Appendix 10 Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan Nova Gas Transmission Limited North Corridor Expansion Project

Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan

April 2019 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Approach ...... 1-2 1.2 Strategic Outcome and Goals ...... 1-5 1.3 Organization ...... 1-5 2.0 AFFECTED CARIBOU RANGE AND PROJECT EFFECTS ...... 2-1 2.1 Red Earth Caribou Range ...... 2-1 2.1.1 Range Description ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Range Concerns ...... 2-1 2.2 Chinchaga Caribou Range ...... 2-2 2.2.1 Range Description ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Range Concerns ...... 2-2 2.3 Project Effect on Caribou Habitat ...... 2-2 2.4 Approach to Restoration and Offsets ...... 2-5 3.0 RESTORATION PLAN...... 3-1 3.1 Goals and Targets ...... 3-1 3.2 Restoration Approach ...... 3-1 3.3 Project Specific Mitigations...... 3-2 4.0 OFFSET PLAN ...... 4-1 4.1 Initial Offset Value ...... 4-1 4.2 Evaluation of Offset Options ...... 4-6 4.3 Description of the Proposed Offsets ...... 4-6 4.4 Quantification of Final Offset Value...... 4-6 5.0 MONITORING PROGRAM, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULE ...... 5-1 5.1 Performance Indicators ...... 5-1 5.2 Schedule for Implementation ...... 5-2 6.0 CONSULTATION ...... 6-1 6.1 Aboriginal Engagement ...... 6-1 6.2 Regulatory Consultation ...... 6-1 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7-1

Table of Contents – Page i NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Page LIST OF TABLES

Table 2–1: Quantification of the Remaining Direct and Indirect Project Disturbance of Caribou Habitat ...... 2-5 Table 4–1: Initial Offset Value Calculation ...... 4-2 Table 5–1: Preliminary Proposed Schedule, Project Construction and Habitat Restoration and Offsets ...... 5-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1–1: Proposed Project Location within the Red Earth Caribou Range ...... 1-3 Figure 1–2: Proposed Project Location within the Chinchaga Caribou Range ...... 1-4

LIST OF ANNEXES Annex A Restoration and Offset Program Annex B Caribou Literature Review Annex C Consultation Log Annex D Change Log Annex E Photo Plates Annex F Typical Drawings

Table of Contents – Page ii NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

ACRONYMS

AEP Alberta Environment and Parks

CHROIR Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Implementation Report

CHROMP or the Plan Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan

CHROMMP Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program

ECCC Environment and Climate Change Canada ha hectare(s)

IOV initial offset value km kilometre(s)

NEB National Energy Board

NGTL NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

ROW right-of-way

TransCanada TransCanada PipeLines Limited

WSAR West Side Athabasca River

Acronyms – Page iii NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada), is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 52 of the NEB Act to construct, own, and operate new pipeline facilities in Alberta that will form an integral part of the existing NGTL System. These facilities are referred to as North Corridor Expansion Project (the Project) and are described in more detail below. Two of the Project components occur within mapped caribou range.

The Project consists of three pipeline sections, totaling approximately 81 km, that will loop the existing NGTL North Central Corridor (NCC) and Northwest Mainline (NWML) natural gas pipelines in Alberta, as well as construction and operations of a compressor station unit addition and associated connectivity piping. Components of the Project are as follows:

• NCC Loop (North Star Section 2) consisting of approximately 24 km of 1,219-millimetre (mm) outside diameter (O.D.) (nominal pipe size [NPS] 48) pipe with tie-in points at valves NCCA 90 and NCCA 100 of the existing NCC pipeline. The North Star Section 2 is located approximately 20 km north of the Town of Manning, Alberta. • NCC Loop (Red Earth Section 3) consisting of approximately 32 km of 1,219-mm O.D. (NPS 48) pipe with tie-in points at valves NCCA 30 and NCCA 40 of the existing NCC pipeline. The Red Earth Section 3 is located approximately 45 km north of the Hamlet of Red Earth Creek, Alberta. • NWML Loop No. 2 (Bear Canyon North Extension) consisting of approximately 25 km of 914-mm O.D. (NPS 36) pipe with tie-in points at valves NW35 and NW50 of the existing NWML and the Alces River Compressor Station. The Bear Canyon North Extension is located approximately 50 km southwest of the Hamlet of Worsley, Alberta. • Hidden Lake North Compressor Station Unit Addition (Hidden Lake North Unit Addition) – consisting of a 30 MW compressor unit addition and related components at or near the existing Hidden Lake North Compressor Station. The Hidden Lake North Unit Addition is located approximately 100 km north of the Hamlet of Worsley, Alberta. The proposed pipelines will generally require an approximately 32-m-wide construction right-of-way (ROW) with additional temporary workspace (TWS) of variable widths to accommodate safe pipeline construction activities (e.g., at staging areas, soil storage areas, crossing).

Approximately 77 km (95 percent) of the proposed pipeline routes parallel the existing NGTL ROW or other existing linear disturbances, such as pipelines, roads, and electrical power lines. Existing access roads will be used as deemed practical.

Temporary infrastructure, such as access roads, stockpile sites, construction camps, and Contractor yards will be required during construction.

Approximately 15 km of the 32 km Red Earth Section 3 is located within the Red Earth caribou range (Figure 1-1) (Alberta Environment and Parks [AEP] 2016). Pending regulatory approval, construction for the Red Earth Section 3 is planned for Q3 of 2021 to Q1 of 2022.

Page 1-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

The Hidden Lake North Unit Addition is located entirely within the Chinchaga caribou range (Figure 1-2) (AEP 2016). Pending regulatory approval, construction of the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition is planned for Q1 2021 to Q1 2022.

This document presents the approach to the habitat restoration and offset measures associated with the Project. This Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan (CHROMP or the Plan) is based on initial Project planning and design information and is intended to quantify Project effects and establish an initial plan to restore and offset effects to caribou and habitat. Restoration and offset measures will be finalized based on detailed design and as-built construction information.

