and cultivated crops. Vegetation observed at pipeline RoW start point includes: wild oats, foxtail barley, several grass species and planted wheat crop. Vegetation observed at the pipeline RoW end point as sparsely vegetated. During the plant surveys for the Project, it was noted that native plant species were beginning to infiltrate the reclaimed RoW. Observed species included: prairie sage, pasture sage, pussytoes and prickly rose. RoW grasses were distinguishable in the grassland pasture areas. Surrounding prairie grasses included: needle and thread, western porcupine, June grass and blue gamma. Rare plant species are known to exist in the region. During the plant surveys for the Project no species listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada or under the Alberta Wildlife Act or the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act, 1998 were found. Weeds observed along the RoW and end points include: thistle, wild oats, and foxtail barley. Watercourses and Aquifers The Project does not cross any watercourses but is in the South Saskatchewan River watershed. Regional drainage occurs via the South Saskatchewan River approximately 13 km northwest of the Project. The Project traverses the regional Empress Group aquifer and has been classified in both the Alberta and Saskatchewan Aquifer Vulnerability Indexes as extremely low. Page 4 of 13

7 Wetlands The Project traverses or is adjacent to nine wetlands. Several of the wetlands are ephemeral in nature. A few larger, topographical low lying areas have standing water. All were classified as shallow, open-water wetlands. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat White-tailed deer, coyote, and white-tailed jack rabbit were observed on or adjacent to the Project during the surveys on or near the Project. Evidence of Richardson ground squirrel and American badger were also noted during surveys on or near the Project. Numerous bird species were observed on or near the Project. Species included: vesper sparrow, savannah sparrow, horned lark, chestnut-collar longspur, black-billed magpie, northern harrier, Swainson s Hawk, prairie falcon and American crow. Small wetlands with open water provide habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Wildlife Species at Risk (listed on Schedule 1 of the SARA) Three species at risk have potential to occur on the Project (i.e., known ranges overlap the Project area and suitable habitat occurs along the route): o Ords kangaroo rat (Endangered); o ferruginous hawk (Threatened); and o long-billed curlew (Special Concern). Traditional Land and Resource Use The Project is located entirely on private lands covered by Treaty No. 4, and does not traverse any reserve lands. The closest Aboriginal reserves are the Carry the Kettle Nakoda First Nations and the Nekaneet Cree Nation, which are approximately 100 km away to the northeast and southeast, respectively. There is no indication of traditional land use by Aboriginal groups. Landowners and occupants have never been contacted by Aboriginal groups for use of the affected lands for traditional purposes. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC The NEB did not receive any comments from the public during the evidentiary portion of the MHW Hearing. 7.0 THE NEB S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY In assessing the environmental effects of the Project, the NEB used an issue-based approach. In its analysis within Section 8.1 of this ESR, the NEB identified interactions expected to occur between the proposed Project activities and the surrounding environmental elements. Also included were the consideration of potential accidents and malfunctions that may occur due to the Project and any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment. If there were Page 5 of 13

8 no expected element/ Project interactions then no further examination was deemed necessary. Similarly, no further examination was deemed necessary for interactions that would result in positive or neutral potential effects. In circumstances where the potential effect was unknown, it was categorized as a potential adverse environmental effect. Section 8.2 provides an analysis for all identified potential adverse environmental effects of the Project. Section 8.3 addresses cumulative effects and Section 8.4 addresses follow-up programs. Page 6 of 13

9 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS 8.1 Project - Environment Interactions As previously-mentioned, Project abandonment activities were restricted to the two pipeline end points. Environmental Element Description of Interaction (How, When, Where, or Why No Interaction is Expected) Potential Adverse Environmental Effect Bio-Physical Physical Environment Terrain Soil and Soil Productivity Vegetation Water Quality and Quantity Wetlands Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Species at Risk pursuant to Schedule 1 of SARA Species of Special Status No interaction expected and no future interaction is expected. Excavation and backfilling occurred only at the pipeline RoW end points within the existing industrial sites. No interaction expected and no future interaction is expected. Excavation and backfilling occurred only at the pipeline RoW end points within the existing industrial sites. No interaction expected and no future interaction is expected. Excavation and backfilling occurred only at the pipeline RoW end points within the existing industrial sites. No interaction occurred and no future interaction is expected. Project activities did not encounter any watercourses or require the use of water from natural sources. No interaction occurred and no future interaction is expected. Project activities did not encounter wetlands. Use of vehicles and activities at end points during Project activities. Wildlife: See the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat element. Plant: no interaction occurred and no future interaction is expected. Activities took place at the pipeline RoW end points within the existing industrial sites. Project activities were located on existing industrial sites where little or no interaction is expected. No Species of Special Status were identified. Air Quality No interaction beyond typical emissions related to the Page 7 of 13

10 Environmental Element Description of Interaction (How, When, Where, or Why No Interaction is Expected) Potential Adverse Environmental Effect Socio-Economic Other Human Occupancy/ Resource Use temporary use of vehicles and equipment. Project activities were located on existing industrial sites where little or no interaction was expected. Heritage Resources No interaction occurred. Current Traditional Land and Resource Use Socio and Cultural Well-being Human Health/ Aesthetics Accidents/Malfunctions Effects of the Environment on the Project No interaction occurred and no future interaction is expected. No apparent traditional land use by Aboriginal groups. No interaction occurred. No interaction occurred. No interaction occurred and no future interaction is expected since all abandonment activities have been completed. Natural erosion at the pipeline RoW end points within the existing industrial sites. Reduced depth of cover over the pipe, possibly resulting in pipe exposure. Page 8 of 13

