Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: Quest CCS Project

David Wach - 998834846

CIV 440 Environmental Impact and Risk Assessment

Background
The Quest CCS Project
The purpose of the Quest Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Project is to capture CO2 from the Scotford Upgrader which is
located in Alberta. This has the potential to reduce the greenhouse emissions produced by the upgrader by up to 35%. There
are three major components of the project which include; the capture infrastructure located near the upgrader, a 84 km CO2
pipeline and 3 to 10 injection wells used to permanently store the gas underground. Up to 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 will be
captured and transported by the new infrastructure, the construction of which may have an environmental impact.
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Wildlife is considered to be an essential component of natural ecosystems; an impact on wildlife would also constitute an
impact on the ecosystem in which it exists. Infrastructure construction can result in altered wildlife habitats and habitat
fragmentation which can limit species movement and impact species diversity (Andrews, 1990). Also, impacts to wildlife and
wildlife habitat have both environmental affects and economic affects due to the resulting impact on biodiversity and
ecosystems (Smith, 1995). These issues are important to Canadians, so wildlife and wildlife habitat is considered a valued
environmental component (VEC).

Objectives
- The main objective of the assessment is to determine the environmental impact of the Quest CCS project upon wildlife and
wildlife habitat within temporal, spatial, and administrative / technical boundaries.
- Temporal boundaries for the assessment will include the operational lifetime of the Scotford Upgrader (25 years) and will
also consider decommissioning and abandonment.
- Spatial boundaries for the assessment include the project development area, the area which is physically disturbed during
the project. Also considered is the local assessment area and the regional assessment areas, adding 500m and then 15 km
respectively to the project development area.
- The scope of the project considered includes the CO2 capture infrastructure and the pipeline and injection wells, in
addition to access roads, borrow pits and lateral pipelines that may be required for construction.

Methodology
- The main method used to identify baseline conditions was to conduct wildlife surveys within the local assessment area,
allowing the selection of species to be included in the assessment process. The surveys followed Albertas guidelines and
lists for Species at Risk and Species of Concern to identify if listed wildlife and wildlife habitats were present within the
local assessment area. This document serves as a guideline for the management of sensitive wildlife species and habitats in
Alberta, considering their importance to biodiversity and the ecosystem (Fish and Wildlife Division, 2008).
- The surveys also helped to determine the baseline conditions for those species and characterized other wildlife
populations within the area. Wildlife surveys in Alberta may include techniques such as searching nests and dens, using
attractants, using search animals such as dogs as well as night lighting (Government of Alberta, 2012).
- Surveys included acoustic amphibian surveys, Yellow Rail surveys, and breeding bird surveys. Data on other wildlife was
also collected as the surveys were conducted.
- A secondary method employed was to use existing wildlife records from the regional assessment area to supplement the
survey data. This added a regional context to the localized baseline conditions.

Impacts and Mitigation

- Measurable effects are expected from the construction phase on Species at Risk and other wildlife and habitats. Other
project phases are not expected to have measurable effects.
- Most land in the project development area is considered to be of low quality and value to the Species at Risk and other
wildlife. The land that is suitable is already highly fragmented, the likely reason for the limited presence of Species of
Concern in the project development area. Habitat destruction and fragmentation are considered to be the root cause of
most conservation problems (Debinski and Holt, 2001), therefore any further changes in the project area should be
avoided or mitigated.
- The strategy used to mitigate potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from the construction of the pipeline is to
preplan the mitigation measures, a proactive approach.
- Impacts to be mitigated include limiting changes in habitat availability and connectivity as well as limiting changes to
mortality risk. As discussed, most land in the project development area has already been altered and fragmented,
therefore it is desirable to limit further changes to remaining areas. The species at risk should not have their mortality risks
increased as this will have a direct impact on populations.
- To limit changes in habitat availability and connectivity, construction strategies such as using existing roads where available,
using trenchless techniques for pipeline installation and maintaining natural drainage patterns when storing excavated
material will be employed.
- Regarding Species at Risk, restricted timing windows and setback distances have been established in order to protect
nesting sites and other sensitive parts of their habitat when they are at their most vulnerable. This will mitigate impacts on
mortality risk.

Conclusion
Environmental effects of the construction of the Quest CCS Project, as they relate to wildlife and wildlife habitat, have been
studied in order to determine their magnitude. Based upon the findings of the study, a mitigation strategy has been
developed in order to minimize the environmental effects.
Regarding change in habitat availability and change in habitat connectivity, the predicted environmental effect is not
considered to be significant. This is because the project development area and the local assessment area are both currently
fragmented and disturbed, which has resulted in a low occurrence of quality habitat for assessed species. Thus construction
activities for the project should not negatively affect habitat availability. Change in mortality risk is also considered to be low
due to the limited geographic extent in which the key habitat types occur. Construction activities could affect the mortality
rates of species within the key habitat areas but this is considered short-term; the risk is only impacted during the
construction period.
The project is predicted to have low effects on populations of wildlife and wildlife habitat, after the mitigation strategies have
been considered, both locally and regionally.

References
Andrews, A. (1990). Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: a review. Australian Zoologist, 26, 130-141.
Debinski, D. and Holt, R. (2001). A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology, 14, 342-355.
Government of Alberta. (2012). Ground-based wildlife surveys: Alberta wildlife animal care committee class protocol #011. Retrieved February 1, from:
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-research-collection/documents/WRClassProtocol011-Ground-basedWildlifeSurveys-Oct2012.pdf

Fish and Wildlife Division. 2008. Albertas Strategy for the Management of Species at Risk
(2009-2014). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB. 30 pp.
Smith, F. (1996). Biodiversity, ecosystem stability and economic development. Ecological Economics, 16, 191-203.