1.1 Approach

This document describes the Red Earth and Chinchaga Caribou Ranges and overall range concerns, quantifies the effects of the Project (i.e., incremental direct and indirect), outlines the restoration and offset approaches, describes the monitoring and targets, and summarizes caribou specific consultation undertaken for the Project.

The approach and methods undertaken within this document are based on the NGTL “Restoration and Offset Program” document, which is included as Annex A of this document. This Plan also incorporates a detailed understanding of caribou issues within Alberta, as described in the literature review included within Annex B, as well as NGTL’s experience and consultation efforts with provincial and federal government agencies and stakeholders through this and previous projects located within caribou ranges (Annex C). The approach for all components has been refined based on regulatory consultation and experience gained across multiple projects since 2012. This approach will be used to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration and offset measures (Annex A).

A Change Log for new additions/subtractions to the CHROMP compared to recently filed NGTL CHROMPs (for example, see NEB Filing ID A6F4R2, A6I0K5, A5Y3R7, A88269-10, and A95255-8) is provided in Annex D. In addition, Photo Plates (Annex E) and Typical Drawings (Annex F) showing examples of restoration techniques are provided.

Page 1-2 R 9 W5M R 8 W5M R 7 W5M R 6 W5M R 5 W5M ¯ T 93 T T 93 T

r e v i R n o o L T 92 T ST88 92 T

KP 31.9 !. T 91 T T 91 T

KP 0 !.

AB Garden Creek T 90 T ! 90 T Fort Vermilion !

! Fort MacKay ST686 T 89 T ! Map Area 89 T Cadotte Lake Equisetum Lake Sandy ! Lake Gift ! Lake

R 9 W5M R 8 W5M R 7 W5M R 6 W5M R 5 W5M

!. Kilometre Post (KP) Hydrology FIGURE 1-1 North Central Corridor Loop PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION WITHIN (Red Earth Section 3) THE RED EARTH CARIBOU RANGE Waterbody Highway PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. NORTH CORRIDOR EXPANSION PROJECT Road Red Earth Caribou Range NORTH CENTRAL CORRIDOR LOOP (RED EARTH SECTION 3)

UTM Zone 11N SCALE: 1:215,000 Imagery: 2014 SPOT6 ©2015 CNES, Licensed by BlackBridge Geomatics Corp, www.blackbridge.com; April 2019 707535 Proposed Routing: NGTL 2019; Highway, Road: NRCan 2015; Watercourse, Hydrology: km NRCan 2007-2011; Red Earth Caribou Range: AEP, GOA 2016; Grid: AltaLIS 2009. 0 2 4 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate Mapped By: DR Checked By: KTG this product or in theproduct itself, users of thesedata areadvised that errors in the data may bepresent. (All Locations Approximate) 707535_Wildlife_CHROMP_Figure1_1_Rev0_RedEarth3.mxd R 11 W6M ¯ 8 5 6 7 8

1 4 3 2 1

16 13 14 15 16 T 96 T 96 T

9 12 11 10 9 BC AB ! Snake River Rainbow High Lake Level ! ! 29

Paddle Prairie !

Map Area 8 5 6 7 8

Notikewin !

! Buick

! ! Hines Peace Creek River

R 11 W6M

Hidden Lake North Right-of-Way FIGURE 1-2 Compressor Station Unit Addition PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION WITHIN (Hidden Lake North Unit Addition) Temporary Workspace THE CHINCHAGA CARIBOU RANGE Road Shared Temporary Workspace Hydrology PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. NORTH CORRIDOR EXPANSION PROJECT Waterbody Caribou Range HIDDEN LAKE NORTH COMPRESSOR STATION UNIT ADDITION

UTM Zone 11N SCALE: 1:10,000 Imagery: DigitalGlobe 2013; Proposed Compressor Station: NGTL 2019; April 2019 707535 Road: NRCan 2015; Hydrology, Waterbody: NRCan 2007-2011; m Caribou Range: AEP, GOA 2016; Grid: AltaLIS 2009. 0 100 200 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate Mapped By: DR Checked By: KTG this product or in theproduct itself, users of thesedata areadvised that errors in the data may bepresent. (All Locations Approximate) 707535_Wildlife_CHROMP_Figure1_2_Rev0_HiddenLakeCS.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

1.2 Strategic Outcome and Goals

NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration and offset measures are intended to contribute meaningfully to the conservation and recovery of woodland caribou in Canada.

NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration and offset investments avoid or reduce the predicted residual Project effects and offset the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects on caribou and caribou habitat in a manner that aligns with provincial and federal policies, management plans and priorities.

NGTL’s goals include caribou habitat restoration measures that:

• are ecologically relevant, practically located and reasonably protected to minimize potential for re-disturbance by human activity; and

• result in self-sustaining and ecologically appropriate vegetation communities that are on trajectory to the compatible surrounding landscape.

1.3 Organization

This Plan is organized to reflect the process logic of NGTL caribou habitat restoration and offset planning and experience from past NEB conditions regarding caribou for NGTL projects. To simplify the content and layout of the Plan, NGTL process information has been included within a Restoration and Offset Program (Annex A). This Plan is organized in the following focused sections:

• Section 1: Introduction, project description and organization of the document;

• Section 2: Existing caribou habitat, range specific information, and quantification of project effects;

• Section 3: The caribou habitat restoration approach and implementation;

• Section 4: The preliminary offset selection and implementation;

• Section 5: Monitoring approach, targets and schedule;

• Section 6: Summary of caribou-specific consultation with Aboriginal communities, and federal and provincial regulators, as well as a summary of how feedback was incorporated; and

• Section 7: List of references cited throughout the document.

Page 1-5 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

2.0 AFFECTED CARIBOU RANGE AND PROJECT EFFECTS

Characteristics of the and Red Earth and Chinchaga Caribou Range habitat and populations are described, the Project effects to the ranges are quantified, and the approach to restoration and offsets is outlined in this section.

