Prepared For: Prepared By

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED TANGHE CREEK LATERAL LOOP NO. 2 (SLOAT CREEK SECTION)

February 2011 7211

Prepared for: Prepared by:

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of TERA Environmental Consultants TransCanada PipeLines Limited Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Calgary, Alberta Ph: 403-265-2885

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada), is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 58 of the NEB Act for authorization to construct and operate the proposed Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) (the Project). The pipeline will transport sweet natural gas from a tie-in point at 3-32-96-11 W6M to a tie-in point at 5-31-96-7 W6M and is generally parallel to the existing Tanghe Creek Lateral (see Figure 1.1). The Project is expected to consist of approximately 38.3 km of 1,219 mm O.D. (NPS 48) pipeline with a maximum allowable operating pressure of 8,450 kPa. The Project will generally require a 32 m wide construction right-of-way (i.e., permanent right-of-way plus temporary workspace); however, the actual width of new clearing will be dependent on sharing workspace on the adjacent right-of-way to the extent feasible. Additional temporary workspace will be required at road, foreign pipeline, utility and water crossings, as well as at sharp sidebends and tie-ins.

NGTL commissioned TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA) to prepare an Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) having regard to the NEB Filing Manual, the Online Application System guidance and Section 16(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Act for approval to construct and operate the proposed Project. This ESA will be included within the Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) Section 58 Application (Application). The following studies were conducted in fall 2010 by TERA to support this ESA (Appendices 1 through 4): an Aquatic Assessment; a Rare Plant Habitat Assessment; a Wetland Assessment and a Wildlife Habitat Assessment. TERA also completed a Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) that will be submitted as soon as clearance has been received from Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS).

Lands traversed by the pipeline route are 100% forested (38.3 km). The nearest community to the proposed pipeline route is the Town of Manning (approximately 100 km southeast). No residences lie within 1 km of the proposed Project. The proposed pipeline route crosses the Chinchaga River, Werniuk Creek, three unnamed tributaries to the Chinchaga River and one unnamed tributary to Werniuk Creek. All watercourses are Class C watercourses with the exception of the unnamed tributary to Werniuk Creek, which is a Class D watercourse. In addition, numerous wetlands and undefined drainages are crossed by the proposed route.

Potential environmental concerns identified by this ESA include: issues relating to erosion control; potential effects on downstream water quality; incremental loss of remnant native vegetation; and potential effects on wildlife. Watercourse crossings have been located and construction of the crossings has been planned in a manner which will reduce bank and slope instability, as well as the potential for future erosion. Specific environmental measures have been identified for watercourse and wetland crossing construction. These measures, along with other protection measures designed to mitigate the potential environmental effects, are identified in the Environmental Protection Plan within Appendix 5 of this ESA and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets within Appendix 6 of this ESA.

The environmental effects associated with the proposed pipeline route are those that are routinely encountered during pipeline construction in a forested setting during winter construction. The application of mitigative measures through a comprehensive environmental compliance strategy (environmental protection planning, environmental inspection and post-construction monitoring) will avoid, eliminate and/or reduce potential Project-related adverse effects. Any potential adverse residual effects and cumulative effects that may result from the proposed Project are anticipated to be not significant.

Page i

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview...... 1-1 1.2 Project Justification ...... 1-4 1.3 Regulatory Framework...... 1-4 1.4 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment ...... 1-4 1.5 Purpose of the Document ...... 1-6 1.6 Project Team...... 1-7 1.7 Concordance with the NEB Filing Manual ...... 1-7 1.8 Concordance with the CEA Act...... 1-10 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 2-1 2.1 Project Purpose...... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives to the Project ...... 2-1 2.3 Location of the Project ...... 2-1 2.4 Project Components...... 2-3 2.5 Construction...... 2-3 2.5.1 Pipeline Installation ...... 2-3 2.5.2 Inspection...... 2-5 2.5.3 Estimated Workforce Requirements ...... 2-5 2.5.4 Environmental Permits/Approvals...... 2-5 2.5.5 Construction Schedule...... 2-5 2.6 Operation and Maintenance...... 2-6 2.7 Decommissioning and Abandonment ...... 2-7 3.0 COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Consultation Objectives and Methods ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Consultation Objectives ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Methods ...... 3-1 3.2.3 Consultation and Engagement Outcomes ...... 3-2 4.0 ROUTE SELECTION ...... 4-1 4.1 General Routing Criteria ...... 4-1 4.2 Control Points...... 4-1 4.3 Project-Specific Routing...... 4-1 4.4 Proposed Pipeline Route ...... 4-2 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING...... 5-1 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 6-1 6.1 Methodology...... 6-1 6.1.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries...... 6-2 6.1.2 Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements...... 6-5 6.1.3 Potential Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects...... 6-6 6.1.4 Mitigative and Enhancement Measures...... 6-6 6.1.5 Residual Effects ...... 6-6 6.1.6 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-6 6.2 Effects Assessment - Pipeline Construction and Operation ...... 6-8 6.2.1 Physical Environment ...... 6-8

Page ii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

6.2.1.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-8 6.2.1.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-9 6.2.1.3 Summary...... 6-9 6.2.2 Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-9 6.2.2.1 Ecological Context ...... 6-9 6.2.2.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-10 6.2.2.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-13 6.2.2.4 Summary...... 6-14 6.2.3 Vegetation...... 6-14 6.2.3.1 Ecological Context ...... 6-14 6.2.3.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-15 6.2.3.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-19 6.2.3.4 Summary...... 6-22 6.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity...... 6-22 6.2.4.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-22 6.2.4.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-27 6.2.4.3 Summary...... 6-28 6.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 6-29 6.2.5.1 Ecological Context ...... 6-29 6.2.5.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-29 6.2.5.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-35 6.2.5.4 Summary...... 6-39 6.2.6 Wetlands ...... 6-39 6.2.6.1 Ecological Context ...... 6-39 6.2.6.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-40 6.2.6.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-42 6.2.6.4 Summary...... 6-44 6.2.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-44 6.2.7.1 Ecological Context ...... 6-44 6.2.7.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-45 6.2.7.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-49 6.2.7.4 Summary...... 6-53 6.2.8 Species at Risk ...... 6-53 6.2.8.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-53 6.2.8.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-55 6.2.8.3 Summary...... 6-57 6.2.9 Air Quality...... 6-57 6.2.9.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-57 6.2.9.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-58 6.2.9.3 Summary...... 6-60 6.2.10 Acoustic Environment ...... 6-60 6.2.10.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-60 6.2.10.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-60 6.2.10.3 Summary ...... 6-61 6.2.11 Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 6-61 6.2.11.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-61 6.2.11.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-62 6.2.11.3 Summary ...... 6-63 6.2.12 Heritage Resources ...... 6-63 6.2.12.1 Context ...... 6-63

Page iii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

6.2.12.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-63 6.2.12.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-64 6.2.12.4 Summary ...... 6-64 6.2.13 Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 6-64 6.2.13.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-65 6.2.13.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-67 6.2.13.3 Summary ...... 6-68 6.2.14 Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 6-68 6.2.14.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-68 6.2.14.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-68 6.2.14.3 Summary ...... 6-69 6.2.15 Human Health ...... 6-69 6.2.15.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-69 6.2.15.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-70 6.2.15.3 Summary ...... 6-72 6.2.16 Infrastructure and Services ...... 6-72 6.2.16.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-72 6.2.16.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-73 6.2.16.3 Summary ...... 6-74 6.2.17 Employment and Economy...... 6-74 6.2.17.1 Potential Effects and Enhancement Measures ...... 6-74 6.2.17.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-75 6.2.17.3 Summary ...... 6-76 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 6-76 6.2.18.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-76 6.2.18.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects ...... 6-79 6.2.18.3 Summary ...... 6-82 6.3 Effects Assessment - Decommissioning and Abandonment ...... 6-83 6.4 Effects of the Environment on the Project ...... 6-83 6.4.1 Environmental Conditions Not Considered...... 6-83 6.4.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-84 6.4.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-85 6.4.3.1 Summary...... 6-87 6.5 Summary of Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment...... 6-87 6.5.1 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment...... 6-87 6.5.2 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project...... 6-87 7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT...... 7-1 7.1 Methodology...... 7-1 7.1.1 Identification of Adverse Residual Effects ...... 7-1 7.1.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries...... 7-1 7.1.3 Other Projects and Activities...... 7-1 7.1.4 Prediction of Cumulative Effects...... 7-7 7.1.5 Quantitative Analysis of the Land Disturbance in the Project Area ...... 7-7 7.1.6 Mitigative Measures ...... 7-9 7.1.7 Determination of Significance ...... 7-9 7.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment - Pipeline Construction and Operation...... 7-10 7.2.1 Physical Environment ...... 7-10 7.2.2 Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 7-11

Page iv

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

7.2.3 Vegetation...... 7-13 7.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity...... 7-15 7.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 7-18 7.2.6 Wetlands ...... 7-20 7.2.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 7-22 7.2.8 Species at Risk ...... 7-25 7.2.9 Air Quality...... 7-28 7.2.10 Acoustic Environment ...... 7-30 7.2.11 Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 7-32 7.2.12 Heritage Resources ...... 7-33 7.2.13 Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 7-34 7.2.14 Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 7-36 7.2.15 Human Health ...... 7-36 7.2.16 Infrastructure and Services ...... 7-37 7.2.17 Employment and Economy...... 7-40 7.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 7-40 7.3 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Cumulative Residual Effects of the Project ...... 7-42 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STRATEGY...... 8-1 8.1 Environmental Protection Plan...... 8-1 8.2 Environmental Orientation ...... 8-1 8.3 Environmental Inspection...... 8-1 8.4 Issue Monitoring...... 8-2 9.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING...... 9-1 9.1 Post-Construction Monitoring Program...... 9-1 9.1.1 Construction Right-of-Way Inspection ...... 9-1 9.1.2 Vegetation / Wetland Monitoring...... 9-2 9.1.3 Criteria for Success...... 9-2 9.1.4 Selection of Remedial Measures ...... 9-2 9.1.5 Government Agency Consultation ...... 9-3 9.1.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities ...... 9-3 9.1.7 Documentation and Reporting ...... 9-3 9.2 Long-Term Compliance Strategy...... 9-3 10.0 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES...... 10-1 11.0 CONCLUSION ...... 11-1 12.0 REFERENCES...... 12-1 12.1 Personal Communications ...... 12-1 12.2 Literature Cited...... 12-1

Page v

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Aquatic Assessment by TERA Environmental Consultants...... Appendix 2 Rare Plant Habitat Assessment by TERA Environmental Consultants ...... Appendix 3 Wetland Assessment by TERA Environmental Consultants ...... Appendix 4 Wildlife Habitat Assessment by TERA Environmental Consultants...... Appendix 5 Environmental Protection Plan...... Appendix 6 Environmental Alignment Sheets......

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Regional Location of the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) ...... 1-3 Figure 6.1 Local / Regional Study Area Boundaries of the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) ...... 6-3 Figure 7.1 Known Proposed Developments in the Vicinity of RSA...... 7-6 Figure 8.1 Health, Safety and Environment Commitment Statement ...... 8-3

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Concordance With Guide A - A.2 Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment of the NEB Filing Manual...... 1-7 Table 1.2 Concordance Table With the CEA Act...... 1-10 Table 2.1 Technical Details of the Proposed Project...... 2-3 Table 2.2 Environmental Permits Required for Construction of the Proposed Project...... 2-5 Table 2.3 Estimated Project Construction and Operation Schedule...... 2-6 Table 5.1 Summary of Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements and Considerations...... 5-1 Table 6.1 Evaluation of the Significance of Residual Effects - Environmental and Socio- Economic Assessment Criteria...... 6-4 Table 6.2 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Physical Environment ...... 6-8 Table 6.3 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Proposed Pipeline on Physical Environment ...... 6-9 Table 6.4 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-11 Table 6.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Proposed Pipeline on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-13 Table 6.6 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Vegetation...... 6-16 Table 6.7 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Vegetation...... 6-19 Table 6.8 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Water Quality and Quantity ...... 6-23 Table 6.9 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Water Quality and Quantity...... 6-27 Table 6.10 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Fish and Fish Habitat...... 6-30 Table 6.11 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 6-35 Table 6.12 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wetlands...... 6-41 Table 6.13 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wetlands ...... 6-42 Table 6.14 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-46 Table 6.15 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-49 Table 6.16 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Species at Risk ...... 6-53