11 8.2 Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects In its application and related supplemental filings, Apache indicated that all of the abandonment activities were undertaken at the pipeline RoW end points within the existing industrial sites. The only potential adverse environmental effect that has been identified in Section 8.1 is the reduced depth of cover over the pipe, possibly resulting in exposure of pipe due to natural erosion. To address this effect, Apache has indicated that it will continue to monitor for signs of erosion, in its annual and bi-annual monitoring programs as part of its ongoing routine maintenance activities. Further, Apache stated that the pipeline was abandoned in place and required no surface disturbance along the pipeline RoW. Apache also stated that visual inspection of the pipeline RoW did not indicate any leaks, spills or erosion issues. In addition, Apache submitted that the pipeline carried sweet dry gas and therefore, did not contribute to any soil contamination related issues. For these reasons, Apache did not undertake any reclamation measures as part of the abandonment activities for the Project. All the abandonment activities were undertaken within the existing industrial sites. Taking into account the environmental protection measures that Apache has already implemented and its ongoing routine maintenance activities, the NEB is of the view that the Project will not be likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. 8.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment The NEB has considered the potential for cumulative environmental effects and determined that any adverse environmental effects that are likely to result from this Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out would be localized and minor in nature. Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be any significant cumulative environmental effects resulting from this Project. 8.4 Follow-Up Program Any potential subsequent activities associated with the Project are routine in nature. No public concerns have been expressed related to environmental effects of the Project. For these reasons, the NEB is of the view that a follow-up program would not be appropriate for this Project. 9.0 THE NEB S CONCLUSION Pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(a) of the CEA Act, the NEB has determined that, taking into account the environmental protection measures that Apache has already implemented and its ongoing routine maintenance activities, the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. This ESR was approved by the NEB on the date specified on the cover page of this report under the heading: CEA Act Determination Date. Page 9 of 13

12 10.0 NEB CONTACT Anne-Marie Erickson Secretary of the Board National Energy Board 444 Seventh Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0X8 Telephone: Facsimile: Page 10 of 13

13 APPENDIX 1: Scope of the EA Scope of the Environmental Assessment Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) Apache Canada Ltd. (Apache) Application to Abandon a Gas Pipeline from W4M to W3M (the Project) Pursuant to Paragraph 74 (1) (d) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) and Section 50 of the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999 (OPR-99) 1.0 INTRODUCTION Apache has applied to abandon a gas pipeline from W4M near Hilda, Alberta, to W3M in Saskatchewan. This would require leave pursuant to paragraph 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act. The Project will be subject to an environmental assessment (EA) under the CEA Act. On 11 March 2010, Apache filed an application with the National Energy Board (NEB or Board) regarding the proposed Project. Following receipt of the application, the Board initiated the EA process pursuant to the CEA Act. On 30 November 2010, based on new information provided by Apache, the NEB sent out a Federal Coordination Notification (FCN) letter pursuant to section 5 of the CEA Act Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements (Federal Coordination Regulations). This letter was sent to Fisheries and Oceans Canada who did not identify itself either as a Responsible Authority (RA) likely to require an EA under the CEA Act or as a Federal Authority (FA) in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge in respect of the proposed Project EA. The NEB also sent the FCN letter to the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment has expressed an interest in monitoring and participating in the EA review, although provincial EA legislation is not triggered. This scope of the EA is to be established by the RAs, in consultation with the FAs, in accordance with the CEA Act and the Federal Coordination Regulations. Page 11 of 13

14 2.0 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT 2.1 Scope of the Project The scope of the Project for the purposes of the EA includes the abandonment in place of a 5 km long, 88.9 mm (3.5-inch) outside diameter natural gas pipeline, within a 7.62 metre wide reclaimed area of the 15 metre wide Right-of-Way (RoW), commencing at W4M (in Alberta) and terminating at W3M (in Saskatchewan). The physical activities, completed in 2005 and described in greater detail in Apache s application, include: emptying the pipeline of service fluids, and purging and cleaning the pipeline with pigs pushed by compressed air; and physically separating the pipeline from any in-service piping, and cutting, capping and sealing it below grade. 2.2 Factors to be Considered The EA will include a consideration of the following factors listed in paragraphs 16(1) (a) to (d) of the CEA Act: (a) the environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; (b) the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a); (c) comments from the public that are received during the environmental assessment process; and (d) measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project. For further clarity, subsection 2(1) of the CEA Act defines environmental effect as: (a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change that the project may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residence of individuals of that species as defined in 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, iv. any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance; or Page 12 of 13

15 (c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change or effect occurs within or outside Canada. 2.3 Scope of the Factors to be Considered The EA will consider the potential effects of the proposed Project within spatial and temporal boundaries within which the Project may potentially interact with, and have an effect on components of the environment. These boundaries will vary with the issues and factors considered, and will include but not be limited to: the physical abandonment activities and assessments performed, as well as any other undertakings likely to be carried out in relation to the abandonment proposed by the proponent, including mitigation and habitat replacement measures; seasonal or other natural variations of a population or ecological component; any sensitive life cycle phases of species (e.g., wildlife, vegetation) in relation to the timing of Project activities; the time required for an effect to become evident; the area within which a population or ecological component functions; and the area affected by the Project. For the purpose of the assessment of the cumulative environmental effects, the consideration of other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out will be limited to those for which formal plans or applications have been made. Page 13 of 13