2.1 Red Earth Caribou Range

2.1.1 Range Description

The Red Earth Caribou Range (Boreal Population AB6; Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC] 2017) is located within the Central Mixedwood, and Lower Boreal Highlands and Upper Boreal Highlands Subregions in the Boreal Forest Subregion (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2010, Government of Alberta 2017). The Red Earth Caribou Range is located north and northwest of the community of Red Earth Creek, extending north towards Wood Buffalo National Park, and east towards the Birch Mountains. The range shares a boundary with the West Side Athabasca River (WSAR) Caribou Range (Government of Alberta 2017). Most of this range has been identified as Important Areas for caribou, based on the distribution of current biophysical habitat, current patterns of use, and connectivity within and among ranges (Government of Alberta 2017). Some areas outside the Red Earth Caribou Range have also been identified as Important Areas, in particular, areas to the south of the range that would maintain connectivity to the WSAR Caribou Range and areas to the northwest of the range that would maintain connectivity to the Richardson Caribou Range (Government of Alberta 2017).

2.1.2 Range Concerns

Industrial activities that have affected caribou habitat in the Red Earth Caribou Range are mainly forestry, oil sands, and petroleum and natural gas development. Wildfire is a major contributor to the disturbance levels in the Red Earth Caribou Range (Government of Alberta 2017). In 2012, ECCC reported the level of anthropogenic habitat disturbance in the Red Earth Caribou Range at 44 percent, fire disturbance at 30 percent, and overall disturbance at 62 percent (there is overlap of anthropogenic and fire disturbance in some parts of the range) (Environment Canada 2012). Since then, disturbance from fire and anthropogenic causes has continued to increase. The reported overall level of habitat disturbance in 2017 was 72 percent, where 40 percent of the range is disturbed by fire, and 48 percent by anthropogenic activities (ECCC 2017). The Red Earth caribou population has shown continued declines since 1999, when monitoring began (ECCC 2017), and is considered to be “Not Self-Sustaining” (Environment Canada 2012).

Federal boreal caribou recovery objectives for local populations that are not self-sustaining, are to stabilize and achieve self-sustaining status (Environment Canada 2012, ECCC 2017). The federal Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2012) identifies range intactness, reducing total disturbance and improving habitat condition as priorities. The proposed habitat restoration strategies in the Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan (Government of Alberta 2017) align with the federal Recovery Strategy priorities. The Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan frames caribou habitat management “as a cumulative effort, using Integrated Land Management techniques, to achieve adequate effective habitat which will support self-sustaining caribou populations” (Government of Alberta 2017).

Page 2-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

The restoration of disturbed habitat in boreal caribou ranges is a common objective in provincial and federal recovery strategies. The habitat restoration efforts described in the CHROMP align with government recovery strategy objectives.

2.2 Chinchaga Caribou Range

2.2.1 Range Description

The Chinchaga Caribou Range (Boreal Population AB1; ECCC 2017) is located in west-central Alberta and extends into northeastern British Columbia. In Alberta, the Chinchaga Caribou Range occurs within the Central Mixedwood, Dry mixedwood Lower Boreal Highlands and Upper Boreal Highlands Natural Subregions in the Boreal Forest Natural Region of Alberta (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2010, Government of Alberta 2017). The Government of Alberta (2017) has identified the majority of the range within the province as Important Areas for caribou, based on the distribution of current biophysical habitat, current patterns of use, and connectivity within and among ranges (Government of Alberta 2017).

2.2.2 Range Concerns

In 2012, ECCC reported the level of anthropogenic habitat disturbance in the Chinchaga caribou range as 74 percent, and the overall disturbance (including fire) as 76 percent of the range (Environment Canada 2012). Since then, disturbance from fire and anthropogenic causes has continued to increase with a reported level of habitat disturbance in 2017 of 80 percent (ECCC 2017). The Chinchaga caribou population is considered to be “Not Self-Sustaining” (Environment Canada 2012) and has shown continued declines in Alberta since 2002 (Government of Alberta 2017) and a continued decline in BC since 2013 (BC Ministry of Environment 2017, Environment Canada 2017).

Federal and provincial objectives and strategies for recovery of the Chinchaga caribou local population are as described for the Red Earth Caribou Range in Section 2.1.2.

2.3 Project Effect on Caribou Habitat

The only Project components located within caribou range include approximately 14.8 km of 31.9 km of the Red Earth Section 3 and the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. The remaining project components, including approximately 17.1 km of the Red Earth Section 3, are not located in caribou range and therefore have not been included in the quantification of Project effects on caribou habitat.

The ROW width required to construct the proposed pipelines is generally 32 m with additional temporary workspace (TWS) of variable widths to accommodate safe pipeline construction activities (such as, at staging areas, soil storage areas, crossings, and pipe stringing areas). During operations, a width of up to 10 m over the centreline of the pipeline may be subject to periodic vegetation management. The final construction footprint widths will be confirmed, restored, and offset following construction.

Page 2-2 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

North Central Corridor Loop (Red Earth Section 3)

The western portion of the Red Earth Section 3 is located within the Red Earth Caribou Range from KP 17.0 to KP 31.9 (NW 25-91-7 W5M to SW 33-91-8 W5M). The Project Construction Footprint (PCF) parallels the existing NGTL North Central Corridor for 95 percent (approximately 14.1 km) of its length within the Red Earth Caribou Range. The remaining 5 percent (approximately 0.7 km) requires a minor deviation from paralleling the existing North Central Corridor, to improve the constructability of a crossing of an unnamed tributary to the Loon River.

Based on initial planning, the total area of the Red Earth Section 3 PCF in the Red Earth Caribou Range is 52.34 ha, of which 30.66 ha (59 percent) is previously disturbed. The existing disturbances are primarily related to the existing NGTL North Central Corridor. Other overlapping disturbances include seismic lines, roads, cutblocks, wellsites and facilities. Habitat within the disturbed areas along the Red Earth Section 3 is primarily comprised of grasses with some areas of regenerating tall shrubs. The PCF does not overlap any burns less than or equal to 40 years old.

Clearing will be avoided for approximately 0.8 km (2.69 ha) of the ROW through a proposed trenchless (i.e., HDD) crossing of the Loon River. This area has been excluded from the quantification of Project disturbance in caribou habitat. To facilitate the HDD crossing, a 1.22 ha pullback section is required. Approximately 0.18 ha of the pullback section will require new forest clearing of wooded coniferous fen habitat. The remaining 1.04 ha overlaps previously disturbed habitat.

