TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.

Section 3: Route Selection

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

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006

Page 3-i
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

Page 3-ii
 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

Abbreviations
HDD ......................................................................................... Horizontal Directional Drill
KP..................................................................................................................Kilometre Post
NGTL .................................................................................... NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd
RoW ............................................................................................................... Right-of-Way

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006

Page 3-iii
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

Page 3-iv
 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

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;

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006

Page 3-1
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

• 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 Routing Alternatives Description

Two routing alternatives were considered for the Project. Each of these routing
alternatives consisted of several options, which were evaluated from an engineering, land,
community and environmental perspective. Alternative I was considered in the early
stages of the project, which eventually gave rise to Alternative II and the selection of the
preferred route as outlined in Section 3.3. The one constant in all alternatives is the use of
the existing Line 100-1 through Saskatchewan and part of Manitoba. Using this section of
the Line 100-1 from TransCanada’s Burstall Compressor Station, about 3 km east of the
Alberta–Saskatchewan border, to Carman Manitoba, involves a change of service from
natural gas to oil transportation.

3.2.1 Alternative I

3.2.1.1 Route Overview

This alternative involved the construction of about 69 km of new NPS 30 pipeline from
Hardisty Alberta to TransCanada’s NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd (NGTL) NPS 30 North
Lateral about 10 km north of NGTL’s Gadsby Compressor Station. Starting at the
Gadsby Compressor Station and terminating at the Oak Bluff meter station on the
existing Line 100-1 about 1 243 km of the existing NPS 30 and NPS 34 pipeline would
be converted to oil transportation. From the Oak Bluff Meter Station about 89 km of new

December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

Page 3-2
 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

pipeline would be constructed to a pump station near Gretna Manitoba near the Canada–
US border.

3.2.1.2 Routing Options – Alberta

There were three routing options for a new pipeline from Hardisty to the NGTL NPS 30
pipeline. These options were labelled as A, B, and C. For a summary of the engineering,
land and environmental factors for each option, see Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Routing Evaluation of Options

Routing Factors Option A Option B Option C
Length (km) 68.8 73.6 72.4
Amount of new RoW(km) 13 16.8 35.3
Number of major streams or rivers 2 2 2
No. permanent wetlands 1 1 2
No. of seasonal wetlands 19 27 32
Amount of native range 6.6 6.6 15.3
Primary and secondary highway 5 5 5
Improved roads 30 31 31
Pipelines 25 25 21

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.

3.2.1.3 Routing Options – Manitoba

In Manitoba, the termination points for the pipeline were initially set at the TransCanada
Ile des Chenes Compressor Station (Station 41) and two points of entry to the US, one
being coincident with the existing pipeline into Minnesota and the other near Gretna,
Manitoba.
In Manitoba there were four routing options considered for this segment of the
Alternative I. Two of the routes started at the Ile des Chenes Compressor Station and one
started at TransCanada’s Mainline valve site 39. The fourth alternative initiated about
2 km east of the Oak Bluff Meter Station. Only one route option exited Manitoba into
Minnesota. The remaining three routes exited Manitoba at the same location, near Gretna,
Manitoba into North Dakota. For a summary of the engineering, land and environmental
factors for each of the Alternative I options in Manitoba, see Table 3-2.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006

Page 3-3
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

Table 3-2 Routing Evaluation of Alternative I Options in Manitoba

Routing Factors Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Length (km) 82.1 97.9 91.8 89.3
Amount of new RoW (km) 3.1 21.4 11.8 9.7
Number of major streams or rivers 4 8 6 6
No. minor streams or drains 6 6 7 6
No. of seasonal wetlands 0 0 0 0
Amount of native range 0 0 0 0

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

3.2.2.1 Routing Overview

This alternative initially consisted of three potential routing options in Alberta to tie-in
with Line 100-1 and a new route in Manitoba initiating at the TransCanada Carman Sales
meter station and crossing the Canada/US border near Haskett, Manitoba. The Manitoba
route option with some modifications eventually became the preferred route for the new
pipeline in Manitoba. All of the options for Alternative II route generally followed
existing pipeline facilities from Hardisty, Alberta in a south or south east direction to tie-
in with the existing Line 100-1 just east of the Alberta/Saskatchewan near Burstall
Saskatchewan. This alternative still required a change of service of about 864 km of the

December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

Page 3-4
 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

existing Line 100-1 from natural gas to oil transportation. Only one routing option was
considered in Manitoba.