Page vi

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

Table 6.17 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Species at Risk ...... 6-55 Table 6.18 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Air Quality ...... 6-58 Table 6.19 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Proposed Pipeline on Air Quality ...... 6-58 Table 6.20 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Acoustic Environment...... 6-60 Table 6.21 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Proposed Pipeline on Acoustic Environment ...... 6-60 Table 6.22 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 6-61 Table 6.23 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Project on Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 6-62 Table 6.24 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Heritage Resources...... 6-63 Table 6.25 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipeline on Heritage Resources...... 6-64 Table 6.26 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 6-65 Table 6.27 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipeline on Traditional Land and Resource Use...... 6-67 Table 6.28 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 6-68 Table 6.29 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipeline on Social and Cultural Well-Being...... 6-69 Table 6.30 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Human Health...... 6-70 Table 6.31 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Project on Human Health ...... 6-71 Table 6.32 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Infrastructure and Services...... 6-72 Table 6.33 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Pipeline on Infrastructure and Services ...... 6-73 Table 6.34 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Employment and Economy...... 6-75 Table 6.35 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project on Employment and Economy ...... 6-75 Table 6.36 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions During Pipeline Construction and Operation ...... 6-77 Table 6.37 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions During Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipeline ...... 6-80 Table 6.38 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of the Environment on the Project...... 6-84 Table 6.39 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of the Environment on the Construction and Operation of the Project...... 6-85 Table 7.1 Applications to the ERCB for Oil and Gas Development Within the RSA ...... 7-3 Table 7.2 Land Use Features and Assumptions Used for the Quantitative Analysis ...... 7-7 Table 7.3 Existing and New Linear Development in the LSA ...... 7-8 Table 7.4 Existing and New Areal Disturbance in the LSA...... 7-8 Table 7.5 Existing and New Linear Development in the RSA...... 7-9 Table 7.6 Existing and New Areal Disturbance in the RSA ...... 7-9 Table 7.7 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on the Physical Environment...... 7-10 Table 7.8 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on the Physical Environment ...... 7-11 Table 7.9 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Soil and Soil Productivity...... 7-12

Page vii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

Table 7.10 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effect for the Proposed Project on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 7-12 Table 7.11 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Vegetation ...... 7-13 Table 7.12 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Vegetation...... 7-14 Table 7.13 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Water Quality and Quantity ...... 7-16 Table 7.14 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Water Quality ...... 7-17 Table 7.15 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 7-18 Table 7.16 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Fish and Fish Habitat...... 7-19 Table 7.17 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Wetlands ...... 7-20 Table 7.18 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Wetlands ...... 7-21 Table 7.19 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat...... 7-22 Table 7.20 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 7-25 Table 7.21 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Species at Risk...... 7-26 Table 7.22 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of the Identified Residual Effect for the Proposed Project on Species at Risk ...... 7-28 Table 7.23 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Air Quality...... 7-28 Table 7.24 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Air Quality ...... 7-30 Table 7.25 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Acoustic Environment ...... 7-31 Table 7.26 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of the Identified Residual Effect for the Proposed Project on the Acoustic Environment...... 7-31 Table 7.27 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Human Occupancy and Resource Use...... 7-32 Table 7.28 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 7-32 Table 7.29 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Heritage Resources ...... 7-33 Table 7.30 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of the Identified Residual Effect for the Proposed Project on Heritage Resources...... 7-34 Table 7.31 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Traditional Land and Resource Use...... 7-35 Table 7.32 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Traditional Land Use...... 7-35 Table 7.33 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Human Health ...... 7-36 Table 7.34 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Human Health ...... 7-37 Table 7.35 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Infrastructure and Services ...... 7-38 Table 7.36 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Infrastructure and Services...... 7-39 Table 7.37 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 7-40 Table 7.38 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 7-42

Page viii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

LIST OF PLATES Plate 2-1 Aerial view west showing the proposed pipeline route (indicated by the yellow line) crossing an unnamed watercourse within mixedwood forest at approximately KP 31 in NE 25-96-11 W6M. The proposed pipeline route is parallel to an existing pipeline and powerline corridor (October 13, 2010)...... 2-2 Plate 2-2 Aerial view west at approximately KP 16 in SW 33-96-9 W6M showing typical low-lying areas along the proposed pipeline route dominated by black spruce and/or willow. The approximate alignment is indicated by the yellow line (October 13, 2010)...... 2-2

Page ix

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACCS Alberta Culture and Community Spirit ACIMS Alberta Conservation Information Management System AENR Alberta Energy and Natural Resources AENV Alberta Environment AEPEA Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Alliance Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership ANPC Alberta Native Plant Council Application Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) Section 58 Application asl above sea level ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development ATPR Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation BC British Columbia CAC criteria air contaminants CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEA Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CEA Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency cm centimetre(s) COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CP Cathodic Protection CSA Canadian Standards Association CTL Coniferous Timber License CWS Canadian Wildlife Services DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada DTL Deciduous Timber License EAP Enhanced Approval Process EMS Emergency Medical Services EPP Environmental Protection Plan ERCB Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board ERP Emergency Response Plan ESA Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment FCSI Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory FMA Forest Management Agreement Footprint Footprint Study Area FPWC Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation FWMIS Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System GOA Government of Alberta GHG greenhouse gas(es) ha hectares HADD harmful alteration, disruption or destruction HDD horizontal directional drill HRIA Historical Resources Impact Assessment HRV Historic Resource Value HS&E Health, Safety and Environment IMP Integrity Management Process ISP Industrial Sample Plot km kilometre(s) KP Kilometre Post LSA Local Study Area m metre(s) ML/d Mega Litres per day mm millimetre(s)

Page x

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

MPB mountain pine beetle NEB National Energy Board NGTL NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. NORMs Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials NRC Natural Resources Canada NWPA Navigable Waters Protection Act NWWG National Wetland Working Group O.D. outside diameter OAS Online Application System OCC Operations Control Centre OPRs Onshore Pipeline Regulations OS Operational Statement PCM Program Post-Construction Monitoring Program PLA Pipeline Agreement QAES Qualified Aquatic Environmental Specialist RA Responsible Authority RAP restricted activity period RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police RSA Regional Study Area SARA Species at Risk Act TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge TERA TERA Environmental Consultants the Project Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) TLU Traditional Land Use TPA registered trapping area TransCanada TransCanada PipeLines Limited TSS total suspended solids UWR Ungulate Winter Range WHMIS Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System WMU Wildlife Management Unit

Page xi

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada), is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 58 of the NEB Act for authorization to construct and operate the proposed Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) (the Project). The pipeline will transport sweet natural gas from a tie-in point at 3-32-96-11 W6M to a tie-in point at 5-31-96-7 W6M and is generally parallel to the existing Tanghe Creek Lateral (see Figure 1.1). The Project is expected to consist of approximately 38.3 km of 1,219 mm O.D. (NPS 48) pipeline with a maximum allowable operating pressure of 8,450 kPa. The Project will generally require a 32 m wide construction right-of-way (i.e., permanent right-of-way plus temporary workspace); however, the actual width of new clearing will be dependent on sharing workspace on the adjacent right-of-way to the extent feasible. Additional temporary workspace will be required at road, foreign pipeline, utility and water crossings, as well as at sharp sidebends and tie-ins.

The proposed pipeline route is located approximately 100 km northwest of Manning, Alberta and is required to meet customer demand for incremental transportation service of sweet natural gas. Design, construction and operation of the pipeline will be in compliance with all applicable codes, standards and regulations. Pending regulatory approvals, pipeline construction is scheduled to commence in November 2011 with a scheduled in-service date of April 2012. Eighty-nine percent (89%) or approximately 34 km of the proposed route is parallel to and contiguous with existing pipelines, powerlines and all-season public roads. A further 2 km of the route is parallel to existing linear disturbances such as seismic lines for a total of 94% (36 km).

The following field surveys were conducted to support the ESA and inform the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP). Supplemental surveys will be conducted in 2011 (see Section 10.0 of this ESA).

• An Aquatic Assessment was completed by TERA with the assistance of participants from Dene Tha' First Nation and Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74. The assessment was conducted from October 5 to 8, 2010 and October 24, 2010 and is included as Appendix 1 of this ESA.

• A Rare Plant Habitat Assessment was conducted by TERA with the assistance of participants from Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation. The survey was conducted from October 16 to 19, 2010 and is included as Appendix 2 of this ESA.

• A Wetland Assessment was conducted by TERA with the assistance of participants from Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation. The assessment was conducted from October 16 to 19, 2010 and is included as Appendix 3 of this ESA.

• A Wildlife Habitat Assessment was conducted by TERA with the assistance of participants from Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation. The assessment was conducted on October 13, 2010 and October 16 to 20, 2010, and is included as Appendix 4 of this ESA.

• TERA obtained an Archaeological Research Permit (Permit 10-246) and conducted a Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) for the proposed Project. The HRIA was conducted by TERA with assistance from participants from Dene Tha’ First Nation, Duncan’s First Nation and Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74. No historical resources were identified in conflict with the proposed Project and, therefore, no further work was recommended. Clearance under the Historical Resources Act will be applied for in January 2011. The HRIA will be submitted to the NEB as soon as clearance has been received.

Page 1-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TERA collected Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) during the above surveys in co-operation with communities available to participate in October 2010. Aboriginal communities that were invited to participate in field surveys were Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Duncan's First Nation, Métis Region 6 (specifically, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74) and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement. All of these communities participated in the 2010 field surveys except Beaver First Nation and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement who were unavailable to participate in the 2010 field surveys but may be available to participate in supplemental studies. Comments or concerns raised during these surveys have been integrated into the ESA and included within the supporting studies provided in Appendices 1 to 4. Further TEK information gathered as part of the 2011 supplemental studies will be included within the supplemental reports and submitted to the NEB (Section 10.0 of this ESA).

TERA-facilitated Traditional Land Use (TLU) studies have been initiated with Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, Beaver First Nation and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement. The communities of Dene Tha’ First Nation and Duncan’s First Nation will be conducting their own TLU studies as per their agreement with NGTL. NGTL will provide a summary report of the findings of the various TLU reports. Consultation with Aboriginal communities is on-going and TLU studies will continue in 2011.

The proposed Project is located in a forested setting within Clear Hills County and the County of Northern Lights. Lands traversed are 100% (38.3 km) provincially-owned Crown land and the proposed route lies entirely within the Green Area of Alberta. Lands traversed along the pipeline route are 100% forested (38.3 km). The nearest community to the proposed pipeline route is the Town of Manning (approximately 100 km southeast). The nearest major centre to the proposed pipeline route is the City of Grande Prairie (approximately 240 km south). No residences lie within 1 km of the proposed right-of-way. The proposed pipeline route crosses the Chinchaga River, Werniuk Creek, three unnamed tributaries to the Chinchaga River and one unnamed tributary to Werniuk Creek. All watercourses are Class C watercourses with the exception of the unnamed tributary to Werniuk Creek, which is a Class D watercourse. In addition, numerous wetlands and undefined drainages are crossed by the proposed route.

Page 1-2

Si Ekwan F

Lake t t 109 h Rainbow h

M Lake M

i 94I7 94I8 i d ver 108 d i i ¯ R i a ay Basset a n H Rainbow n Lake Lake

F 107 o n ta s R iv er 106

23 22 21 5 4 3 2 1 25 24 E 94I2 94I1 12 11 10 9 8 105 6 t t h

i t H h a u ig n 104 Rive r R i Paddle v e Prairie r

103 er iv R a Etthithun g er 94H15 94H16 Waniandy a v C Lake h i c a Lake 102 R n u i t o le h r y C a K C H a r r h ee e n k Foulwater v t 101 i a R h Lake g 695 W e ¾À R K i e v r e n r iu 100 k C re 94H10 94H9 ek 99 emp R Sock Vader K iver Lake Lake S lo a 98 t k e C e Hidden r r C e B e Lake k o e t h h a g 97

R 35 n ¾À a SW 31-96-7 W6M iv T e 94H7 94H8 [ r [ r e Chinchaga iv r R 96 Mei ive SW 32-96-11 W6M a kle R Lake g a h Osland c n 24 23 22 Lakes hi 3 2 1 25 12 11 C 8 95 6 5 4 10 S. Chinchaga Mearon 9 H otc Lakes Lake South hk iss B Chinchaga Ri Lake 94 ve r r

94H2 94H1 t

s Trading Post A 93 h Lake

C N e o o t r 92 ik

t l ew u a in High R Manning m ive Level D r er o b i RALBiv ER T A g R r 91 94A g ive 15 i i 94A16 Cub o a Fort D St. John Lakes Dawson Mapped 90 Creek Grande Area Prairie r 690 Edmonton hitemu d Rive ¾À Fish 89 W Jasper Lake Sulphur BRIT ISH Ray Lake COLUM BIA Red Deer Lake 88 Pluvius Lake Dixonville Kimberley 87 FIGURE 1.1 City/Town Existing Road REGIONAL LOCATION

[ Tie-In Location Stream/River ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. Proposed Pipeline Route Lake TANGHE CREEK LATERAL LOOP NO. 2 (SLOAT CREEK SECTION)

City/Town: Natural Resources Canada 2003; SCALE: 1: 1,000,000 Tie-in Location, Proposed Pipeline Route: Midwest Survey 2011; 7211 Hydrography: IHS 1996, 2004; Existing Road: Geobase 2008; km Grid: AltaLIS 2007; TERA Environmental Consultants 2010; 0 8 16 24 Provincial Boundary: AltaLIS 2007. February 2011 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate (All Locations Approximate) this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. t7211_ESA_Figure1.1_Regional_Location_Rev0.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

1.2 Project Justification The proposed Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) is required to meet incremental contracts in the Peace River Design Area by April 2012. The Project will increase the capability to flow gas eastward to the North Central Corridor and be constructed during the winter season of the 2011/2012 Gas Year beginning in November 2011.

1.3 Regulatory Framework The Project requires NEB approval pursuant to Section 58 of the NEB Act. Application to the NEB involves the preparation and filing of an ESA in accordance with the NEB Filing Manual. The Projects falls under Section 58 of the NEB Act (and not Section 52 of the NEB Act) because it is less than 40 km in length.

NGTL directed TERA to prepare this ESA having regard for the NEB Filing Manual, OAS guidance, Section 16(1) of the CEA Act guidance provided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Agency and concerns identified through regulatory, stakeholder and public consultation.