Hidden Lake North Compressor Station Unit Addition

The Hidden Lake North Unit Addition is located entirely within the Chinchaga Caribou Range, and within a Habitat Protection Area (Protective Notation [PNT] 170021) established for a possible Caribou Protected Habitat. The Hidden Lake North Unit Addition is located in an active industrial area with several existing facilities, wells, pipeline and transmission line ROWs, seismic lines and roads in the area. NGTL has initiated consultation with AEP regarding the Habitat Protection Area and will continue to engage with AEP to address any concerns associated with the Project (see Annex C).

The total area of the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition Project Footprint is 10.85 ha, which is comprised of the unit addition (4.34 ha) and connectivity piping (6.51 ha). Approximately 4.76 ha (44 percent) of the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition overlaps existing anthropogenic disturbance, including pipelines, transmission lines, seismic lines, roads and facilities. The PCF does not overlap any burns less than or equal to 40 years old.

Approximately 3.29 ha (75 percent) of the 4.34 ha unit addition will require new forest clearing of young upland forest (1.71 ha) and a wooded coniferous bog (1.58 ha). The remaining 1.06 ha overlaps existing disturbance, including the existing Hidden Lake North Compressor Station.

The 6.51 ha connectivity piping parallels or crosses existing linear disturbances for 100 percent (1.1 km) its length. Approximately 2.81 ha (43 percent) of the connectivity piping will require new forest clearing of young upland forest (2.70 ha) and wooded coniferous bogs (0.11 ha). The remaining 3.70 ha is within existing disturbances.

Page 2-3 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Project Direct and Indirect Disturbance

The Project’s total habitat disturbance is the spatial area of incremental direct and indirect disturbance before implementation of habitat restoration (i.e., mitigation) measures. The Project’s total disturbance to caribou habitat has been quantified using a method consistent with the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (Environment Canada 2011, 2012) and is described in detail in Section 2.0 of Annex A. Given that the Project overlaps areas of existing disturbance, only areas of new clearing are carried forward in the calculations of Project direct disturbance below.

The portions of the Red Earth Section 3 footprint that overlap existing NGTL ROWs and seismic lines will be restored upon completion of construction, resulting in improved habitat condition relative to existing conditions. Based on the proposed Project layout and existing disturbance, and consideration of the areas of existing disturbance that will be restored, Project construction will result in:

• approximately 18.98 ha of incremental direct disturbance in the Red Earth Caribou Range;

• restoration of approximately 33.07 ha of habitat within the PCF, including portions that overlap existing NGTL ROWs and seismic lines, resulting in a net reduction of approximately 14.09 ha of direct disturbance in the Red Earth Caribou Range;

• approximately 6.10 ha of incremental direct disturbance in the Chinchaga Caribou Range;

• restoration of 2.50 ha of habitat within the PCF, resulting in approximately 3.59 ha of remaining direct disturbance in the Chinchaga Caribou Range; and

• no incremental indirect disturbance in the Red Earth Caribou Range or the Chinchaga Caribou Range.

After construction, a large portion of the footprint will be restored, including areas overlapping existing NGTL pipeline ROWs and seismic lines. The operational access for the Red Earth Section 3 and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition connectivity piping will be allowed to regenerate naturally, but may be subject to periodic mowing of vegetation (i.e., vegetation will be maintained at an early successional stage) for the life of the Project. The compressor station unit addition component of the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition will remain disturbed for the life of the Project. Therefore, the area of the pipeline operational access and compressor station unit addition are excluded from the restored footprint (Table 2–1). Areas of the PCF that overlap existing disturbances where habitat is characterized by open water or graminoid/shrub lowlands are not counted in the incremental restored area, as natural regeneration is the preferred restoration method, and measurable improvement in habitat condition (compared to the current trajectory of habitat recovery) is not anticipated.

Page 2-4 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Table 2–1: Quantification of the Remaining Direct and Indirect Project Disturbance of Caribou Habitat

Incremental Direct Remaining Total Caribou Restored Remaining Direct Disturbance Indirect Remaining Range Footprint Disturbance (Before Disturbancec Disturbance Restoration) Red Eartha 18.98 ha 33.07 hab -14.09 ha 0 ha -14.09 ha Chinchaga 6.10 ha 2.50 ha 3.59 ha 0 ha 3.59 ha

Notes: a Excludes the trenchless segment associated with the Loon River crossing. b Includes areas of the Project that overlap with existing NGTL pipelines and seismic lines. c All areas within the 500 m buffer around the PCF overlaps with existing direct and indirect anthropogenic disturbance. For methods on quantification of indirect habitat disturbance, see Section 2.0 of Annex A).

2.4 Approach to Restoration and Offsets

The areas identified above are carried forward into the consideration of onsite restoration and mitigation activities. NGTL will implement as much onsite restoration as possible to mitigate the overall Project habitat effects. The restoration approach is described in Section 3.0. After restoration activities have been included, the remaining Project effects will be offset with appropriate offset multipliers as described in Section 4.0.

With the successful implementation of restoration and offset measures, effects of the Project to caribou within the Red Earth and Chinchaga Caribou Ranges will be reduced. Restoration and offset measures progress and success will be monitored as described in Section 5.0.

Page 2-5 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

3.0 RESTORATION PLAN

This section outlines the considerations and evaluation of caribou habitat restoration measures for the Project. It describes NGTL’s plan to implement a decision framework to be used by NGTL to achieve the overarching objective of the Plan. This section presents NGTL’s plan to reduce residual and cumulative effects of the Project on caribou and affected caribou habitat.

3.1 Goals and Targets

Habitat restoration measures will be implemented on the PCF in caribou range, outside of ongoing operational areas, to avoid or reduce the predicted residual effect of the Project on caribou and caribou habitat. Restoration of disturbed habitat assumes caribou will use the restored habitat for movement. As a result, spatial separation from primary prey (moose and deer) and from predators will return to pre-disturbance function and mortality risk will return to a level consistent with pre-disturbance conditions (Athabasca Landscape Team 2009).