3.2.2.2 Routing Options – Alberta

Option 1 involved construction of about 222 km of pipeline that would parallel and be
contiguous with the Express Pipeline from Hardisty to the cross over of NGTL’s
mainline in Section 18-20-9-W4M. From this location the proposed route would involve
a change of service of about 90 km of one of NGTL’s mainline pipelines from gas to oil
transportation and tie-in with Line 100-1 at the Burstall Compressor station. The
proposed route would then involve conversion of 864 km of Line 100-1 from
TransCanada’s Burstall Compressor station to the Carman Sales Meter Station, near
Carman, Manitoba. The route option involved one major river crossing (Red Deer River).
This option involved no new pipeline RoW in Alberta, as the route was contiguous with
the Express Pipeline.
Option 2 involved construction of about 260 km of pipeline RoW on an alignment that is
contiguous with existing facilities for about 228 km of its length and would tie-in with
the Line 100-1 just east of the Burstall compressor station in Saskatchewan. This route
option paralleled Enbridge’s mainline and TransCanada’s NGTL East Lateral System
south of Gooseberry Lake Provincial Park. This routing option involved about 32 km of
new pipeline RoW that was not contiguous with the existing linear corridors, and
involved two major river crossing (Red Deer and South Saskatchewan River).
Option 3 was a hybrid of options one and two, maximizing the amount of contiguous
pipeline RoW to reduce the overall effect on land-use and the Project footprint. This
option although slightly longer at 271 km is contiguous with existing RoW for 251 km.
The 20 km of new RoW are not continuous but are in small sections resulting from
deviations to avoid residences, or to provide better alignment for stream and road
crossings. This option deviated at the South Saskatchewan River as indicated in
Section 3.3 to avoid crossing a “Class A” waterbody as identified in the “Code of
Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody” (AENV,
2001).
Table 3-3 summarizes the engineering, land and environmental factors for each of the
Alternative Two options in Alberta.

Table 3-3 Routing Evaluation of Alternative II Options in Alberta

Routing Factors Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Length (km) 392.8 260 270.5
Amount of new RoW (km) 0 32 20
Amount of paralleled RoW 221.9 228 251
Number major river crossings 1 2 2
Amount of foot print reduction (%)1 0 52 62
No. streams 10 13 10
No. of primary and secondary highways 5 7 7
Parks/cemeteries/historic sites 0 0 0
NOTES:
1. Assumes only TransCanada/NGTL RoW would provide opportunity for use of existing RoW as
temporary workspace.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006

Page 3-5
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

Subsequent analysis of Option 1 demonstrated the existing NGTL pipelines were

required for gas service and could not be used as part of the Project. Accordingly,
Option 1 was not further considered.
Option 2 was not selected primarily due to the higher amount (32 km) of continuous new
pipeline RoW required that was not contiguous with existing linear corridors and the
associated effects on land-use and the overall footprint of the project. This option
required two major river crossings and would have necessitated a re-route at the South
Saskatchewan River to avoid the “Class A” section of the South Saskatchewan River.
Option 3 was selected as the preferred option for Alberta. This route underwent further
route considerations to reduce the amount of new pipeline RoW and make better use of
existing linear corridors. Route refinements were considered primarily south of Consort
Alberta. In this area additional adjustment of this option were considered primarily to try
to limit the amount of native range potentially crossed by the pipeline route. South of
Consort, Option 3 followed TransCanada’s NGTL system East Lateral. Two additional
route adjustments to this option were considered; a north south powerline and
Highway 41. Following Highway 41 (either totally or in part) was excluded due, in part,
to the requirement for a 30 m separation between road and pipeline RoWs dictated by
Alberta Transportation. This would result in excessive RoW that is not contiguous to
existing RoW. There was also a higher concentration of residences along this corridor
also factored into the decision to exclude it. Following the powerline was excluded as it
did not accomplish the objective of reducing the overall amount of new pipeline RoW
routing through native range and there were issues with available space between the
powerline and adjoining infrastructure.

3.2.2.3 Routing Options – Manitoba

A new pipeline will be required from Carman Sales meter station on Line 100-1 to the
Canada/US border near Haskett Manitoba. The route was controlled by a pre-determined
Canada/US border crossing location near Haskett, Manitoba. The proposed route is
contiguous with Manitoba Hydro Ltd.’s Carman Sales Lateral for about 60 km with the
remaining route consisting of 40 km of new RoW. New RoW is required to accommodate
minor route deviations, a re-route around the recharge area for the Winkler Aquifer and
reflects the absence of any existing RoW for much of the proposed route south of
Winkler and Morden.
For an illustration of Alternative 1 & II route and associated option for Alberta, see
Figure 3-1. For Alternative I and II routing options in Manitoba, see Figure 3-2.