NGTL understands that the NEB will play a lead role as a Responsible Authority (RA), with other departments and agencies designated as RAs under the CEA Act. The NEB, in consultation with other departments and agencies, will determine the scope of the Project and the factors to be assessed in the screening report. For this Application, the NEB Filing Manual guided the preparation of this ESA.

In addition to the above federal permits and approvals, several federal/provincial permits, approvals or authorizations are also anticipated to be required for the Project, including:

• clearance under the Alberta Historical Resources Act from Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS);

• permits required under appropriate sections of the Water Act and the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (AEPEA) for works in, or about a stream and purposes of hydrostatic testing; letter of advice or Authorization under Section 35 (2) and/or Section 32 of the Fisheries Act, as well as Notification to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) of Watercourse Crossings;

• Pipeline Agreements (PLAs) and associated dispositions required by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD), which will be acquired using ASRD’s Enhanced Approval Process (EAP);

• determination of navigability for watercourses crossed under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) and approval for crossing of navigable waters under Section 108 of the NEB Act; and

• various other necessary Project permits.

A list of the principal permits, authorizations or notifications required for the Project is presented in Section 2.5.4 of this ESA.

1.4 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment This ESA considered the mandatory factors listed in Section 16(1) of the CEA Act, as well as the factors listed in the NEB Filing Manual, the OAS guidance and pertinent issues, and concerns identified through regulatory, stakeholder and public consultation as well as Aboriginal engagement.

Consideration of the following factors in the environmental assessment is mandatory under Section 16(1) of the CEA Act:

• 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

Page 1-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out;

• the significance of the above effects;

• comments from the public that are received in accordance with the CEA Act and its regulations;

• measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental or socio-economic effects of the Project; and

• any other matter relevant to the screening report, such as the need for the Project and alternatives to the Project, that the RA may require to be considered.

The environmental assessment considers the potential effects of the Project on the environment within the context of defined spatial and temporal boundaries. These boundaries will vary with the issues and environmental elements or interactions to be considered, and will reflect:

• the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning and abandonment phases of the proposed physical works and/or physical activities;

• the natural variation of a population or ecological or socio-economic component;

• the timing of sensitive life cycle phases in relation to the scheduling of the proposed physical works and/or physical activities;

• the time required for an effect to become evident;

• the time required for a population or ecological or socio-economic component to recover from an effect and return to a pre-effect condition;

• the area directly affected by proposed physical works and/or physical activities; and

• the area within which a population or ecological or socio-economic component functions and within which a Project effect may be felt.

The spatial boundaries for this ESA considered one or more of the following study areas.

• A Footprint Study Area (Footprint) made up of the area directly disturbed by the Project construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., permanent right-of-way, temporary construction workspace, temporary log decks and valve sites).

• A Local Study Area (LSA) that varies with the element being considered. The LSA is based on the zone of influence within which plants, animals and humans are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. For the biophysical elements and resource use related socio-economic elements, the LSA is defined as a 2 km wide band centred on the proposed pipeline route. For social elements (e.g., social and cultural well-being), local effects are related to specific communities considered in the socio-economic assessment.

• A Regional Study Area (RSA) that consists of the area extending beyond the LSA boundary. The RSA is defined as a 20 km wide band centred over the proposed pipeline right-of-way, which is wide enough to encompass the Chinchaga River and Chinchaga Road. The RSA was squared off to assist with quantitative analysis for the ESA.

• A Provincial Area which extends beyond regional or administrative boundaries, but confined to Alberta (e.g., provincial permitting boundaries, etc.).

• A National Area which extends beyond provincial boundaries but not to international boundaries (i.e., tax revenues).

Page 1-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

• An International Study Area was selected to address air quality concerns regarding greenhouse gases.

Section 6.1.1 provides a more detailed discussion on the spatial boundaries of the Project. Reconnaissance and detailed field studies, as well as desktop studies, considered at a minimum an approximately 100 m wide corridor centred on the proposed pipeline route, as well as known areas where temporary workspace is expected to be necessary. In the event an area of interest was identified (e.g., rare plant or wildlife feature such as a mineral lick), field crews expanded their survey as appropriate (no greater than the LSA) to identify the extent and distribution of the area of interest, and ensure a comprehensive assessment of the environmental characteristics of the proposed pipeline route.

The environmental assessment also considered cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other approved projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.

1.5 Purpose of the Document An ESA checklist of NEB Filing Manual requirements is provided at the end of Section 1.7 (Table 1.1). This ESA includes the following sections.

1.0 Introduction: Provides a description of the need and justification for the Project, background information pertaining to the Project, the regulatory framework and the purpose of the document.

2.0 Project Description: Provides a description of the Project components, construction and schedule.

3.0 Community and Regulatory Consultation and Aboriginal Engagement: Provides an overview of the NGTL consultation and engagement program. The consultation and engagement conducted in association with preparation of the ESA was designed to compliment the NGTL consultation and engagement program.

4.0 Route Selection: Provides a description of the proposed pipeline route selection process, as well as a brief description of the proposed route options considered for the Project.

5.0 Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting: Provides a description of the current environmental and socio-economic conditions present along the proposed pipeline right-of-way.

6.0 Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment: Describes the effects assessment and identifies the potential environmental and socio-economic effects, recommended mitigation measures and predicted residual effects as well as an assessment of their significance.

7.0 Cumulative Effects Assessment: Provides a description of the potential cumulative effects as well as an assessment of their significance.

8.0 Environmental Compliance Strategy: Provides a description of the environmental inspection, education, issue tracking and monitoring policies to be applied during the construction and operation of the proposed Project.

9.0 Post-Construction Monitoring Program: Provides a description of the plans to assess the success of construction and reclamation activities and/or address any issues that have occurred after construction along the right-of-way.

10.0 Supplemental Studies: Provides a description of the plans to address knowledge gaps and carry out supplementary environmental studies.

11.0 Conclusion: Provides conclusions related to the significance of potential adverse residual environmental and cumulative effects associated with the Project.

Page 1-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

1.6 Project Team This ESA report was prepared by TERA with the assistance of NGTL. Identified below are the companies responsible for the various supporting studies conducted for the Project.

NGTL Project Description Pipeline Route Selection Public Consultation and Aboriginal Engagement

TERA ESA EPP Aquatics Assessment Rare Plant Habitat Assessment Wetland Assessment Wildlife Habitat Assessment HRIA TLU

Supporting study reports are listed in the Table of Contents and, where available, are included as appendices to this ESA. These technical reports, surveys and studies provide an information base for the ESA. The authors of the supporting study reports also participated in the identification of potential effects and the development of mitigative measures within their respective disciplines.

1.7 Concordance with the NEB Filing Manual Table 1.1 of this ESA identifies where information requested in the NEB Filing Manual may be found in this ESA.

TABLE 1.1

CONCORDANCE WITH GUIDE A - A.2 ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE NEB FILING MANUAL

Filing Manual In Application? Not in Application? No. Filing Requirement References Explanation A.2.4 Description of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting Identify and describe the current biophysical and socio-economic Section 5.0 of this ESA 1. • --- setting. Describe and quantify the biophysical and socio-economic • Section 5.0 of this ESA elements in the study area which are of ecological, economic, or --- human importance. 2. Determine which biophysical or socio-economic elements require Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA • --- more detailed analysis. Detailed information related to biophysical or socio-economic • Section 5.0 of this ESA and Appendices 1 --- elements from Tables A-4 and A-5, where applicable. through 6 of this ESA Provide supporting evidence for information and data collected, • Section 6.0 of this ESA, Appendices 1 analysis completed, conclusions reached and for any professional through 6 of this ESA 3. --- judgment or experience provided in meeting these information requirements. Identify, describe and justify the methodology used for any • Appendices 1 through 4 of this ESA 4. surveys. Justification or plan for further surveys if season for a • Section 10 of this ESA --- survey conducted was not optimal. A.2.5 Effects Assessment Identification and Analysis of Effects 1. Identify potential effects associated with the proposed project. • Section 6.0 of this ESA --- For those biophysical and socio-economic elements that require further analysis, describe, quantify and justify: 2. • spatial and temporal boundaries for the effects analysis of the • Section 6.0 of this ESA --- biophysical or socio-economic element, or valued component, including how this element could change from baseline over the life of the project;

Page 1-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 1.1 Cont'd

Filing Manual In Application? Not in Application? No. Filing Requirement References Explanation • local and regional conditions of the biophysical or socio- • Section 6.0 of this ESA --- economic element, or valued component; and • key receptors that could potentially be affected by the project • Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA --- and a change in the element of concern. An effects analysis of the project for each biophysical or socio- Section 6.0 of this ESA 3. • --- economic element, or valued component. Detailed information outlined in Tables A-4 and A-5 for elements Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA 4. • --- identified in Table A-3. Mitigation Measures Describe the general and specific mitigation measures and their • Sections 6.0 and 8.0 of this ESA, effectiveness to address the project-specific effects, or clearly Appendices 5 and 6 of this ESA 1. --- reference Sections of company manuals that provide mitigation measures. Describe how commitments regarding mitigative measures will be • Section 8.0 of this ESA, Appendices 5 and 2. --- communicated to field staff for implementation. 6 of this ESA Describe any plans or program that may be used to mitigate • Section 8.0 of this ESA, Appendices 5 and 3. --- potential effects. 6 of this ESA Evaluation of Significance Evaluate the likelihood and significance of residual adverse Section 6.0 of this ESA 1. • --- effects. Define the “significant effect” for each biophysical or socio- Section 6.0 of this ESA 2. • --- economic element, or valued component. Describe the methodology for determining whether the project is Section 6.0 of this ESA 3. • --- likely to cause significant adverse effects and justify conclusions. A.2.6 Cumulative Effects Assessment Scoping and Analysis of Cumulative Effects Identify potential effects for which residual effects are also Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA 1. • --- predicted in this ESA. For each biophysical or socio-economic element, or valued • Section 7.0 of this ESA component where residual effects have been identified, provide a description of the spatial and temporal boundaries used to assess the potential cumulative effects: 2. • Identify other projects and activities that have occurred or are --- likely to occur within the boundaries. • Identify whether those projects and activities will produce effects on the biophysical or socio-economic element, valued components within the identified boundaries. Provide a cumulative effects analysis of the proposed project in • Section 7.0 of this ESA 3. combination with other projects and activities for each biophysical --- or socio-economic element, or valued component. Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Effects Describe the general and specific mitigation measures that are • Section 7.0 of this ESA 1. technically and economically feasible to address the cumulative --- effects. Evaluation of Significance Evaluate the likelihood and significance of adverse residual Section 7.0 of this ESA 1. • --- cumulative effects. Define “significant cumulative effect” for each biophysical or socio- Section 7.0 of this ESA 2. • --- economic element, or valued component. Describe the methodology for determining whether the project is • Section 7.0 of this ESA 3. likely to cause significant cumulative effects and justify any --- conclusions. A.2.7 Inspection, Monitoring and Follow-up Describe plans to ensure compliance with biophysical and socio- Section 8.0 of this ESA 1. • --- economic commitments. Evaluate the need to monitor the elements potentially affected by • Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of this ESA the Project and if needed, describe the environmental monitoring 2. --- plan to be implemented during construction, reclamation, and operation of the Project.

Page 1-8

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 1.1 Cont'd

Filing Manual In Application? Not in Application? No. Filing Requirement References Explanation Where a project triggers the CEA Act, evaluate the need for • Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of this ESA element-specific follow-up programs to verify the accuracy of this 3. ESA and to determine the effectiveness of any mitigation --- measures that were implemented, particularly those mitigation measures that are new or unproven. Table A-3 Circumstances Triggering the Need for Detailed Biophysical and Socio-Economic Information Physical environment • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA --- Soil and soil productivity • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Vegetation • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 and Appendix 2 of --- this ESA Water quality and quantity • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA --- Fish and fish habitat • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 and Appendix 1 of --- this ESA Wetlands • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 as well as --- Appendix 3 of this ESA Wildlife and wildlife habitat • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 and Appendix 4 of --- this ESA Species at Risk or Species of Special Status and related habitat • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 as well as --- Appendices 1, 2 and 4 of this ESA Air quality • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA --- Acoustic environment • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA --- Human occupancy and resource use • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA --- Heritage resources • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Traditional land and resource use • Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA --- Social and cultural well-being • Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA --- Human health • Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA --- Infrastructure and services • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA --- Employment and economy • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA ---

Page 1-9

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

1.8 Concordance with the CEA Act Table 1.2 of this ESA identifies where information requested in the CEA Act may be found in this ESA.