Restoration of anthropogenic disturbances is expected to avoid or reduce the degradation of functional habitat for caribou since caribou will no longer exhibit reduced use on or near (i.e., in a zone of influence) the reclaimed disturbance (Oberg 2001). By addressing direct habitat disturbance through restoration measures, indirect disturbance will also be addressed.

3.2 Restoration Approach

Site-specific restoration measures will be selected under the guidance of Habitat Restoration Decision Frameworks (see Figures 3-1 and 3-2, Annex A). These may include tree planting, access management and natural regeneration (see Section 3.1 of Annex A). Selection of restoration measures will be based on suitability, specific site conditions and availability of appropriate materials. For more comprehensive details on the list of potential restoration measures and discussion of their applicability, effectiveness and limitations for the Project, see Table 3-1, Annex A.

The caribou Habitat Restoration Decision Frameworks (Figure 3-2, Annex A) will be applied to provide guidance on restoration measure selection based on site-specific characteristics. The decision frameworks are principle-based logic models that inform restoration decisions to achieve the objective and goals of the Plan. They are based on NGTL’s pipeline construction and restoration experience, information obtained from literature reviews, industry best management practices, ongoing caribou habitat monitoring programs, and consultation with regulators, industry, and stakeholders. As part of NGTL’s continuous improvement efforts, the decision frameworks are continually revisited and updated based on recent findings from restoration monitoring reports.

If engagement with Aboriginal groups and stakeholders has determined there are areas where ongoing access is required for traditional or trapper access, the decision frameworks will provide guidance. The decision frameworks will be applied at the start of construction to identify candidate sites for restoration measures on the PCF and will be reviewed during construction to identify any changes in inputs. Measures will be applied during cleanup on the PCF.

Page 3-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

3.3 Project Specific Mitigations

As described in Section 2.2, the total area of incremental direct disturbance before restoration will be approximately 18.98 ha in the Red Earth Caribou Range and 6.10 ha in the Chinchaga Caribou Range. There is no incremental indirect disturbance in the Red Earth Caribou Range or in the Chinchaga Caribou Range due to the siting of the Red Earth Section 3 and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition entirely within the 500 m disturbance buffer of existing disturbances. To reduce the effects of the Project, NGTL will implement the following:

• access management across the ROW to eliminate physical and sensory disturbance and promote the establishment and development of vegetation communities. Access management will be completed through the installation of rollback or mounding features at key intersections points along the alignment, or at areas where evidence of access and travel have been observed and where access can be effectively mitigated. Alternative techniques may be implemented depending on the site-specific characteristics;

• habitat restoration/tree planting within areas outside of the 10 m wide operational ROW, which is centred over the trench line. Different treatments will be prescribed for upland and lowland areas to ensure optimal survival of planted species;

• natural regeneration will take place within the 10-m-wide operational ROW. If required, habitat restoration/tree planting within the operational ROW may be considered with alternative planting techniques (i.e., habitat restoration seedling planting for line of sight, Annex F, DWG STDS-03-ML-05-316); and

• snow ramping, extension of bore crossings, and shrub staking in riparian areas will also be considered, as described in Table 3-1, Annex A.

Page 3-2 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

4.0 OFFSET PLAN

NGTL has designed the Project to minimize new habitat disturbance to the extent feasible, by locating the Red Earth Section 3 and the connectivity piping component of the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition adjacent to existing linear disturbances for 95 percent (14.1 km) and 100 percent (1.1 km) of their lengths, respectively. The compressor station unit addition component of the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition has been sited within and adjacent to existing disturbances to the extent feasible, however, approximately 3.29 ha of new clearing will be required. Disturbed habitat in the PCF will be restored in areas not needed for ongoing operations. However, residual Project effects on caribou and caribou habitat are predicted. This offset strategy was prepared to ensure the residual effects are offset in a manner that aligns with provincial and federal policies, management plans and priorities.

4.1 Initial Offset Value

The initial offset value (IOV) is the area required to be offset after habitat restoration measures are implemented and includes the area of remaining direct and indirect disturbance. Effectiveness values for restoration measures and delay factors associated with time lags are addressed by applying the appropriate multipliers (see Section 4.2 of Annex A). Following restoration there will be a reduction in the remaining direct disturbance within the Red Earth Caribou range of approximately 14.09 ha (i.e., as a result of restoration of existing disturbance in the PCF) and increase in the remaining direct disturbance within the Chinchaga Caribou range of approximately 3.59 ha. The IOV associated with the Project, considering the implementation of the restorations measures within temporary workspace, was calculated to be 1.59 ha for the Red Earth caribou range and 1.08 ha for the Chinchaga caribou range (2.67 ha total) (Table 4–1).

Page 4-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Table 4–1: Initial Offset Value Calculation

Red Earth Section 3 – Red Earth Caribou Range

New ROW (minor Access deviation for Upland/Lowland Management/ the crossing 0.95 0.95 1.0 1.25 1 1 0.19 (treed and shrub) Seedling of an Planting unnamed tributary to Loon River) New ROW within existing disturbance Access (minor Upland/Lowland Management/ deviation for 0 0.02 1.0 1.25 1 1 0 (treed and shrub) Seedling the crossing Planting of an unnamed tributary to Loon River) Access HDD pullback Management/ Lowland (treed) TWSa,c 0.18 0.18 0.2 1.25 1 1 0.01 Seedling (new cut) Planting

Page 4-2 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Incremental Restoration Unit Description Temporal Residual Project Area Inherent Delivery Risk Spatial Risk ROW Risk Effect Restoration Disturbance Restored Effect Multiplier Multiplier Habitat Alignment Multiplier (ha) Measure (ha) Access HDD pullback Management/ TWSa,c Lowland (treed) 0 1.04 0.2 1.25 1 1 -0.04 Seedling (existing Planting disturbance) Seedling Upland Parallel ROW 1.53 1.53 0.2 1.25 1 2.8 0.22 planting

Seedling Parallel ROW 12.94 12.94 0.2 1.25 1 2.8 1.85 Lowland (treed) planting New ROW 0.93 0.93 1.0 1.25 1 2.8 0.66

