Professional Documents
Culture Documents
B-2d - Route Selection A0X2I3
B-2d - Route Selection A0X2I3
Table of Contents
3 Route Selection ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Selection Process and General Routing Criteria.............................................................. 3-1
3.2 Routing Alternatives Description .................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Alternative I ......................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Alternative II........................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3 Preferred Route Description .......................................................................................... 3-11
3.3.1 Alberta–Saskatchewan Route ............................................................................ 3-11
3.3.2 Manitoba Preferred Route.................................................................................. 3-15
3.4 References...................................................................................................................... 3-15
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Routing Evaluation of Options ............................................................................ 3-3
Table 3-2 Routing Evaluation of Alternative I Options in Manitoba................................... 3-4
Table 3-3 Routing Evaluation of Alternative II Options in Alberta..................................... 3-5
Table 3-4 Route Deviation in Alberta ................................................................................ 3-15
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Alternative I and II Route and Associated Option for Alberta ............................ 3-7
Figure 3-2 Alternative I and II Routing Options in Manitoba............................................... 3-9
Figure 3-3 Preferred Alberta–Saskatchewan Pipeline Route .............................................. 3-13
Figure 3-4 Preferred Manitoba New Pipeline Route ........................................................... 3-17
Abbreviations
HDD ......................................................................................... Horizontal Directional Drill
KP..................................................................................................................Kilometre Post
NGTL .................................................................................... NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd
RoW ............................................................................................................... Right-of-Way
3 Route Selection
3.1 Selection Process and General Routing Criteria
The route selection process and general routing criteria took into consideration a number
of factors including landscape and terrain features, Valued Ecosystem Components, and
regulatory and public input gathered through consultation. The route selection process
involved a desktop review of topographic maps and satellite imagery of potential routes.
Initiation and termination points for the project were provided by Keystone as part of the
project description. Once suitable options for the route were mapped, then a helicopter
reconnaissance of the potential new pipeline routes in Alberta and Manitoba was carried
out. The route was adjusted to take into consideration any additional constraints
identified during the reconnaissance flight. The one constant in the route selection
process was the use of the existing Line 100-1 pipeline through Saskatchewan and a
portion of Manitoba. With the exception of pump stations required to be placed along the
new pipeline segments in Alberta and Manitoba, pump stations were to be co-located
with existing compressor station sites along Line 100-1. However, hydraulic modelling
was the determining factor in final location of all pump stations, including those along
Line 100-1.
Route selection criteria used to assist in the selection of the preferred pipeline route
included:
• maximizing to the extent possible paralleling existing linear disturbances to:
• reduce the potential fragmentation of wildlife habitat and native rangelands;
• reduce the potential fragmentation of agricultural lands with multiple pipeline
RoW;
• maximizing the potential along an existing RoW, which can be used for temporary
work space;
• minimizing the amount of new non-contiguous RoW required;
• minimizing the number of watercourse crossings;
• minimizing the number of major river crossings;
• avoiding or minimizing effects on environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands),
affected by the route;
• avoiding areas of unstable terrain;
• avoiding lands of specific status such as parks, cemeteries and Indian Reserves, and
designated historic sites;
• ensuring the facilities are economical to construct and operate;
• consulting with regulatory agencies to understand issues that may need to be
addressed in the routing process;
• avoiding routing in close proximity to urban developments where practical;
• minimizing the number of road crossings, particularly Provincial highways and paved
roads, where practical;
• selecting technically feasible crossing locations for major watercourse and highway
crossings;
• ensuring construction feasibility of minor watercourse, rail and road crossings along
selected route; and
• minimizing effects to water supply systems and groundwater resources.
Site selection criteria for the pump stations consisted of:
• avoiding, where feasible, selecting sites near wetlands and watercourses;
• avoiding, where feasible, selecting sites that do not have existing access near to the
proposed site;
• avoiding selecting sites in close proximity to residences; and
• on the Line 100-1, co-locating proposed pump stations at existing compressor
stations, unless hydraulic modelling indicates pump station locations at a different
spacing than existing facilities.
The route selection and refinement process adopted for the Project allowed for additional
input gathered during regulatory and public consultation and field surveys. For example,
public input on the route near Winkler, Manitoba resulted in a re-route to avoid an
important aquifer recharge area. In Alberta, biophysical field surveys identified
encroachment on one wetland and one reservoir where minor re-routes were made to
avoid crossing these wetlands. The crossing of the South Saskatchewan River was
adjusted to avoid crossing a “Class A” waterbody as identified in the Code of Practice for
Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody (AENV 2001).
3.2.1 Alternative I
pipeline would be constructed to a pump station near Gretna Manitoba near the Canada–
US border.
From a land access and compatibility perspective, options A and B were acceptable.