TABLE 1.2

CONCORDANCE TABLE WITH THE CEA ACT

Section in CEA CEA Act Requirement Act Section of ESA The environmental effects of the project, including: • the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the s.16.1(a) Section 6.0 of this ESA project; • any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination s.16.1(a) Section 7.0 of this ESA with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; • the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph a) (which requires any cumulative s.16.1(b) Section 7.0 of this ESA 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); • comments from the public that are received in accordance with this Act and the regulations; s.16.1(c) Section 3.0 of this ESA • measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any s.16.1(d) Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA and significant adverse environmental effects of the project; Appendices 5 and 6 of this ESA • any other matter relevant to the screening, comprehensive study, mediation or assessment s.16.1(e) Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of this ESA by a review panel, such as the need for the project and alternatives to the project, that the responsible authority or, except in the case of a screening, the Minister after consulting with the responsible authority, may require to be considered; and • any other matter relevant to the screening, comprehensive study, mediation or assessment s.16.1(e) Section 2.0 of this ESA by a review panel, such as the need for the project and alternatives to the project, that the responsible authority or, except in the case of a screening, the Minister after consulting with the responsible authority, may require to be considered. Subsection 2(1) of CEA Act defines environmental effects as any change in the biophysical environment caused by the project, as well as certain effects that flow directly from those changes, including effects on: • listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or residence, or the residences of individuals of that s.2(1) Section 5.0 and Section 6.0 and species as defined in the Species at Risk Act (SARA); Appendix 4 of this ESA • health and socio-economic conditions; s.2(1) Section 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA • physical and cultural heritage, including effects on things archaeological, palaeontological or s.2(1) Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA and architectural significance; Appendix 5 of this ESA • the current use of lands for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons; and s.2(1) Section 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA • any changes to the project that may be caused by the environment. s.2(1) Section 6.4 of this ESA

Page 1-10

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Purpose The purpose of the Project is to expand NGTL’s existing pipeline system using a buried pipeline from 3-32-96-11 W6M to a tie-in point with an existing pipeline in 5-31-96-7 W6M. The pipeline is intended to meet customer demand for incremental transportation service of sweet natural gas in northwest Alberta.

2.2 Alternatives to the Project Alternatives to the Project are defined as functionally different ways to meet the need and achieve the purpose of the Project (CEA Agency 2006). The Project need and purpose are to meet customer requirements by transporting large volumes of natural gas to market by buried pipeline. There are no realistic alternatives to a buried pipeline that meet the Project need and purpose.

Alternative means are the various ways that are technically and economically feasible to implement and carry out the Project. Since, as noted above, only buried pipeline options realistically meet the Project need and purpose, and there are no existing pipelines that provide a feasible alternative for transportation between the tie-in points, NGTL evaluated whether alternative routes could meet the Project need and purpose. The route selection process for the Project is discussed in Section 4.0 of this ESA.

2.3 Location of the Project The proposed Project is located in a forested setting within Clear Hills County and the County of Northern Lights. Lands traversed are 100% (38.3 km) provincially-owned Crown land and the entire proposed route lies within the Green Area of Alberta.

Lands traversed on the Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No.2 (Sloat Creek Section) are 100% forested (38.3 km). The nearest community to the proposed pipeline route is the Town of Manning (approximately 100 km southeast). No residences lie within 1 km of the proposed right-of-way. The proposed pipeline route crosses Chinchaga River, Werniuk Creek, three unnamed tributaries to the Chinchaga River and one unnamed tributary to Werniuk Creek. All watercourses are Class C watercourses with the exception of the unnamed tributary to Werniuk Creek, which is a Class D watercourse. In addition, numerous wetlands and undefined drainages are crossed by the proposed route.

Consideration was given to alternative routes; however, paralleling and utilizing adjacent rights-of-way, where feasible, as temporary workspace was deemed preferable to reduce the disturbance to new land.

For ease of description, the proposed pipeline route is described using Kilometre Posts (KPs). The proposed pipeline begins at a tie-in point at an existing block valve on the Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop at 5-31-96-7 W6M (KP 0) and terminates at a tie-in point on the Northwest Mainline at 3-32-96-11 W6M (KP 38.3). KP locations are shown on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 6 of this ESA).

Typical lands encountered by the proposed pipeline route are shown in Plates 2-1 and 2-2.

Page 2-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

Plate 2-1 Aerial view west showing the proposed pipeline route (indicated by the yellow line) crossing an unnamed watercourse within mixedwood forest at approximately KP 31 in NE 25-96-11 W6M. The proposed pipeline route is parallel to an existing pipeline and powerline corridor (October 13, 2010).

Plate 2-2 Aerial view west at approximately KP 16 in SW 33-96-9 W6M showing typical low-lying areas along the proposed pipeline route dominated by black spruce and/or willow. The approximate alignment is indicated by the yellow line (October 13, 2010).

Page 2-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

2.4 Project Components The proposed location and technical details of the components of the Project are summarized in Table 2.1.

The total land Footprint required to construct the proposed Project is approximately 120.2 ha, of which approximately 88.5 ha is pipeline right-of-way and approximately 31.7 ha is temporary workspace.

The proposed route generally parallels and occasionally lies adjacent to the Chinchaga Road for its entire length. Construction equipment will travel along the right-of-way and access the route via existing access roads. No new permanent access will be required. Design, construction and operation of the pipeline will be in compliance with all applicable codes, standards and regulations. Pending regulatory approval, construction is scheduled to commence in November 2011 with a scheduled in-service date of April 2012.

TABLE 2.1

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Total Length: approximately 38.3 km Pipeline Right-of-Way Width: Construction: 32 m Width of new clearing varies depending on workspace available to be shared on adjacent right-of-way. Length Parallel to Existing approximately 36 km (94%) Linear Disturbances: Product: sweet natural gas Source Point: 3-32-96-11 W6M Delivery Point: tie-in with existing pipeline in 5-31-96-7 W6M Pipe Size: 1,219 mm O.D. (NPS 48) steel pipe Pipe Coatings: fusion bond epoxy, with external coating systems for abrasive conditions for watercourse, drainage features and road bores Construction Right-of-Way The Project will generally require a 32 m wide construction right-of-way (i.e., permanent right-of-way plus temporary Width and Temporary workspace), but width of new clearing will be reduced by sharing workspace on the adjacent right-of-way to the extent Workspace: feasible. Additional temporary workspace will be required at road, foreign pipeline, utility and water crossings, as well as at sharp sidebends and tie-ins. Aboveground Equipment: Three valve sites will be within the boundaries of the proposed and existing pipeline easements. Minimum Depth of Cover: 0.9 m or 1.5 m at watercourse crossings Typical Trench Width: approximately 2 m Test Medium: Water (source water to be withdrawn from Chinchaga River) Construction Schedule: November 2011 to March 2012 Length of Construction: 16 to 18 weeks Expected Useful Life of Pipeline: over 30 years

2.5 Construction

2.5.1 Pipeline Installation The total length of pipeline to be installed for the Project is approximately 38.3 km. Pipeline construction will involve the following standard activities: engineering; construction surveying; clearing of vegetation; strippings salvage (where warranted); grading (where warranted); stringing; bending and welding; trenching; lowering-in; backfilling; hydrostatic testing; clean-up/reclamation; and watercourse and wetland crossings. These activities are generally presented in the order of occurrence during construction.

Pipeline Construction Phase Associated Activities Engineering The pipeline will be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards and the Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPRs). Construction Survey Activities include line-of-sight flagging and staking of the boundaries of the construction right-of-way, temporary workspace as well as marking trench line and existing utilities. Avoidance areas will be appropriately fenced or flagged, where warranted.

Page 2-3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

Pipeline Construction Phase Associated Activities Clearing Snow, trees, stumps, brush, and other vegetation will generally be cleared from the proposed construction right-of-way and extra temporary workspace. Salvageable timber will be cut and decked. Equipment used during clearing activities may include chain saws, rotary grinders, feller-bunchers, hydro-axes, mulchers or other tree-clearing equipment, as well as skidders, dozers and backhoes. Disposal Timber and brush disposal options will be subject to agreements with the Crown. Residual woody materials will be used as rollback or disposed of by mulching, chipping or burning unless otherwise directed by the NGTL Environmental Inspector/Construction Manager or ASRD. Strippings Salvage Strippings salvage will be conducted at areas to be graded. A minimum surface disturbance technique will be used to reduce right-of-way width and additional clearing of trees. Equipment used during strippings handling activities may include dozers, graders and/or backhoes. Grading (where warranted) Following strippings salvage, grading may be conducted on irregular ground surfaces (including temporary workspace), if necessary, to provide a safe work surface. Graders, backhoes and dozers may be used for this activity. Stringing and Welding The pipe will be bent, lined-up, welded, joint-coated and inspected prior to being lowered into the trench. Equipment used during stringing and welding activities includes pipe trucks, booms, pick-up trucks, and x-ray or ultrasonic inspection equipment mounted on pick-up trucks. Trenching The trench will be excavated using tracked excavators to a depth sufficient to ensure the depth of cover is in accordance or in excess of applicable codes. Minimum depth of cover will be approximately 0.9 m. Lowering-In The pipe will be lowered into the trench using sideboom tractors. Trench dewatering may be necessary at certain locations during lowering-in (e.g., to ensure acceptable bedding for pipe, prevent the pipe from floating or perform tie-in welds). Backfilling Prior to backfilling, subsurface erosion control structures such as trench breakers will be installed, if warranted. Pipe weights or screw anchors will be installed, if warranted. The trench will be backfilled using backhoes, graders, dozers or specialized backfilling equipment. Backfill material will generally consist of native trench spoil material. Displaced subsoils will be crowned over the trench to compensate for settlement and any excess trench spoil will be feathered out over adjacent portions of the construction right-of-way. Testing All piping will be hydrostatically pressure tested and adhere to relevant provincial and federal regulations. Clean-up and Reclamation Upon completion of construction activities, clean-up and reclamation procedures will be initiated using dozers, backhoes and/or graders. Garbage or debris remaining onsite will be removed and disposed of in compliance with local regulations. The pipeline right-of-way will be graded to restore preconstruction contours, where practical. The construction right-of-way will be returned to a stable condition. The strippings, where salvaged, will be replaced, with cross ditches and diversion berms installed on moderate and steep slopes to reduce the risk of erosion. All disturbed, upland areas will be seeded with an appropriate seed mix and special reclamation measures will be applied, where warranted. Watercourse and Wetland The Chinchaga River is proposed to be horizontally directionally drilled while Crossings Werniuk Creek is proposed to be isolated. There are four other unnamed watercourses which will be isolated or open cut. There are also numerous drainages and wetlands that will be crossed during frozen conditions.

Permanent aboveground piping for the Project is limited to three valve sites within the boundaries of the proposed and existing pipeline easements. A temporary stockpile site and a temporary camp will be used during Project construction; however, these sites will be located on previously disturbed industrial land and no new clearing is anticipated.

Page 2-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

2.5.2 Inspection NGTL will retain the services of a qualified Environmental Inspector for the duration of construction (Section 8.0 of this ESA). The Environmental Inspector will monitor construction activities and ensure the implementation of protection measures outlined in NGTL's documentation, including the EPP (Appendix 5 of this ESA) and the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 6 of this ESA) developed for the Project.

2.5.3 Estimated Workforce Requirements The construction of the proposed Project will involve a peak workforce of approximately 450 to 500 workers onsite. The skills of the anticipated workforce will include heavy equipment operators, welders, labourers, teamsters, mechanics, foremen, surveyors, inspectors and field office support personnel. No new permanent, part-time or full-time jobs will be created directly by the Project.

2.5.4 Environmental Permits/Approvals The environmental permits and/or authorizations that are to be obtained prior to construction activities are outlined in Table 2.2.

TABLE 2.2

ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Agency Permit, Authorization and/or Notification FEDERAL NEB Environmental Screening Report (pursuant to the CEA Act) DFO Notification under the applicable Operational Statement (OS) or, if warranted, authorization under Section 35 (2) and 32 of the Fisheries Act Transport Canada Approval under Section 108(4 or 5) of the NEB Act or Section 5(1)(a) of the NWPA PROVINCIAL - ALBERTA Alberta Environment (AENV) Notice under the Code of Practice for Temporary Diversion of Water for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines or Application under the Water Act for a Temporary Diversion License Notice under the Code of Practice for Release of Hydrostatic Test Water from Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Gas Pipelines Notice under the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body Notice under the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings ACCS Historical Resources Act clearance - An HRIA was conducted and no historical resources were identified in conflict with the proposed Project. Therefore, no further work was recommended. Clearance under the Historical Resources Act will be applied for in January 2011. ASRD PLA and other associated dispositions to be acquired using the new online EAP process. Wildlife damage permits for removal of beaver dams.

2.5.5 Construction Schedule Pipeline construction activities are progressive commencing with survey and proposed right-of-way preparation, and continuing through pipe stringing, welding, pipe inspection, trenching, lowering-in, backfilling, clean-up and reclamation. These activities are performed sequentially and move along the construction right-of-way. The average duration crews will be working at a given location on the proposed right-of-way is approximately one month. Areas that will take longer are tie-in locations that are routinely completed last just before and immediately after testing. Certain late stage activities such as testing and final clean-up may be postponed until suitable weather and soil conditions occur. Construction activities are expected to occur over a 16 to 18 week period (see Table 2.3).

Page 2-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 2.3

ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION SCHEDULE

Major Activity Anticipated Commencement of Major Activity Estimated Duration of Major Activity Surveying November 2011 10 days Clearing/Mulching December 2011 4 weeks Strippings Salvage (if required) December 2011 3 weeks Grading (if required) December 2011 3 weeks Stringing and Welding December 2011 6 weeks Trenching January 2012 4 weeks Lowering-in January 2012 4 weeks Backfilling January 2012 4 weeks Testing February 2012 2 weeks Final Tie-ins February 2012 4 weeks Clean-up and Reclamation February 2012 / Summer 2012 4 weeks Operations April 2012 Life of facility Post-Construction Monitoring April 2012 to late summer 2012 Over the first and second complete growing seasons following construction Line Patrols May 2012 Twice per year (approximately every six months by helicopter or fixed wing aircraft) Leak Detection May 2012 Annually with instrumented leak detection equipment In-Line Inspection There are no plans to conduct in-line inspection in 10+ year intervals the foreseeable future Vegetation/Weed Management --- As required Maintenance Digs --- Excavations performed as appropriate for investigation, data collection as part of a CP / Direct Assessment program, after a smart pig run, or after suspected contact by a third-party Facility Inspections --- Valves inspected annually, not to exceed 18 months with cathodic protection (CP) test lead readings taken annually. Coating integrity data is gathered whenever the pipe is exposed (i.e., for foreign crossings, facility tie ins, etc.)