Lowland Natural Parallel ROW 0.51 0.51 0.2 1.25 1 1.2 0.03 b (shrub/graminoid) regeneration New ROW 0.06 0.06 1.0 1.25 1 1.2 0.02 Shallow Open Water Natural Parallel ROW 0.01 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0d Wetland regeneration Existing Seedling Upland disturbance c 0 1.72 0.2 1.25 1 2.8 -0.25 planting (NGTL ROW) Existing Seedling Lowland (treed) disturbance c 0 13.18 0.2 1.25 1 2.8 -1.88 planting (NGTL ROW)

Operational access Natural Parallel ROW 1.36 0 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.27 (10 m ditchline) regeneration New ROW 0.51 0 1.0 n/a n/a n/a 0.51 Total Residual Post-Restoration Value (ha) – Red Earth Caribou Range 1.59

Page 4-3 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Compressor Station Unit Addition Upland/Lowlande No restoration (adjacent to 3.29 0 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.66 existing compressor station) Seedling Upland Parallel ROW 2.39 2.39 0.2 1.25 1 2.8 0.34 planting Seedling Lowland (treed) Parallel ROW 0.11 0.11 0.2 1.25 1 2.8 0.02 planting Operational access Natural Parallel ROW 0.31 0 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.06 (10 m ditchline) regeneration Total Residual Post-Restoration Value (ha) – Chinchaga Caribou Range 1.08 Incremental Indirect Disturbance

Upland n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 Lowland n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0

Page 4-4 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Incremental Restoration Unit Description Temporal Residual Project Area Inherent Delivery Risk Spatial Risk ROW Risk Effect Restoration Disturbance Restored Effect Multiplier Multiplier Habitat Alignment Multiplier (ha) Measure (ha) Total Residual Indirect Disturbance Value – Red Earth and Chinchaga Caribou Range 0 IOV/Total Project Residual Effect (Residual Post-Restoration Value + Residual Indirect Disturbance Value) (ha) 2.76

Notes: a For the HDD pullback TWS, the inherent effect multiplier associated with a parallel alignment (0.2 multiplier; see Section 4.3; Annex A) was applied for the portion of the PCF that overlaps existing disturbance. The delivery risk multiplier associated with planting (1.25 multiplier) was applied, but planting will be supplemented with access control (e.g., coarse woody debris/mounding). Therefore, the delivery risk multiplier is conservatively high (i.e., multiple restoration measures combined should reduce the delivery risk). Although planting will have a delay factor during regeneration, the access control measures (i.e., coarse woody debris/mounding) is expected to be effective immediately, therefore the temporal risk multiplier of 1.0 associated with access control was applied. b The Project encounters shrubby fens and graminoid fens (that is, shrub/graminoid lowlands), where minimum surface disturbance construction will effectively facilitate natural regeneration. As explained in detail during the NEB review process for a previous NGTL project (refer to NEB Filing ID A6E5C5), available literature and post-construction monitoring (PCM) reports support the conclusion that shrub and graminoid wetlands recover effectively and relatively quickly following pipeline construction, particularly when minimum disturbance techniques are implemented. Therefore, the effectiveness multiplier of 1.25 was selected, indicating a relatively low delivery risk, and the temporal multiplier of 1.2 was selected, consistent with a short-term delay factor. c The PCF overlaps areas of existing disturbance that can be restored following construction. These areas are not included in the Project’s incremental direct disturbance because they are already disturbed. However, they are included in the calculation of the residual effect and IOV because restoration of these disturbed areas will, in time, enhance the existing ecological condition. Given that the existing habitat value within these existing disturbances is already reduced, application of an inherent effect multiplier of 0.2 was considered appropriate. Multipliers as described in Section 4.3 of Annex A are factored into the calculation of the residual effect to account for uncertainty (delivery risk) and time lag (temporal risk) for restored areas to become suitable habitat. d No residual effect to shallow open water wetlands is predicted upon reclamation. e For the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition, lowlands are grouped with uplands for the compressor station unit addition component because no restoration will be applied following construction (the entire area will be needed for ongoing operations activities); therefore, the residual effect calculation is the same for both habitat types. Because the compressor station unit addition component will not be restored until the Project is decommissioned and abandoned, the full inherent effect is used, and restoration multipliers are not applied. n/a = not applicable

Page 4-5 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

4.2 Evaluation of Offset Options

On past projects, NGTL worked collaboratively with AEP to implement offsets in protected wildland parks. Based on recent work and consultation with AEP, NGTL offset planning has shifted to focus on existing NGTL and TransCanada ROW features that were not actively restored for caribou habitat in the past. The benefit with this approach is that the ROW is under the operational control of NGTL/TransCanada and therefore access management, habitat restoration and other activities would be protected and long-term.

The draft provincial range plan (Government of Alberta 2017) does not identify priority restoration and offsetting areas for the Red Earth and Chinchaga Caribou Ranges. Therefore, NGTL’s offset decision framework will be applied to provide guidance on selection of offset locations and implementation of appropriate offset measures. NGTL typically evaluates offset options at two scales to account for potential site-specific or regional opportunities (Section 4.4; Annex A). Offset measures are preferentially located in the same range where disturbance is taking place. The evaluation of offset options on existing TransCanada/NGTL ROW in the Red Earth and Chinchaga Caribou Ranges is intended to:

• identify areas that can be reasonably protected long-term under NGTL operational control;

• promote the eventual establishment of preferred caribou habitat;

• control access along existing and parallel NGTL ROW; and

• reduce the amount of existing disturbance under operational control of NGTL.

4.3 Description of the Proposed Offsets

NGTL is investigating options to implement restoration on existing ROW in the Red Earth and Chinchaga Caribou Ranges to offset residual Project effects on caribou habitat. As described in Annex A, different treatments will be prescribed for upland and lowland areas to ensure optimal survival of planted species.

In addition to the treatment approach, opportunities for corridor level access management will be identified on offset ROWs where feasible. The intent is to manage access at areas currently impacted by recreational and industrial users. These opportunities will be investigated in more detail prior to finalizing the offset plan.