December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

Page 3-6
Option B
 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

3.3 Preferred Route Description

3.3.1 Alberta–Saskatchewan Route

The preferred route consists of 271 km of new pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to a tie-in
with Line 100-1 just past the TransCanada Burstall compressor station located about 2.4
km east of the Alberta/Saskatchewan Border. The proposed route for this new pipeline
segment is contiguous with existing pipeline RoWs for 92 percent (251 km) of its 271 km
length. From the initiating pump station located at the operational tanks near Hardisty,
the pipeline RoW is contiguous with the following existing pipelines:
• CNR Resources at the crossing of Highway 13;
• Cold Lake Pipelines for about 540 m;
• Talisman pipeline for about 630 m;
• Express Pipeline (operated by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.) south from Hardisty for
about 30.6 km;
• Apache Pipelines for about 8.7 km;
• TransCanada’s NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd’s (NGTL) Kessler Loop and Eastern
Alberta System for about 168.9 km;
• Penn West for about 200 m;
• Primewest Energy for about 2.6 km;
• Alberta Ethane Gathering System pipeline (operated by Nova Chemicals) running
south eastwards for about 20.9 km;
• City of Medicine Gas Utility Lines for about 6.5 km;
• All weather, year-round maintained county road for about 1.8 km;
• EnCana for about 6.1 km; and
• McNeill facilities and Line 100-1 for about 3.5 km from 1.5 km west of the Alberta–
Saskatchewan border to just east of the TransCanada Burstall compressor station.
The remaining 20 km of the new pipeline segment will be constructed on new RoW to
accommodate watercourse crossings, sensitive terrain, and environmental issues, or to
otherwise address construction issues.
This final proposed alignment involved several route deviations to:
• avoid sensitive terrain;
• make use of common linear corridors;
• avoid wetlands; and
• reroute at watercourse crossings to provide for a more appropriate location or avoid
sensitive fisheries habitat or species, or both.
A route deviation was required near the start of the Neutral Hills where the initial route
deviated due to concerns with available space to construct next to the existing NGTL
Kessler Lateral Loop. The route in this area involved new pipeline RoW primarily

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006

Page 3-11
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

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.

December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

Page 3-12
 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

Table 3-4 Route Deviation in Alberta

Location
Province Name KP Start KP End Rationale
AB Plant Facility near Ribstone 43.1 44.0 Engineering refinement to reduce
Creek number of foreign line crossings
AB Neutral Hills 58.4 63.0 Avoidance of agricultural crop land,
use existing corridors
AB Gooseberry Lake 78.1 84.1 Avoid Wetland
AB Monitor Creek 99.6 100.8 Revised crossing of loyalist creek
AB Reservoir 109.5 110.0 Avoid Reservoir
AB Homestead 119.6 120.5 Avoid residence
AB Sounding Creek 144.1 144.6 Revised crossing to parallel existing
Pipeline
AB Wellhead 160.7 160.8 Avoid well site
AB Red Deer River 222.5 225.8 Revised alignment to provide for
better crossing location
AB South Saskatchewan – 250.8 251.6 Better approach to HDD drill site
West Bank
AB South Saskatchewan – 254.6 260.4 Rare plant avoidance
East Bank

3.3.2 Manitoba Preferred Route

The preferred route in Manitoba has an overall length of 100 km, and takes-off from the
Line 100-1 at the Carman Sales meter station at KP 1134.6 and then parallels Manitoba
Hydro’s Carman Sales lateral for about 56 km, and an all season year round maintained
county road for 3.5 km. The remainder of the route is new pipeline RoW, from south of
Winkler, Manitoba to the Project US border crossing location, near Haskett, Manitoba. At
KP 1197.6 the route deviates to the east and south for about 10.8 km to avoid the Winkler
Aquifer recharge area, and rejoins the original route at KP 1208.4. About 40 km of the
route at the south end is new pipeline RoW, although a portion of this 40 km follows an
abandoned railway RoW near Haskett, Manitoba. There are a total of 40 water crossing,
the majority of which are agricultural drains. There is one large water crossing, the Boyne
River, which will be crossed using a trenchless technique. The area is intensively farmed
for cereal, hay and specialty crops.
For the preferred route in Manitoba, see Figure 3-4.

3.4 References
Alberta Environment. 2001. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines
Crossing a Waterbody

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006

Page 3-15
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.
Section 3: Route Selection

December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

Page 3-16