2.6 Operation and Maintenance TransCanada operates the Alberta System pursuant to an Operating Agreement between TransCanada and NGTL. TransCanada applies corporate policies in its operations of the Alberta System that are common to TransCanada’s operation of other federally-regulated pipelines. TransCanada will operate the Project in accordance with all governing regulatory requirements, permit conditions and other approvals, including the OPR-99, and CSA Z662-07, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. The TransCanada Operations Control Centre (OCC), in Calgary remotely monitors and controls the operation of the Alberta System. For the Project, TransCanada will develop and implement a Post-Construction Monitoring (PCM) Program.

TransCanada's comprehensive pipeline Integrity Management Process (IMP) will be implemented by NGTL to monitor and ensure the integrity of the Project. This process uses advanced inspection and mitigation technologies applied within a comprehensive risk-based methodology. Risk assessment is used to identify potential integrity threats and initiate inspection and mitigation activities, while results from advanced inspections for known or suspected integrity threats are used to develop specific integrity maintenance activities. The integrity management plan will be used in the operating phase to:

• reduce environmental impacts;

• protect the installed pipelines and facilities;

• maintain reliability; and

• ensure safety of public and employees.

Current regular preventative maintenance programs will be incorporated into the design and operation of the pipeline. These programs include:

• aerial patrols;

Page 2-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

• internal inspections;

• cathodic protection monitoring; and

• pipeline markers at roads and pipeline watercourse crossings.

2.7 Decommissioning and Abandonment The Project has been designed to have a useful life in excess of 30 years. NGTL is participating in and will comply with the process established by Stream 3 of the NEB’s Land Matters Consultation Initiative and Reasons for Decision RH-3-2008. Any decommissioning or abandonment activities will require prior approval by the NEB and other applicable agencies.

Page 2-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

3.0 COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT

3.1 Introduction NGTL worked independently and in collaboration with TERA to consult with government agencies as well as local communities to collect information for incorporation into the ESA. Consultation provides those who could be affected by the Project with the opportunity to participate in the ESA. NGTL is committed to building long-term relationships with the communities within which it operates, recognizes and respects Aboriginal culture, and recognizes the importance of land. NGTL believes that consultation develops mutual trust and helps to build co-operative working relationships. The goal of these programs is to share information about the Project's plans and activities while receiving a clear understanding of how people may be affected by the Project. TERA is committed to assisting NGTL in achieving these objectives.

The Project Application provides detailed information on NGTL's public consultation process and policies as well as NGTL's Aboriginal engagement process for the Project.

The Aboriginal engagement program for the Project is guided by the Aboriginal Relations Policy of TransCanada Corporation. The program is designed to assist NGTL in planning the Project and in particular to: determine potential effects on the current use of lands for traditional purposes; identify sites of cultural and historical importance in the Project area; obtain local and traditional knowledge about the Project area; develop appropriate mitigation to reduce potential effects; and identify potential socio-economic effects and suitable opportunities. At the outset of engagement, NGTL considers a project location relative to: reserves under the Indian Act; Métis settlements and communities; First Nations’ asserted traditional territory; and Métis harvesting areas and Métis traditional use areas.

3.2 Consultation Objectives and Methods

3.2.1 Consultation Objectives The objectives of consultation were to:

• share information about the Project, the proponent and the regulatory process;

• to obtain feedback on the potential effects of the Project; and

• to obtain input from federal and provincial regulatory agencies on the Project design and ESA requirements.

The Consultation and Aboriginal Sections of the NEB Application for the Project provide a summary of public involvement activities conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA including consultation with federal, provincial and municipal government agencies and engagement with Aboriginal communities and other interested parties, where applicable. Key environmental socio-economic issues raised during the consultation and engagement program are discussed in the relevant sections of the ESA. The consultation and engagement conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA was designed to compliment the NGTL consultation program.

3.2.2 Methods A number of methods have been used to inform the public, obtain feedback and identify issues about the Project including: face-to face meetings; conference calls; informal discussions; and distribution of Project brochures, maps and fact sheets. The results of these consultation efforts, have contributed to the development of this ESA, including mitigation and enhancement measures.

Page 3-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

3.2.3 Consultation and Engagement Outcomes The results of the consultation and engagement have helped refine the ESA for the Project. With this information, NGTL identified issues, addressed concerns and responded to questions. Engagement has also provided communities and government with an understanding of the Project’s potential effects.

Results of the consultation and engagement have been considered and incorporated throughout the ESA where relevant, including the effects assessment and mitigation measures.

Page 3-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

4.0 ROUTE SELECTION

4.1 General Routing Criteria The TransCanada general route selection process takes into consideration the following criteria in the selection of the preferred pipeline route:

• Maximizing to the extent possible paralleling existing linear disturbances to:

– reduce the potential fragmentation of wildlife habitat;

– maximize the amount of temporary workspace located on existing rights-of-way or other disturbances; and

– minimize the amount of new non-contiguous right-of-way 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).

• 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.

• Avoid routing in close proximity to urban development and residences, 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.

• Minimizing the effects to water supply systems and groundwater resources.

4.2 Control Points The primary routing control points for the Project have been determined by the locations of existing valve installations from previous construction and as described in the overall Project description.

• Tie-in at the Northwest Mainline (Source Control Point): 3-32-96-11 W6M

• Tie-in at existing pipeline (Delivery Control Point): 5-31-96-7 W6M

4.3 Project-Specific Routing The route selection process for the Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No.2 (Sloat Creek Section) involved a desktop review of the area including topographical maps and satellite imagery and extensive on site reconnaissance. The routing strategy was to install the pipeline parallel and adjacent to existing pipeline rights-of-way, wherever possible. As a result, approximately 94% (36 km) of the pipeline route parallels

Page 4-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211 existing linear disturbances (including pipelines, powerlines, public roads and seismic lines). Preliminary route options were reviewed by aerial and ground reconnaissance in the fall 2010 involving survey, construction, environmental and Project management personnel. NGTL's preferred routing was initially evaluated by TERA using interpretation of current satellite imagery, topographic maps, a review of supplemental resource information and the routing factors listed above. Helicopter and ground reconnaissances were conducted by TERA during fall 2010 in conjunction with the supporting study surveys. The route reconnaissance teams considered the constraints of the source and delivery points as well as the routing considerations noted above to assess the route. While in the field, TERA’s archaeologists encountered one new archaeological site while conducting the HRIA for the Project. The site is located on the west side of Werniuk Creek 100 m north of the northernmost proposed alternate route option at the creek crossing and was avoided by NGTL during the routing process. In addition, an alternate crossing of the Chinchaga River, located approximately 400 m downstream from the proposed crossing, as well as two alternate crossings of Werniuk Creek (approximately 480 m downstream and 200 m upstream of the proposed crossing) were assessed during the Aquatic Assessment. There were no other environmental concerns that led to route realignments. Supplemental environmental surveys as well as geotechnical surveys are planned, as discussed in Section 10.0 of this ESA.

Regulatory and stakeholder consultation did not identify any concerns related to routing.

ASRD requires documentation of a three-phase route selection and alignment process (Government of Alberta [GOA] 2010a). The first phase involves corridor selection, the second phase involves use of local planning elements to locate, evaluate and select a linear route within the preferred corridor; and the third phase involves using site-specific planning to evaluate and locate the centre line for the preferred alignment.

Phase I – Corridor Selection Given the constraints of the source and delivery control points, there is an existing corridor defined by the existing NGTL and adjacent existing pipeline rights-of-way. This meets the standards as defined by the GOA (2010b) which state that new linear developments should parallel existing occupied linear industrial dispositions.

Phase II – Route Selection Possible route alternatives within the preferred corridor were to lie adjacent to the north or south side of the existing pipeline right-of-way. The selected routing was based on constructability (i.e., water crossings, road crossings and dispositions) as well as optimizing workspace available on the existing right-of-way. In addition, several alternative watercourse crossing locations were considered during the route evaluation process. Efforts were made to locate watercourse crossings at stable channel locations, and avoid crossing sites with high erosion potential where feasible (GOA 2010c). In addition the location of other land and resource uses were considered, including a gravel pit lease (SML 080013) in S1/2 29-96-10 W6M and an Industrial Sample Plot (ISP 090336) in S1/2 3-97-8 W6M (Alberta Energy 2010a). Avoidance of these dispositions was considered; however, not required by the disposition holders, therefore, the route will cross these areas paralleling the existing pipeline rights-of-way.

Phase III – Site-Specific Evaluation of the Preferred Alignment As required by ASRD, this ESA includes an evaluation of the specific landforms and physical features as well as specific critical wildlife habitats, fisheries habitats and other such features for which effects of proposed activities should be mitigated.

4.4 Proposed Pipeline Route The pipeline route is shown at a scale of 1:1,000,000 (Figure 1.1) and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets at a scale of 1:20,000. The pipeline route is approximately 38.3 km in length and parallels existing disturbances for 94% (approximately 36 km) of its length. Aboveground facilities required for this pipeline loop will be installed within existing pipeline rights-of-way.

Page 4-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING Table 5.1 describes the environmental and socio-economic setting along the proposed pipeline route. In addition, select environmental information is provided on the Environmental Alignment Sheets. Information collected for the setting was obtained from existing literature, internet searches and personal communications, all of which are cited in Section 12.0 of this ESA. In addition, the results of the aquatics, wetlands, rare plants, wildlife habitat and heritage resources supporting studies are summarized below in Table 5.1. Methodologies for the Aquatic Assessment, Rare Plant Habitat Assessment, Wetland Assessment and Wildlife Habitat Assessment are provided in Appendices 1 through 4 of this ESA, respectively. Methodologies for the HRIA and the HRIA Report will be submitted to the NEB once Clearance from ACCS has been received.

TABLE 5.1

SUMMARY OF BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical Environment • Most of the route lies within the Chinchaga Plains of the Northern Alberta Uplands Physiographic Region. The western portion of the route is within the Milligan Hills Section of the Northern Alberta Uplands (Pettapiece 1986). • The route does not encounter any areas of permafrost (Natural Resources Canada [NRC] 2003a), ground instability (NRC 2007a, 2008, 2009a) or flooding (NRC 2007b). • NRC has rated the risk of wind erosion in the Project RSA as low (NRC 2003b). • The pipeline route lies in the vicinity of historic forest fire hotspots detected in 2001, 2002 and 2004 (NRC 2009b). A historic wildfire took place in the vicinity of the route in 1950 (ASRD 2009a). The forest fire danger rating for this area ranges from low to moderate (NRC 2009c). • The Upper and Lower Cretaceous-aged Dunvegan Formation underlies most of the route while the west end of the route in 96-11 W6M is underlain by the Upper and Lower Cretacous-aged Kaskapau Formation (Hamilton et al. 1999). The Dunvegan Formation, of marine origin, is characterized by grey, fine-grained feldspathic sandstone with hard calcareous beds, laminated siltstone and grey silty shale. The Kaskapau Formation, of marine origin, is underlain by dark grey silty shale intergrained with fine grained quartzose sandstone and oolitic mudstone. A drift thickness of 0-45 m has been reported throughout the Project RSA (Pawlowicz and Fenton 1995). • Alberta is divided into natural subregions which are defined geographically on the basis of landscape patterns, notably vegetation, soils and physiographic features. The Project is located within the Lower Boreal Highlands Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). In this subregion, the mean annual precipitation ranges from 400-600 mm (Environment Canada 2010a). The mean annual temperature is -1°C. The mean number of frost-free days per year in this region is 97 (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • Environment Canada (2010a) also has an ecological classification system which divides Canada into Ecozones. Ecozones represent generalized ecological units characterized by interactive and adjusting abiotic and biotic factors, including landforms, soil orders and major plant formations. The route is located within the Clear Hills Upland Ecoregion of the Boreal Plains Ecozone. This region represents a transition between boreal and cordilleran vegetation which occurs on the lower slopes of the Rocky Mountains and the western edge of the Alberta Plain. Land use in the Project RSA includes oil and gas, forestry and hunting. Agriculture, limited to forage production and short-season cereal grains, is present on the southern edge of this ecoregion (Environment Canada 2010a). • Terrain is generally level to undulating along the pipeline route with moderate to steep slopes encountered near the Chinchaga River between KP 1.7 to KP 1.9 and along the valley of Werniuk Creek near KP 28.2. The boreal forest has a mixture of lodgepole pine, which may dominate at higher elevations. White spruce and fir are also common species in the uplands areas, whereas black spruce communities may dominate in the poorly-drained valleys. Topography ranges from 600-900 m above sea level (asl) in this region. • Lands traversed by the pipeline route are 100% (38.3 km) Crown-owned in the Green Area of Alberta. • The pipeline route is parallel and adjacent to existing disturbances for 94% of its length (36 km). • The pipeline route does not encounter any contaminated sites listed on the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI) (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2010).