4.4 Quantification of Final Offset Value

The final offset value will be calculated after the actual construction footprint has been determined and once restoration activities, offset locations and offset measures have been identified. As with the IOV, risk multipliers specific to the habitat and habitat restoration measures will be applied to account for uncertainty in implementation and time lag.

Page 4-6 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

5.0 MONITORING PROGRAM, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULE

Monitoring and adaptive management are important elements to inform whether restoration and offset measures are contributing meaningfully to the strategic outcome of conservation and recovery of woodland caribou. To this end, NGTL will develop a Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program (CHROMMP) for the Project to detail what restoration and offset measures were implemented and also to monitor effectiveness of those habitat restoration and offset measures. The Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Implementation Report (CHROIR) will be submitted to the NEB after the first complete growing season subsequent to implementation of caribou habitat restoration and first season offset measures (see Table 5–1).

The monitoring program will include details on monitoring (including ground-based, aerial and remote camera monitoring) and adaptive management. It will also include details pertaining to the design of the monitoring periods (methods, frequency and duration) for the habitat measures implemented. It will include information pertaining to the number and location of monitoring and control sites, evaluation criteria and definition of quantifiable performance indicators.

NGTL will use a combination of monitoring approaches as detailed in the CHROMMP. The CHROMMP will be informed by lessons learned from recent projects, ongoing monitoring programs, regulatory policy changes and ongoing consultation. The CHROMMP will also provide a protocol for identifying and managing issues that require supplemental or remedial action to achieve restoration and offset goals.

Adaptive management is the systematic process of monitoring and assessing outcomes and modifying habitat restoration measures, if necessary. NGTL will implement adaptive management by adjusting and/or supplementing restoration and offset measures, where warranted, to achieve the targets and goals, and ultimately the objective of the monitoring plan, using quantifiable performance indicators. Adaptive management is intended to:

• evaluate restoration and offset measures, performance and effectiveness;

• identify the cause of any underperforming measures (i.e., microsite conditions that are either not conducive or suitable for establishment of target vegetation); and

• address underperforming measures requiring supplemental or remedial action.

The habitat restoration and offset measures are considered successful when monitoring results indicate restoration has achieved or is on trajectory to achieve the performance indicators and, thereby, the monitoring plan targets. No additional measures will be considered necessary at that point. If performance measures indicate that targets are not on trajectory, restoration and offset measures will be adjusted as detailed in the CHROMMP.

5.1 Performance Indicators

After implementation of the caribou habitat restoration and offset measures, NGTL will monitor to ensure the objective, goals and targets outlined in Annex A, Section 1.0 are achieved. The success of the restoration and offset measures will be quantified by the performance indicators. The performance

Page 5-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019 indicators are based on NGTL’s experience with restoration measures (Section 6.2, Annex A). Depending on the implemented restoration and offset measures specific to the Project and new or emerging research or knowledge, performance indicators could be adapted or developed. The final performance indicators will be detailed in the CHROMMP.

5.2 Schedule for Implementation

Final cleanup activities are expected to be completed in the winter following construction of the Project. Restoration measures within the PCF will be implemented with final cleanup activities. Habitat restoration will be planted in the summer following final cleanup. As-built construction information will be compiled to document spatial data of areas where restoration measures will be implemented and calculate the remaining direct disturbance.

For a preliminary proposed schedule for construction and habitat restoration activities, see Table 5–1.

Table 5–1: Preliminary Proposed Schedule, Project Construction and Habitat Restoration and Offsets

Milestones and Activities Anticipated Datesa Red Earth Section 3 Construction Clearing Q4 2021 Mainline Construction Q4 2021 to Q1 2022 Machine Cleanup/ Testing Q1 2022 Final Clean up Q4 2022 to Q1 2023 Hidden Lake North Unit Addition Construction All Activities Q1 2021 to Q1 2022 Caribou Restoration and Offset Planning Submission of CHROMP to the NEB Q2 2019 Implementation of caribou habitat restoration on the Red Earth Section 3 PCF Q3 2022 to Q3 2023

Implementation of caribou habitat restoration on the Hidden Lake North Unit Q1 2022 Addition PCF Implementation of offset measures Q3 2022 to Q3 2023 Submission of CHROIRb Q3 2023 CHROMMPb Q3 2023 Implementation of CHROMMP Q1 2024 Submission of Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offsets Monitoring Reports Detailed schedule will be defined within the CHROMMP

Notes: a Dates are only for activities in the caribou range and are tentative and subject to schedule impacts of when regulatory approval is received. b Where possible, deliverables on parallel timelines will be harmonized as a single filing.

The contents of NGTL’s proposed submissions are outlined in Section 5.0 of the NGTL Caribou Restoration and Offset Program Document (Annex A).

Page 5-2 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

6.0 CONSULTATION

6.1 Aboriginal Engagement

A key goal of ongoing engagement is to ensure that Project planning is compatible with the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. Inclusion of traditional knowledge gained through engagement will ensure measures are implemented in a manner that avoids or minimizes disruption to traditional activities in the restoration areas. NGTL is aware that caribou and caribou habitat restoration are a concern for several Aboriginal groups with traditional territories overlapping the Project. Aboriginal engagement for the Project has recently been initiated and is expected to progress through the preconstruction phases of the Project. NGTL has requested to meet with Doig River First Nation and Dene Tha’ First Nation to specifically discuss caribou habitat restoration planning and access control considerations.

6.2 Regulatory Consultation

NGTL has continued to build upon its history of consultation with federal and provincial agencies from project to project. NGTL is committed to continuing consultation specific to this Plan through the Project’s planning and implementation stages.

As detailed in Annex C, NGTL met with AEP and has notified ECCC about its caribou habitat restoration and offset program for the Project. Consultation with regulators has resulted in the following outcomes for previous NGTL projects:

• NGTL will implement access control where it has operational control of the corridor.

• AEP and ECCC encouraged restoration of existing pipeline disturbances as offsets.

− NGTL is currently investigating and planning offsets on existing NGTL ROWs through planting and protecting areas of natural regeneration.

• ECCC encouraged the implementation of offsets within the caribou range(s) in which the project disturbance occurs. AEP encouraged prioritizing offsets to align with emerging provincial restoration plans.