Options A and B paralleled existing pipelines for the majority of their routes, which
would serve to minimize disruption of farm activities and fragmentation of farm lands.
Alternative C had more native rangeland compared to the other options, which increased
reclamation concerns.
Route Option A was selected as the preferred option, as it was shortest in length, had the
least amount of new pipeline RoW that was not contiguous with other linear RoWs, had
the fewest wetland and watercrossings, potentially affected the least amount of native
range and had the lowest overall cost.
Subsequent analysis demonstrated this was not the most economical solution.
Accordingly, Alternative I in Alberta was not further considered.
Moderate to high conflicts were anticipated for the Option 1 at the Rat River crossing,
where housing encroachment on the existing line is extensive. Similarly, the Option 2
route encounters residential congestion at its crossing of the Red River, and the Option 3
route would have encountered difficulty in the community of La Salle.
There were relatively few difficult residential conflicts along the Option 3 and 4 routes.
Pump stations could be established at their northern terminus well away from settled
areas, eliminating potential noise conflicts. Bermed farm settlements would have to be
avoided in several locations, requiring short deviations from existing utility or road
corridors, and the Option 3 route could encounter some residential encroachment
immediately west of La Salle. Option 4 route paralleling the powerline posed the fewest
potential conflicts of the four routes.
From a land perspective all routing options paralleled existing pipelines RoWs, which
helps minimize disruption to farm activities and fragmentation of farmlands. Both the
Option 3 and 4 routes were acceptable options for the pipeline RoW from a land access
and compatibility perspective. Option 4 had the fewest potential conflicts with farmyards
and other congested areas.
The fourth option was selected as the preferred route for Alternative I. Total length of this
option was 89.3 km with 9.7 km of new pipeline RoW, not contiguous with existing
RoWs. This route avoids crossing the Red River. This route also requires one crossing of
the La Salle River, deviates from the powerline in the vicinity of the La Salle River to
avoid multiple river crossings and only has to switch sides of the powerline twice to
avoid residences or farm sites along the route.
Ultimately, the US border crossing location was moved to a point near Haskett, Manitoba
to align with the US pipeline routing and Alternative I was not further pursued.
3.2.2 Alternative II
existing Line 100-1 from natural gas to oil transportation. Only one routing option was
considered in Manitoba.
through agricultural cropland. A field site visit was completed to assess the
constructability of following the NGTL Kessler Lateral Loop route through the Neutral
Hills. The investigation confirmed there was adequate room to follow the existing
corridor through the Neutral Hills. This route refinement reduced the amount of new
pipeline RoW and lessened the effects of a new pipeline route through agricultural lands.
A second deviation was required at about KP 79 near Gooseberry Lake, where the
pipeline encroached or would pass through a wetland. A route deviation occurred at this
location to avoid the wetland. This deviation provided for a better crossing location of the
intermittent stream that feeds the wetland and Gooseberry Lake as well as provided a
greater distance between residences located near the original route.
An additional route deviation was required at KP 110 where the proposed route would
cross a reservoir. Two options where considered at this location. The first option involved
deviating to the east for 600 m starting about 500 m north of a farm residence located
north of the reservoir, then turn south, cross the intermittent outflow stream downstream
of the dam, and rejoin the original route. This option was about 1.6 km in length. The
second option involved deviating from the original route to the southwest and cross
upstream of the reservoir. This option was about 800 m in length, avoided the reservoir
and provides for a constructible crossing of the intermittent inlet stream.
The final major route deviation involved determining a constructible crossing location of
the South Saskatchewan River. The original proposed route paralleled the existing NGTL
crossing location upstream of Highway 41. This section of the South Saskatchewan River
is a Class A” waterbody as identified in the “Code of Practice for Pipelines and
Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody” (AENV, 2001). No new pipeline
crossings are allowed in Class A watercourses in Alberta. Two options were considered,
upstream of the existing pipeline crossings and downstream of the boundary to the Class
A watercourse. A desktop evaluation of the two options was completed including aerial
photograph interpretation. The upstream option was eliminated primarily due to the risk
to the Class A section if the proposed HDD crossing method failed and there was an
inadvertent mud release as well as potential effects from a pipeline failure during
operations. A field visit was completed in March 2006, with a site selected about 3 km
downstream of the Class A boundary. This deviation resulted in an increase in the
amount of new pipeline RoW but avoided potentially significant issues with crossing
upstream of a Class A watercourse.
Further minor route deviations have occurred to provide for better watercrossing
locations but these deviations are small. Table 3-4 provides a summary of the route
deviations that have occurred to the originally proposed route.
For an overview of the preferred Alberta–Saskatchewan pipeline route, see Figure 3-3.
3.4 References
Alberta Environment. 2001. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines
Crossing a Waterbody