«Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings 3rd Edition October 2005 The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) is the voice of the ...»
DFO retains direct management of fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Authorizations may be required under the federal Fisheries Act.
2.2.6 Northwest Territories Approval and regulation of oil and gas pipelines in the Northwest Territories (NWT) is administered by a number of different agencies and is dependent upon which region of the NWT the pipeline project will take place. The following descriptions illustrate the current regulatory environment in the NWT, but should not be considered prescriptive. Besides regional regulation, it is important to consider that overall the NEB administers, approves and regulates oil and gas pipelines and DFO retains direct management control of fisheries resources in the NWT.
Page 2-20 October 2005 Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings 3rd Edition Inuvialuit Settlement Region In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR), the Inuvialuit Land Administration (ILA), is responsible for administering and managing the lands received under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. All oil and gas applications involving use of Inuvialuit lands are filed with the ILA, which then forwards the applications to the Inuvialuit Environmental Impact Review Board for review and recommendations.
Land use permits are granted by the ILA on Inuvialuit private lands and by INAC on Crown lands according to Territorial Land Use Regulations of the Territorial Lands Act. The NWT Water Board issues all water licences according to the Northwest Territories Waters Act.
All land and water boards are responsible for the issuance of land use permits and water licences, both of which would be required for a watercourse crossing.
Determination criteria for land use permits are set out in the Mackenzie Valley Land Use Regulations and water licences are issued pursuant to the Northwest Territories Waters Act. If necessary, permit and license applications will be forwarded to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board for environmental assessment and review.
2.2.7 Nova Scotia
OMNR reviews all aspects of a proposed watercourse crossing and all projects will require a Work Permit from their office. If Crown lands are involved the permit is issued under the Public Lands Act and if private or municipal lands are involved the permit is issued under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.
Proponents should follow the procedures described in Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings (OMNR 1993b).
In southern Ontario, proponents must also obtain a permit from the appropriate Conservation Authority for all watercourse crossings. The authority will issue a permit provided the construction of the crossing will not affect the control of flooding or pollution, or conservation of land.
OMNR has developed generic drawings for dam/pump and flume crossing techniques and temporary access bridges. All open trenched crossing techniques will require a more extensive application and submission of a Sediment Control Plan. Information requirements for a Sediment Control Plan and copies of OMNR Generic Drawings can be obtained from OMNR offices.
2.2.10 Prince Edward Island Approval and regulation of pipeline associated watercourse crossings on Prince Edward Island (PEI) is administered by the PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry under the Environmental Protection Act. The proponent must provide a written proposal to the department with regard to the project. The
DFO retains direct management control of fisheries for PEI; however, a Watercourse Alteration Permit is required from the PEI Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment. The review process for this permit includes comment from DFO. The Minister has appointed the PEI Watercourse Alteration Advisory Committee to review applications for watercourse alteration permits and to advise the Minister on these proposed projects. The Committee and DFO developed watercourse alteration guidelines in 1989 (PEI Watercourse Alterations Advisory Committee 1989).
2.2.13 Yukon Approval and regulation of the construction and operation of oil and gas pipelines in the Yukon is administered by Natural Resources Canada and the NEB. DFO has management control of marine and anadromous fisheries resources and management of all fisheries habitat. First Nation Renewable Resources Councils are responsible for non-anadromous fisheries and fulfill their responsibilities in consultation with DFO.
Watercourse crossings are subject to the following territorial legislation:
• Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act (YESAA)
Land use permitting of land under the control of the Yukon government is conducted through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yukon First Nations have control over their individual settlement lands and must be contacted regarding proposed pipeline associated watercourse crossings within their jurisdiction. The Yukon Land Use Planning Council is in place to co-ordinate First Nation and Government land use planning.
Page 2-26 October 2005 Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings 3rd Edition 3 Description of Crossing Techniques This section presents two tables summarizing the environmental and engineering/construction considerations for each pipeline and vehicle crossing technique. The intent is to allow the reader to become aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each technique and factor this information into the watercourse crossing planning process.
3.1 Pipeline Crossings
This sub-section outlines the various pipeline watercourse crossing construction techniques commonly used in Canada. Table 3.1 summarizes the environmental and construction advantages and disadvantages as well as the appropriate uses of each crossing method of construction. Drawings 1 to 11 (see Appendix A) outline the standard protection measures that should be incorporated with each technique.