Page 5-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Soil and Soil Productivity • The soils along the pipeline route are generally developed from glacial till sediment with some areas developed from lacustrine sediments (Lindsay et al. 1958). In the Lower Boreal Highlands Subregion, Orthic Gray Luvisols are the dominant upland soils. Regosols occur on steep erosional slopes. Typic and Terric Mesisols are the dominant organic soils in poor-to-rich fens. Fibric Mesisols and occasional Organic Cryosols are typical of bogs. Peaty Gleysols are common throughout the natural subregion (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • Much of the Project RSA is bog and poorly-drained. Drainage in the Project RSA is provided by the Chinchaga River which flows north and joins the Hay River, which eventually drains into Great Slave Lake (Lindsay et al. 1958). The drainage characteristics vary and range from weakly expressed mottling to moss bogs in which 76 cm or more of peat overlie mottled and gleyed mineral material. The types of poorly-drained soil profiles include depression podzols, meadow soils, half bogs, sedge bogs and moss bogs (muskegs). • The bog soils show a wide range of characteristics with respect to type and depth of peaty material. The peat can be of either moss or sedge origin and in various stages of decomposition (Lindsay et al. 1958). Most of the Project RSA is unsuitable for agricultural development due to the large proportion of bog. • See Physical Environment for potential contaminated soil. Vegetation • The pipeline route is located within the Clear Hills Uplands of the Boreal Plains Ecozone (Environment Canada 2010a) and in the Lower Boreal Highlands of the Boreal Forest Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • The Lower Boreal Highlands is the third largest Natural Subregion in Alberta and is characterized by diverse mixedwood forests and extensive wetlands. Young mixedwood forests are a mosaic of aspen, balsam poplar, black and white spruce, white birch and lodgepole pine. The Lower Boreal Highland Natural Subregion is the major zone of hybridization between lodgepole pine and jack pine. Stands may be dominated by pure lodgepole pine, pure jack pine and the full range of hybrids. Lodgepole pine– jack pine hybrids grow in pure or mixed stands with aspen and white birch, green alder, common Labrador tea, common blueberry and bog cranberry on well-drained, coarse textured substrates. Wetlands are mainly treed and shrubby fens (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • There are no potential species listed for the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion that have a Species at Risk Act (SARA) or Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designation. • There are no potential species listed for the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion that are designated under the Alberta Wildlife Act. • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC or Wildlife Act designation are known within the RSA (Alberta Conservation Information Management System [ACIMS] 2010a). One ACIMS-listed species, Bodin’s milk vetch (Astragalus bodinii) has been recorded within the RSA and is located approximately 2.7 km from KP 19.2 at its closest point (ACIMS 2010a). • A Rare Plant Habitat Assessment of the construction right-of-way was conducted from helicopter overflights of the proposed route on October 16 and 17, 2010. Due to Project timing constraints, surveys were conducted outside the growing season (i.e., June 1 to August 31). Consequently, rare plant habitat assessments were conducted using helicopter overflights based on the reconnaissance-level survey type described in rare plant survey guidelines developed by the Alberta Native Plant Council (ANPC) (2000). • No COSEWIC or SARA-listed species were observed during the Rare Plant Habitat Assessment. No species designated under the Alberta Wildlife Act or ACIMS-listed rare vascular plant species were observed during the assessment. • Based on the Phase 3 Forestry maps (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources [AENR] 1970+), late-successional mixedwood forests estimated to have an age ranging from 110 to 120 years old are traversed by approximately 2.8 km of the proposed route. Areas where late-successional forests are anticipated to be encountered by the proposed route are identified in Table 1 of Appendix 2; these locations will be confirmed during 2011 supplemental surveys. • Numerous habitats that were considered to provide high potential to support rare vascular plants were identified during the habitat assessment (see Appendix 2). A supplemental rare plant survey will be conducted for the Project during the growing season from June 1 to August 31, 2011 at locations that were identified as having high rare plant potential. • The proposed pipeline route is located in the mountain pine beetle (MPB) Management Zone designated as an inactive Holding Zone (ASRD 2009b). The main objective for the Holding Zone is to ensure that the MPB population remains constant from year to year. Since control is not feasible over the entire holding zone, some areas are identified as "inactive" areas where the annual control targets of 50-80% of priority sites with surviving beetle broods, are not applicable (ASRD 2007a). No symptoms of forest pests were observed at the time of the rare plant habitat assessment in October 2010. • Field work was conducted with the assistance of representatives from Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nations. The Aboriginal participants did not express any issues or concerns with the proposed pipeline at this time and no mitigation has been requested. • Detailed descriptions and locations of the vegetation communities and land uses encountered by the proposed pipeline route are discussed in the Rare Plant Habitat Assessment in Appendix 2 of this ESA.

Page 5-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Water Quality and • The route is located in the Chinchaga River sub-basin of the Hay River Basin (AENV 2009a). Quantity • The pipeline route crosses the Chinchaga River which originates from the Chinchaga Lakes in British Columbia (BC) and is a tributary to the Hay River in Alberta. • The Chinchaga River is monitored by AENV and by the Water Survey of Canada near High Level, Alberta. On September 27, 2010, the water level of Chinchaga River was 0.9 m and its discharge was 24.6 m³/s (AENV 2009a, Environment Canada 2010b). The annual high flow event typically occurs in Chinchaga River in May. Through the summer and fall, flows gradually decline. The lowest flow occurs in the winter and early spring before the lowland areas and mountain snowpacks begin to melt (Environment Canada 2010c). • An Aquatic Assessment was conducted by TERA along the pipeline route from October 5 to 8, 2010 and October 24, 2010, to identify watercourses crossed by the proposed route (Appendix 1 of this ESA). • A total of six watercourse crossings are crossed by the pipeline route. They are: the Chinchaga River; Werniuk Creek; three unnamed tributaries to the Chinchaga River; and one unnamed tributary to Werniuk Creek. In addition, the three unnamed tributaries to the Chinchaga River are ponded by beaver activity. • A total of 11 drainages were reviewed during the Aquatic Assessment and determined to have no defined bed and banks. There were four additional undefined drainages identified by the surveyors along short sections of the pipeline where the routing had not yet been finalized at the time of the fall 2010 Aquatic Assessment. These four crossings will be visited by a Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialist (QAES) in the spring of 2011 to confirm that they are undefined drainages and nonfish-bearing. • A request for determination of navigability and any appropriate applications for Navigable Waters Approval under Section 108 of the NEB Act and the NWPA will be submitted to Transport Canada for the watercourses in February 2011. • Aboriginal community participants from Dene Tha' First Nation and Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 assisted during the Aquatic Assessment. • Winter surveys will be conducted during frozen conditions at the proposed watercourse crossings along the pipeline route. Winter surveys will help determine if watercourses will have water present or if they will be frozen to the bottom at the time of construction. • There are 14 groundwater wells located within an approximate 2 km radius of the pipeline route. Two wells are for domestic use and 12 wells are for industrial use (AENV 2010). Three industrial groundwater wells are located approximately 43 m from KP 2.1. There are no domestic groundwater wells within 200 m of the route. • There are no documented springs along the route (Borneuf 1983, AENV 1991). • The pipeline route is not located in an agricultural area and, therefore, is not rated for surface and groundwater quality risk for contaminants or aquifer vulnerability (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010a,b,c). • Hydrostatic testing will be conducted using water from local sources, to be reviewed in winter 2010/2011 and summer 2011. Fish and Fish Habitat • TERA conducted fish inventories on watercourses during the October 5 to 8, 2010 Aquatic Assessment. The purpose of the inventories was to assess potential fish habitat in the watercourses crossed by the proposed route (see Appendix 1 of this ESA). • The pipeline route crosses six watercourses with defined bed and banks. • The proposed crossing of the Chinchaga River (located at KP 1.7 in 13-36-96-8 W6M) and Werniuk Creek (located at KP 28.6 in 5-29-96-10 W6M) are defined under the AENV Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body as Class C watercourses with an instream restricted activity period (RAP) of April 15 to July 15 (AENV 2000a,b, 2006). One unnamed tributary to Werniuk Creek is crossed at KP 30.8 in 9-25-96-11 W6M and is a mapped Class D watercourse with no RAP. Three unmapped tributaries to the Chinchaga River are crossed at KP 6.2 in 3-4-97-8 W6M, KP 9.0 in 2-6-97-8 W6M and KP 13.9 in 9-34-96-9 W6M. Since they all drain into the Chinchaga River, they inherit a Class C designation (AENV 2000a,b) and retain an April 15 to July 15 RAP (AENV 2000a,b). • Fish were captured in five of the six watercourses. Fish species captured included brook stickleback, Arctic grayling, trout-perch, emerald shiner, walleye, lake chub, white sucker and longnose sucker. No other sportfish or provincially-listed species were captured. • No fish species at risk listed by COSEWIC are known to occur in the Chinchaga River sub-basin (COSEWIC 2010a). However, Arctic grayling populations in Alberta are high priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2010b). Arctic grayling are listed as 'sensitive' in Alberta and are found in the Chinchaga River sub-basin (ASRD 2005). Spoonhead sculpin, also found in the Chinchaga River sub-basin, are listed as 'may be at risk' in Alberta since existing data on the status of populations across the province is currently insufficient to designate the species as provincially ‘secure’ in Alberta (Clayton pers. comm.). • Pending regulatory approvals, construction is scheduled to commence in November 2011 and will not occur during the RAP (April 16 to July 15) on the Class C watercourses. • Aboriginal community participants from Dene Tha' First Nation and Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 assisted during the Aquatic Assessment. Aboriginal participants were not aware of any fishing activities in the vicinity of the pipeline. They noted beaver dams along the route but did not express any concerns with regards to these features.

Page 5-3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wetlands • The pipeline route is located within the Continental High-Boreal Wetland Region (National Wetland Working Group [NWWG] 1988). Boreal wetlands are characterized by coniferous forests and common wetland types including bogs and fens. In the Continental Mid-Boreal Wetland Region, characteristic wetlands are bogs and treed and shrubby fens (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Swamps are usually restricted to areas bordering streams or to the periphery of bogs. Marshes are relatively rare, occurring mainly on inland deltas or along lake shores occurring on broad flats and in confined basins (NWWG 1988). Ribbed, horizontal and basin fens are common wetland forms in the region. Heavily treed peat plateau and palsa bogs occur as small islands in fens, accompanied by collapse scar fens. Flat bogs occur in the Continental High Boreal Wetland Subregion. Basin bogs are common in areas of moderate relief (NWWG 1988). • Wetlands in the vicinity of the pipeline route are predominantly peatland. Peat thickness within the region averages about 4 m thick. The term "muskeg" is commonly used informally in place of peatland or wetland. • Wetlands provide habitat for native plants and wildlife species, including nesting and foraging habitat for bird species and cover for ungulates. • There are no Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance along the pipeline route (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2010). The Project route does not cross any Important Bird Areas (Canadian Nature Federation 2010) or Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (Canadian Wildlife Services [CWS] 2010). • A Wetland Assessment was conducted from October 16 to 19, 2010 along the proposed pipeline route (see Appendix 3 of this ESA). • There are 59 wetlands crossed by the pipeline route. These include 15 treed fens, 12 treed bogs, 26 shrubby fens, 4 shallow open water wetlands and 2 emergent marshes. • Field work was conducted with the assistance of representatives from Dene Tha' First Nation, Duncan's First Nation and Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74. Aboriginal participants had no specific concerns in regards to wetlands in the Project RSA and no mitigation was requested. • The 2010 Wetland Assessment was conducted as a high level reconnaissance with the goal of understanding wetland distribution and generalized classifications. Ground investigations were conducted at select locations. Environment Canada was consulted with in November 2010 regarding methodology and reporting for ground surveys. Detailed ground surveys will be completed during the summer 2011 field program along the entire pipeline route. • Additional information regarding the locations and classification of wetlands crossed by the route is provided in Appendix 3 of this ESA.

Page 5-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife • The pipeline route traverses forested land for 100% of its length. Forest cover is dominated by trembling aspen, white spruce Habitat and jack pine in the uplands areas and black spruce and willow in poorly-drained areas. • The entire pipeline route is located within a provincially identified Caribou Range (Chinchaga Caribou Range) (ASRD 2007b). • The pipeline route is located within a Grizzly Bear Secondary Zone (ASRD 2010a). • The pipeline route is not within a provincially identified Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) (ASRD 2007b). • The pipeline route is located within the Bison Management Zone; however, it is not located near a known bison herd (Mitchell and Gates 2002). The nearest known bison herd to the proposed pipeline route is located to the north within Hay-Zama Wildland Provincial park located approximately 120 km west of High Level. • A moose inventory completed by ASRD in February 2005 described a healthy population of moose in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 524, with a density of 0.22 moose/km2. The ratio of bulls to cows (55:100) was higher than expected given the present levels of access in the WMU, and the area is heavily hunted from access roads (Moyles and Johnson 2010, Moyles pers. comm.). The ratio of calves to cows (28:100) was on the low side of average calf production in forested WMUs, likely due to the predation by wolves, grizzly bear and black bear (Moyles and Johnson 2010). • There are no provincially identified trumpeter swan lakes within 1 km of the route. The closest provincially identified trumpeter swan lakes are greater than 2 km south of the proposed pipeline route: unnamed lake approximately 2.2 km south and waterbody associated with the Chinchaga River approximately 2.5 km south of the proposed route (ASRD 2010a). • The ASRD Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) reported observations of grizzly bear, woodland caribou, trumpeter swans and yellow-bellied flycatcher within 2 km of the proposed pipeline route (ASRD 2010b). • The pipeline route does not traverse any Environmentally Significant Areas or Parks and Protected Areas (Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation [ATPR] 2009a, 2010a). Chinchaga Wildland Park is located approximately 4 km south of the proposed route. • The pipeline route is located in the Boreal Taiga Plains Bird Conservation Region (U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2010), and does not cross any Important Bird Areas (BirdLife International et al. 2010), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (CWS 2010), National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2010d), or Ducks Unlimited Canada Projects (Ducks Unlimited Canada 2010). • A Wildlife Habitat Assessment was conducted along the pipeline route on October 13, 2010 and from October 16 to 20, 2010. The Wildlife Habitat Assessment focused on the identification of habitat features and habitat suitability to support species with special conservation status, as well as species that provide traditional economic value for food and cultural well-being to First Nations. Details of the Wildlife Habitat Assessment are presented in Appendix 4 of this ESA. • Members from Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation participated in the wildlife habitat assessment in October 2010. Aboriginal participants mentioned that caribou may be present in the Project RSA due to lichen as a food source. However, they are more common to the north. Aboriginal participants had no specific concerns in regards to wildlife in the Project RSA and no mitigation was requested. • Supplemental wildlife surveys will be conducted in 2011: a winter survey to identify winter-active wildlife in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route; a spring/summer survey to conduct breeding bird and amphibian surveys, nocturnal yellow rail surveys (if suitable habitat for yellow rail is identified) and review the route for habitat features; a fall trumpeter swan survey to identify potential breeding lakes within 800 m of the proposed pipeline route; and a fall bear sweep to identify potential bear dens within 750 m of the proposed pipeline route as recommended by ASRD.

Page 5-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • No COSEWIC or SARA-listed species were observed during the rare plant habitat assessment. No species designated under Species of Special Status the Alberta Wildlife Act or ACIMS-listed rare vascular plant species were observed during the wildlife assessment. and Related Habitat • There are no potential plant species listed for the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion that have a SARA or COSEWIC designation. • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC or Wildlife Act designation are known within the RSA (ACIMS 2010a). One ACIMS-listed species, Bodin’s milk vetch (Astragalus bodinii) has been recorded within the RSA and is located approximately 2.7 km from KP 19.2 at its closest point (ACIMS 2010a). • Based on the literature reviewed, wood bison (Bison bison athabascae), woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus pop. 14), Canada warbler (Wilsonia canadensis), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), and rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) are Schedule 1 SARA-listed wildlife species with known ranges and habitat that overlap the LSA (ACIMS 2010b). • The following four wildlife species listed by COSEWIC have the potential to occur within the Project Footprint based on the species range and habitat requirements: grizzly bear; wolverine; horned grebe; and short-eared owl (all listed as Special Concern) (COSEWIC 2010a). • Evidence of one SARA Schedule 1 wildlife species, wood bison (Threatened under SARA and by COSEWIC), was observed during the wildlife habitat assessment. Tracks of wood bison were observed within the Project LSA, along the Chinchaga Road south of the proposed pipeline route and west of Werniuk Creek. No other SARA-listed wildlife species were observed during the wildlife habitat assessment. • One COSEWIC-listed wildlife species, wolverine (Special Concern by COSEWIC), was observed during the wildlife habitat assessment. One set of wolverine tracks was observed east of Werniuk Creek near KP 28.2. No other COSEWIC-listed wildlife species were observed during the wildlife habitat assessment. • Although the pipeline route is not located within 1 km of any known trumpeter swan breeding lakes, migrating trumpeter swans, both with and without cygnets, were observed during the wildlife habitat assessment at beaver ponds located on and adjacent to the proposed pipeline route near K 6.6, KP 13.9, KP 16.8 and KP 25.7. Migrating trumpeter swans were also observed on a lake located approximately 130 m south of the proposed pipeline route near KP 34.3. Trumpeter swans are listed as At Risk (ASRD 2005) and Threatened (Wildlife Act) in Alberta. • A complete list of wildlife species with special conservation status can be found in Appendix 4 of this ESA. Air Quality • Factors affecting air quality in the Project RSA include emissions from the existing facilities and intermittent vehicle traffic exhaust. • The only residences within 2 km of the construction right-of-way are three year-round oil and gas camps. The Chin Inn and Hamburg Hilton are located approximately 1.7 km southwest of KP 38 and Battle River Camp at km 122 of the Chinchaga Road is located approximately 0.2 km south of KP 4. • A temporary increase in airborne emissions is anticipated during pipeline construction. However, provincial permits and reporting are not required for the proposed Project as per the Alberta Climate Change and Emissions Management Act Specific Gas Report Regulation (Alberta Regulation 251/2004) and the AENV Specified Gas Reporting Standard (AENV 2009b). There are no known permanent residences with the RSA (i.e., 10 km of the proposed route). Therefore, nearby residences are not likely to be affected by nuisance air emissions resulting from pipeline construction. • The Project will not result in an increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance. Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the Project RSA are from intermittent sources such as vehicle traffic and from the existing facilities located directly adjacent to the proposed route. • The only residences within 2 km of the construction right-of-way are three year-round oil and gas camps. The Chin Inn and Hamburg Hilton are located approximately 1.7 km southwest of KP 38 and Battle River Camp at Km 122 of the Chinchaga Road is located approximately 0.2 km south of KP 4. • No local bylaws relating to noise have been established along the proposed pipeline route. • The Project will not result in an increase in noise levels over existing levels during operation.

Page 5-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Occupancy and • The Project is located on provincial Crown-owned lands in the Green Area of Alberta. The pipeline route traverses lands in Clear Resource Use Hills County and the County of Northern Lights. • The nearest communities to the pipeline route are the towns of Manning (105 km southeast of the proposed route), Rainbow Lake (approximately 124 km north of the proposed route), High Level (approximately 172 km northeast of the proposed route), Peace River (174 km southeast of the proposed route) and the communities of Paddle Prairie (122 km northeast of the proposed route), Assumption (152 km north of the proposed route) and Habay (162 km north of the proposed route). The nearest major city to the proposed route is Grande Prairie (approximately 240 km south of the proposed route). The nearest communities with services include Manning, Rainbow Lake, High Level, Peace River and Grande Prairie. • There are no operating coal mines or dispositions located in the Project LSA (Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board [ERCB] 2010a, Alberta Energy 2010b). The portion of the route in Twp 96, Rge 6 W6M traverses lands with a metallic and industrial mineral permit owned by Softrock Minerals Ltd. in Twp 96, Rge 6 W6M (Alberta Energy 2010c). • The route is near but does not cross an Industrial Sample Plot held by Manning Diversified Forests Products Ltd in SE/SW 3-97-8 W6M (ISP 090336) (Alberta Energy 2010a). There are no conflicts with the proposed route. • A Coniferous Timber License (CTL) is held by Manning Diversified Forests Products Ltd in 36-96-8 W6M (CTL P150002) (Alberta Energy 2010a). • A Deciduous Timber License (DTL) is held by Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. in Twp 97 Rge 8 W6M (DTL P160001) (Alberta Energy 2010a). • The proposed route crosses lands with a Forest Management Agreement (FMA) held by Manning Diversified Forests Products Ltd. in NW/NE 36-96-8 W6M and Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-97-8 W6M (FMA 0200041) (Alberta Energy 2010a). • Timber with potential to be merchantable is encountered by the route. NGTL will prepare a timber salvage plan prior to construction. • A Consultative Notation for a Timber Resource Management Area, held by the Peace River Office, Land Use Area, Lands Division of ASRD, is located in 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35-96-9 W6M; 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30-96-10 W6M; 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32-96-11 W6M and in Twp 97, Rge 9 W6M (CNT 090032) (Alberta Energy 2010a). • The route crosses a Surface Material Lease for gravel held by Hank Nicholson in SE/SW 29-96-10 W6M (SML 080013) (Alberta Energy 2010c) and a Surface Material Exploration for sand and gravel held by Melvin Grimm and Hank Nicholson in 6 and 7-29-96-10 W6M (SME 070138, expired Feb 15, 2008) (Alberta Energy 2010a). • The route does not traverse any controlled or managed forest areas (ATPR 2010a). • There are no lands under Parks Canada’s jurisdiction, conservation areas, International Biological Program Sites or other ecological reserves or reserves in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline route (Parks Canada 2010, ATPR 2010b). • The pipeline route does not traverse any Environmentally Significant Areas, existing or proposed provincial parks, recreation areas or Ecological Reserves (ATPR 2009a,b). • The pipeline route lies within the WMU 524 which includes general and archery big game hunting seasons for white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose and black bear (ASRD 2010c). The game birds hunted in this WMU include ruffed and spruce grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, ptarmigan and waterfowl (ASRD 2010c). • The hunting seasons for white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose and black bear extend from September 1 to November 30 with a spring black bear season from April 17 to July 15 (ASRD 2010c). The hunting season for ruffed, spruce grouse and sharp-tailed grouse extends from September 1 to November 30. For ptarmigan and waterfowl, the hunting season extends from September 1 to December 15 and 16 (ptarmigan and waterfowl, respectively) (ASRD 2010c). • Currently 15 guide outfitters hold licenses within WMU 524 for black bear, mule deer, moose and white-tailed deer (Nelson pers. comm.). • The pipeline route crosses two registered trapping areas (TPA 2269 and TPA 2284) (Alberta Energy 2010a). • The pipeline route is located in Fur Management Zone 2 (ASRD 2010d). Furbearing species trapped in Fur Management Zone 2 include beaver, coyote, red/Arctic fox, marten, mink, muskrat, red squirrel, weasel wolf, fisher, lynx, otter and wolverine (ASRD 2010d). The proposed pipeline route is located within the Northern Boreal Zone (Zone 3) Peace River Watershed Unit (NB3). Rivers and tributaries in the vicinity of the proposed route are closed to fishing from November 1 to May 31, with the exception of Rainbow Lake, which is open year-round (ASRD 2009c). The route does not cross any sport or commercial fishing areas.

Page 5-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Occupancy and • Recreational use of the lands in the vicinity of the route primarily occurs at Chinchaga Wildland Provincial Park (in Twp 96, Resource Use (cont'd) Rges 9, 10 and 11 W6M, approximately 4 km south of the proposed route), Notikewin Provincial Park (in Twps 92-96, Rges 19-20 W6M, approximately 120 km east of the proposed route), Rainbow Lake Provincial Recreational Park (in Twp 107, Rge 8 W6M, approximately 100 km north of the proposed route), Twin Lakes Provincial Park (Twp 97, Rge 22, approximately 99 km east of the proposed route), Running Lake Provincial Recreational Area (Twp 88, Rge 7 W6M, approximately 80 km south of the proposed route), Sulphur Lake Provincial Recreational Area (Twp 89, Rges 2 and 3 W6M, approximately 93 km southeast of the proposed route) and Stoney Lake Provincial Recreational Area (Twps 86 and 87, Rge 3 W6M, approximately 107 km southeast of the proposed route). • Land and water-based transportation infrastructure are discussed in detail under Infrastructure and Services. • There are 14 groundwater wells located within an approximate 2 km radius of the pipeline route. Two wells are for domestic use and 12 wells are for industrial use (AENV 2010). Three industrial groundwater wells are located approximately 43 m from KP 2.1. There are no domestic groundwater wells within 200 m of the route. • Potential surface or groundwater quality contaminants associated with the Project include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids, hydraulic fluids and antifreeze. • Given the scale of the Project, the interaction of the Project with local and regional human occupancy and resource development activities is expected to be minimal. Heritage Resources • The proposed development is located on lands listed as having no Historic Resource Value (HRV) for archaeological resources in the current Listing of Historic Resources (ACCS 2010). Results of a site file search found no previously-identified historic period sites within 1 km of the Project. • An HRIA was conducted for the Project in October 2010 with representatives from Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation. TERA archaeologists encountered one new archaeological site while conducting the HRIA for the Project. The site is located on the west side of Werniuk Creek 100 m north of a preliminary northern route alternate, and is clearly avoided by the currently proposed alignment. There are no further concerns associated with this site. No historical sites will be affected by the proposed development. • Aboriginal community representatives that participated in the field work did not have any specific concerns and no mitigation was requested. • Since no historical resources will be impacted by the Project, no further work relating to the Project is recommended. The HRIA will be submitted to ACCS requesting clearance for the Project under the Historical Resources Act in January 2011. • In accordance with provincial legislation, in the event that any historical, archaeological or palaeontological resources are discovered during construction, construction activity in proximity to the discovery will be suspended until provincial authorities allow work to resume. Traditional Land and • In planning development projects, NGTL seeks to engage with Aboriginal communities that may be affected by a proposed Resource Use development or that may have an interest in the development based on the proximity of their community and their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land. As per their standard practice, NGTL identified all Aboriginal communities who have identified that their traditional territory is traversed by the proposed pipeline route. In addition, NGTL consulted with ASRD to identify Aboriginal communities with potential traditional lands in the Project area. • Although no Indian Reserves are crossed by the proposed pipeline route, there are Aboriginal communities located in proximity to the proposed development. These communities may include, but are not limited to, the Dene Tha’ First Nation, Duncan's First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, Beaver First Nation and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society. • TERA-facilitated TLU studies have been initiated with Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, Beaver First Nation and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society. The communities of Dene Tha’ First Nation and Duncan’s First Nation will be conducting their own TLU studies as per their agreement with NGTL. Consultation with Aboriginal communities is on-going and TLU studies will continue into 2011.