Although the appropriate uses for each technique are identified, implementation of alternative techniques with mitigation measures or a combination of techniques may also be applicable. Since the drawings and measures contained in this document are typical and not site-specific, detailed design drawings might be required with input from an engineer and other specialists.
3.2 Temporary Vehicle Crossings
This sub-section outlines the various vehicle crossing techniques that can be used during the construction of pipeline associated crossings. Table 3.2 summarizes the environmental and construction advantages and disadvantages as well as the appropriate uses of each technique. Drawings 12 to 15 (see Appendix A) illustrate the more common techniques and outline the standard environmental protection measures that should be implemented with each crossing method. Typical vehicle crossing drawings should be designed by an engineer with input from other specialists to meet regulatory requirements. In most situations, typical drawings similar to those contained in this document will be sufficient; however, where site-specific cases warrant, or where special vehicle crossing techniques are necessary, individual crossing designs by an engineer should be considered.
The success of a pipeline associated watercourse crossing depends upon the selection of an appropriate crossing method to prevent or reduce the adverse environmental effects of crossing construction. The following subsections identify issues and risks that proponents may wish to consider, to assist them in the selection of appropriate water crossing techniques. Since this document is intended to be general in nature, the exact technique and protection measures implemented during a watercourse crossing may vary according to the specific requirements of the project and site-specific conditions at the water crossing.
When highly sensitive or high profile watercourse crossings are anticipated to be a component of a proposed project, it is important that government agencies' representatives and the public be contacted during the initial stages of route and crossing selection. Once established, ongoing feedback between the proponent and the agencies will clarify the concerns and facilitate approvals.
Planning a pipeline watercourse crossing project involves many steps, from route selection to post-construction monitoring. There are several points in the planning process where the details of the proposed project will require it to proceed along a specific regulatory course. Figure 4.1 outlines the key steps in planning watercourse crossing construction projects.
4.1 DFO Risk Management Framework
DFO has established a national Risk Management Framework (RMF) to provide consistency to the determination of potential effects of development projects, including pipeline associated watercourse crossings, on fish and fish habitat. This nationally standardized approach to managing risk allows DFO biologists, partner agencies and proponents to determine what fish habitat concerns are associated with a project, develop appropriate mitigation to address anticipated effects and assess the risk of residual negative effects to fish habitat.
The RMF consists of a Pathways of Effects (POE) model used to determine the potential effects on fish habitat resulting from a work, and a Risk Determination Matrix (Figure 4.2) that incorporates the scale of any residual negative effects and the sensitivity of the specific fish and fish habitat to make a determination of the appropriate regulatory approach. The POE model is a tool used to list the predicted effects on fish and fish habitat caused by specified land- and waterbased construction activities. If the POE model identifies any residual negative effects caused by a proposed project that cannot be fully mitigated, then these effects are examined by DFO in the context of the Risk Determination Matrix.
4.1.2 Process for Assessing Risk to Fish Habitat The process for assessing the risk to fish habitat posed by a crossing project involves several proponent-directed steps and a final risk evaluation and decision by DFO biologists (Figure 4.3). The proponent must first determine whether the crossing is located in fish habitat that directly or indirectly supports a fishery or has the potential to support a fishery, and whether an operational statement (OS) applies to the proposed crossing method. These OSs specify the crossing method, habitat characteristics and mitigation and monitoring measures under which the project may proceed without further DFO review. If no OS is in force for the proposed crossing project, then the proponent determines the potential effects on fish habitat using the POE model and designs mitigation measures to break the identified pathways.
In the next step of the risk assessment, DFO biologists evaluate the certainty associated with the proposed mitigation measures and the direction (positive, neutral or negative) of any residual effects. If negative residual effects exist, then DFO will use the Risk Determination Matrix to determine the appropriate management approach, which could include an authorization to commit HADD under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. Such authorization may or may not be granted, or may be subject to habitat compensation conditions, depending on where on the Risk Determination Matrix (Figure 4.2) the residual effects fall.
The Risk Determination Matrix (Figure 4.2) allows proponents and DFO biologists to qualitatively determine what level of DFO management involvement should be applied to a proposed project. The scale of the effect and the sensitivity of the affected habitat, as described above, define where a negative effect falls on the matrix. This approach also guides a proponent’s communication with DFO in determining whether an authorization, notification or no contact is required for a particular crossing project.
A site-specific environmental evaluation may be required where there are insufficient available data to adequately assess the risks associated with a crossing. Table 4.1 summarizes the general environmental considerations to be evaluated during an assessment.