Page 5-8

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Social and Cultural • In 2006, the Town of Manning had a total population of 1,493 individuals with an Aboriginal identity population of 145. Well-being Approximately 58% of the population was between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population was 34.2 years old. The city has a workforce of 790 individuals with 410 males and 380 females. Top occupations include sales and service; trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations; and occupations unique to agriculture and other resource-based industries (Statistics Canada 2010a). • In 2006, the Town of Rainbow Lake had a total population of 965 individuals with an Aboriginal identity population of 165. Approximately 72% of the population was between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population was 30.3 years old. The city has a workforce of 610 individuals with 360 males and 215 females. Top occupations include: trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations; sales and services; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2010b). • In 2006, the Town of High Level had a total population of 3,887 individuals with an Aboriginal identity population of 845. Approximately 70% of the population was between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population was 27.5 years old. The town has a workforce of 2,320 individuals with 1,280 males and 1,040 females. Top occupations include: sales and service; trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations; management occupations; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2010c). • In 2006, the Town of Peace River had a population of 6,315 individuals with an Aboriginal identity of 875 people. Approximately 68% of the population was between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population was 32.2 years old. The town has a workforce of 3,965 individuals with 2,155 males and 1,815 females. Top occupations include: sales and service; trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2010d). • In 2006, the City of Grande Prairie had a total population of 47,076 individuals with an Aboriginal identity population of 4,365. Approximately 70% of the population was between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population was 29.6 years old. The city has a workforce of 29,695 individuals with 16,770 males and 12,920 females. Top occupations include: trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations; sales and services; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2010e). • In 2001, Dene Tha' First Nation Indian Reserve 448 had a total population of 1,575 individuals. Approximately 51% of the population was between 20 and 64 years old, which represents the largest age demographic. The median age of the population was 25.1 years old. In 2001, participation rates in the labour force were 51.4% for males and 38.6% for females (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2010). • In 2001, Beaver First Nation Indian Reserve 445 had a total population of 330 individuals. Approximately 48% of the population was between 20 and 64 years old, which represents the largest age demographic. The median age of the population was 24.3 years old. In 2001, participation rates in the labour force were 63.6% for males and 47.6% for females (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2010). • In 2001, Duncan's First Nation Indian Reserve 451 had a total population of 125 individuals. Approximately 60% of the population was between 20 and 64 years old, which represents the largest age demographic. The median age of the population was 28.1 years old. In 2001, participation rates in the labour force were 87.5% for males and 57.1% for females (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2010). • Statistics information for Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement are not available. • The primary potential source of socio-cultural effects on the local community that may be associated with the Project is an influx of temporary workers into the local communities. • The construction of the Project will involve a peak workforce of approximately 450-500 workers onsite. The proposed Project will require a period of approximately 12 to 16 weeks to construct. A temporary camp will be constructed to accommodate the influx. Human Health • Given the limited scope of the Project and the short duration of construction activities, only nuisance-related health effects such as dust, smoke and noise are anticipated to be created by the proposed Project. The assessment of these effects is discussed under Air Quality and Acoustic Environment. • During pipeline construction, a temporary increase in airborne emissions and noise levels is anticipated. The only residences within 2 km of the construction right-of-way are three year-round oil and gas camps. The Chin Inn and Hamburg Hilton are located approximately 1.7 km southeast of KP 38 and Battle River Camp at km 122 of the Chinchaga Road is located approximately 0.2 km south of KP 4. The Project will not result in an increase in airborne emissions or noise levels during operations. • No public concerns related to the Project regarding human health effects have been raised.

Page 5-9

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and • Access to the Project is via Highway 35 and industrial gravel roads, most notably, the all-season Chinchaga Road. Services • The nearest major airport is located in Peace River, Alberta (YPE) and Grande Prairie, Alberta (YQU). • Canadian National Railway has a general railway line in the vicinity of the Project area with a major railway stop in Grande Prairie (Canadian National Railway 2010). • Major trucking companies and Greyhound Canada provide ground transportation to nearby communities. • The Towns of Manning, Rainbow Lake, High Level, Peace River and as well as the City of Grande Prairie are the nearest major centres to the Project, and all provide numerous services (Town of Manning 2010, Town of Rainbow Lake 2009, Town of High Level 2008, Discover the Peace Country 2010). The hamlets of Habay, Assumption and the Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement have limited services. • Direct Energy regulated services and ATCO Electric supplies electricity to communities in the Project RSA (ATCO Electric 2010, Direct Energy 2010). • A temporary camp is proposed to be constructed on an existing, cleared industrial disposition to accommodate the temporary influx of workers. • The Town of Manning receives its drinking water from a raw water supply from the Notikewin River where it is treated at the Town of Manning Water Treatment Plant (Town of Manning 2010). The Town of Rainbow Lake collects surface water in a reservoir which is equipped with aeration and is treated (AlbertaFirst.com 2010a). The Town of High Level receives its water from Footner Lake where it is treated by a new Water Treatment Plant (AlbertaFirst.com 2010b). The Town of Peace River receives its drinking water from the Peace River and is treated by the Town of Peace River's Water Treatment Plant. Treatment processes include clarification, sedimentation, filtration, chlorination and fluoridation (AlbertaFirst.com 2010c). • The City of Grande Prairie receives its drinking water from the Wapiti River and is treated by the Aquatera Utilities Inc. Water and Wastewater Treatment Facility to produce potable water meeting AENV’s standards and the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. The design capacity of the facility is 18 Mega Litres/day (ML/d) average daily flow and 32 ML/d peak daily flow (Aquatera Utilities Inc. 2010). • Wastewater in the Towns of Manning, Rainbow Lake, High Level and Peace River, is collected by piping systems and is treated at each town's respective Wastewater Treatment Plants (AlbertaFirst.com 2010a,b,c, Town of Manning 2010). • The nearest solid waste facilities to the Project area are Transfer Stations in Manning and Rainbow Lake. Clear Hills County operates Landfill Stations at Clear Prairie (NE 24-87-10 W6M) and Worsley (SE 25-87-8 W6M) (Clear Hills County 2010). • The Chin Inn and Hamburg Hilton (located at km 160 of the Chinchaga Road) are the closest camps to the proposed route (Chin Inn 2010). The Chin Inn has approximately 140 rooms while the Hamburg Hilton has approximately 60 rooms. Battle River Camp at km 122 of the Chinchaga Road has 130 rooms. Accommodations in Manning include five hotels, motels and inns (Town of Manning 2010). Rainbow Lake has three hotels and motels while High Level has 11 hotels, motels and inns including several large chain hotels/motels (Discover the Peace Country 2010, Town of High Level 2008). Accommodations in Peace River include hotels, inns, motels and a bed and breakfast (Discover the Peace Country 2010). Accommodations in Grande Prairie include hotels, inns and motels with a capacity of 11 to 200 rooms and also include several large chain hotels/motels (Grande Prairie Regional Tourism Association 2010). • There are 13 campgrounds located in the Manning and Peace River Area including campgrounds in Twin Lakes Provincial Recreational Area. There are two campgrounds in the vicinity of Rainbow Lake, including Rainbow Lakes Provincial Recreational Area as well as one campground in High Level (Discover the Peace Country 2010). There are 12campgrounds in the Grande Prairie area, including campgrounds in Big Mountain Creek and Musreau Lake Provincial Recreational areas. The number of sites in these campgrounds ranges from 12 to 154 (Grande Prairie Regional Tourism Association 2010). • Chinchaga Wildland Provincial Park is located approximately 5 km south of the proposed route. This park contains important habitat for boreal forest species including woodland caribou, grizzly bears, trumpeter swans and forest songbirds. There is no road access (ATPR 2009b). • Rainbow Lake Provincial Recreational Park is located approximately 100 km north of the route and provides recreational activities such as fishing, swimming and camping (ATPR 2009b). • Notikewin Provincial Park is located approximately 120 km east of the route at the confluence of the Peace and Notikewin rivers. This park supports habitat for sandhill cranes and several species of raptors as well as recreational activities such as camping, hiking and fishing (ATPR 2009b). • Twin Lakes Provincial Recreation Area is located approximately 99 km east of the route. This park contains important waterfowl staging areas and offers camping and year-round fishing as well as walking trails (ATPR 2009b). • Milligan Hills Provincial Park is located in BC approximately 21 km northwest of the route. This park protects significant forest and grassland habitat for an endangered Alberta population of Woodland Caribou (BC Parks 2010).

Page 5-10

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and • Hospitals in the Project area include the Manning Community Health Centre, Rainbow Lake Community Health Centre River, Services (cont'd) High Level Northwest Health Centre (Alberta Health Services 2010) and Peace River Community Health Care Centre (Town of Peace River 2010). A public health centre is located in Paddle Prairie (Alberta Health Services 2010). • Air and ground ambulance service is available out of Manning (Town of Manning 2010), High Level (AlbertaFirst.com 2010b) and Peace River (Town of Peace River 2010). • Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachments are located in Manning (Town of Manning 2010), Rainbow Lake (Town of Rainbow Lake 2009), High Level (AlbertaFirst.com 2010b) and Peace River (AlbertaFirst.com 2010c). • Municipal fire departments are located in Manning (Town of Manning 2010), Rainbow Lake (Town of Rainbow Lake 2009), High Level (AlbertaFirst.com 2010b) and Peace River (AlbertaFirst.com 2010c). • Given the scope of the Project, the associated incremental change to the local population is unlikely to place any undue pressures on local roadways, municipal services, emergency services or local accommodations during the construction period. • NGTL has an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) emergency response capability for the existing Tanghe Creek Lateral, which is available for the currently proposed Project during Operations. Employment and • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in Manning were 74.2%, 3.2% and 71.4%, respectively, in 2006 Economy (Statistics Canada 2010a). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in Rainbow Lake were 85.9%, 4.9% and 81.7%, respectively, in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2010b). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in High Level were 81.1%, 2.6% and 79.0%, respectively, in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2010c). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in Peace River were 81.5%, 4.8% and 77.6%, respectively, in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2010d). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in the City of Grande Prairie were 80.8%, 3.6% and 77.9%, respectively, in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2010e). • Statistics Canada defines participation rate as the labour force in the week prior to Census Day, expressed as a percentage of the population 15 years and over excluding institutional residents (Statistics Canada 2010a,b,c,d,e). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in Manning includes: 17% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 19% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 8% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010a). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in Rainbow Lake includes: 13% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 16% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 14% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010b). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in High Level includes: 10% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 23% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 9% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010c). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in Peace River includes: 11% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 14% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 4% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010d). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in the City of Grande Prairie includes: 13% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 19% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 11% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010e). • The most common occupations in Manning are: sales and service occupations (22%); trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations (17%); and occupations unique to the primary industry (17%) (Statistics Canada 2010a). The most common occupations in Rainbow Lake are: trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations (21%); sales and services (17%); and business, finance, and administration occupations (15%) (Statistics Canada 2010b). The most common occupations in High Level are: sales and service occupations (25%); trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations (19%); management occupations (13%); and business, finance and administration occupations (13%) (Statistics Canada 2010c). The most common occupations in Peace River are: sales and service occupations (24%); trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations (18%); and business, finance and administration occupations (13%) (Statistics Canada 2010d). The most common occupations in the City of Grande Prairie are: trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations (24%); sales and services (23%); and business, finance, and administration occupations (15%) (Statistics Canada 2010e). Consequently, Manning, Rainbow Lake, High Level, Peace River and Grande Prairie all have businesses that can provide labour services, equipment, supplies and other contracting needs for the Project.

Page 5-11

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) February 2011 / 7211

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Employment and • NGTL and its contractors focus on providing meaningful economic opportunities to individuals and established Aboriginal-owned Economy businesses, including subcontracting and employment opportunities in both the new construction and the maintenance of existing facilities. • Qualified Aboriginal businesses within the Project area (band-owned and private businesses) will be given the opportunity to compete on an equal basis for available subcontracting work, provided they have the safety, financial and business capacity to take part in the Project. On occasion, NGTL or NGTL's prime contractors may negotiate a specific contract with an Aboriginal business depending on the number of businesses in the community that may provide that specific service, their work history with industry and the number of people they employ from the local community. • NGTL will work collaboratively with Aboriginal communities to identify individuals and businesses that could potentially provide services to the Project. Where training is necessary in order for communities to take advantage of opportunities, NGTL, the prime contractor and the community will participate in the development and implementation of the necessary training. Services that Aboriginal communities supply may include, but are not limited to, access control, wildlife monitors, ambulance services, and right of way clearing / slashing. • Potential employment and business opportunities will be discussed in community meetings. During the community meetings, an NGTL contracting representative is made available to explain the opportunities and the process. NGTL may consider splitting or separating larger contracts in suitable work packages to accommodate more involvement without compromising safety. Where there are multiple businesses competing for similar contracts, a contractor meeting will be held and a competitive bidding and tendering process will be introduced; this will ensure fairness and transparency for all parties. • Opportunities for local suppliers to participate in the project include: potential use of existing industrial sites for camps, stockpile sites or contractor yards; as well as supply of minor services to the Prime Contractor including fill materials, road grading, hauling, and Hydrovac.

Page 5-12