− NGTL will implement offsets within the Red Earth and Chinchaga Caribou Ranges.

• ECCC encouraged the early implementation of offset measures to minimize temporal lag.

• NGTL is committed to ongoing consultation on opportunities for restoration within the area of project and offset ROWs where vegetation is managed.

• NGTL is committed to ongoing consultation with AEP and ECCC on the development of the CHROMMP.

Page 6-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

7.0 REFERENCES

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2016. Wildlife Sensitivity Maps - Data Sets. Accessed August 2018. http://aep.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity-maps/default.aspx.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association (ASRD and ACA). 2010. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta: Update 2010. Wildlife Status Report No. 30. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, AB. 88 pp.

Athabasca Landscape Team. 2009. Athabasca Caribou Landscape Management Options Report. 75 pp. + Appendices.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. 2017. Boreal Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2012. Biodiversity Offsetting Plots. Technical Paper: The Metric for the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot in England. London, UK. 24 pp.

Environment Canada. 2011. Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada: 2011 Update. Ottawa, ON. 102 pp + Appendices.

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa, ON. xi + 138 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). 2017. Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population in Canada for the Period 2012-2017. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. ix + 94 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2017. Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan. 212 pp.

Northern Resource Analysts Ltd. 2014. Northwest Mainline Expansion Project: Final Offset Measures Plan for Residual Effects on Caribou Habitat. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, AB.

Oberg, P.R. 2001. Responses of Mountain Caribou to Linear Features in a West-central Alberta Landscape. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

Page 7-1

Annex A

Restoration and Offset Program

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... A-3 1.1 Strategic Outcome ...... A-4 1.2 Objective ...... A-4 1.3 Goals and Targets ...... A-4

2.0 QUANTIFICATION OF HABITAT DISTURBANCE ...... A-5 2.1 Total Habitat Disturbance ...... A-5 2.2 Remaining Habitat Disturbance ...... A-5

3.0 HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN ...... A-11 3.1 Habitat Restoration Measures ...... A-11 3.1.1 Natural Regeneration ...... A-11 3.1.2 Habitat Restoration/Tree Planting...... A-11 3.1.3 Access Management ...... A-11 3.1.4 Line-of-Sight Blocking ...... A-17 3.2 Decision Framework for Habitat Restoration Measures ...... A-17

4.0 THE OFFSET SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... A-18 4.1 Offset Strategy and Framework ...... A-18 4.2 Context of Multipliers ...... A-18 4.3 Calculating the Initial Offset Value ...... A-20 4.4 The Offset Selection and Implementation Plan ...... A-23 4.4.1 Offset Location Criteria ...... A-24 4.5 Offset Decision Framework ...... A-25 4.6 Quantification of the Final Offset Value ...... A-25

5.0 PROPOSED SUBMISSIONS OF CARIBOU PLANS ...... A-27 5.1 Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan ...... A-27 5.2 Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Implementation Report and Monitoring Program ...... A-27 5.3 Caribou Habitat and Offsets Monitoring Reports ...... A-28

6.0 MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ...... A-29 6.1 Monitoring Program ...... A-29 6.2 Monitoring Performance Indicators ...... A-29 6.3 Adaptive Management ...... A-31

7.0 CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT OF NGTL APPROACH ...... A-32

Annex A Table of Contents – Page A-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

7.1 Caribou Habitat Continual Improvements ...... A-32 7.2 Industry Collaboration ...... A-33 7.3 Lessons from NGTL Habitat Restoration ...... A-34

8.0 REFERENCES ...... A-36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3–1: Habitat Restoration Measures ...... A-14 Table 4–1: Temporal and Delivery Risk Multipliers ...... A-19 Table 4–2: Example Initial Offset Value Quantification ...... A-21 Table 4–3: Example Final Offset Value Quantification ...... A-22 Table 6–1: Performance Indicators to Measure CHROMP Goals and Targets (G1) ...... A-29 Table 6–2: Performance Indicators to Measure CHROMP Goals and Targets (G2) ...... A-30

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2–1: Example of Quantification Method for the Project Total Direct Disturbance ...... A-6 Figure 2–2: Example of Quantification Method for the Project Total Indirect Disturbance ...... A-7 Figure 2–3: Example Quantification Method for the Project Remaining Direct Disturbance ...... A-9 Figure 2–4: Example Quantification Method for the Project Remaining Indirect Disturbance ...... A-10 Figure 3–1: NGTL Access Management Decision Framework ...... A-12 Figure 3–2: NGTL Habitat Restoration Decision Framework ...... A-13 Figure 4–1: NGTL Offset Measures Decision Framework ...... A-26

Annex A Table of Contents – Page A-2 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document provides NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.’s (NGTL) strategic outcome, as well as the objective, goals and targets, and methods for the measures discussed in a project-specific Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan (CHROMP). These elements have been refined with experience gained across NGTL projects and will be used to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration and offset measures.

Restoration and offsets are attempts to return an ecosystem to its historical trajectory. Habitat restoration action is dominated by local-scale efforts, but to be effective in an ecological or landscape context, explicit linkages between local scale (habitat patch/ecosite) actions and corresponding range-level (ecological landscape) effectiveness evaluations are necessary (Ray 2014) because individual habitat restoration sites are biologically linked to the landscapes in which they occur.

Woodland caribou are a boreal species with large spatial requirements and sensitivity to landscape disturbance. In the Boreal Plain Ecoregion, local caribou populations are discontinuously distributed because of the patchy distribution of suitable habitat and constraints of natural and anthropogenic disturbances on a dynamic landscape mosaic. They are the only major ungulate in North America specifically adapted to live in mature, lichen-rich, coniferous forests and treed peatlands. Woodland caribou select habitat at multiple temporal and spatial scales to achieve habitat requirements critical to their long-term persistence on the landscape (Racey and Arsenault 2007; Environment Canada 2011, 2012),

At the landscape (range) scale, woodland caribou require relatively undisturbed, lichen-rich, contiguous landscape mosaics of mature (>40 to 60 years) and old growth conifer dominated (jack pine and/or black spruce) uplands with low shrub cover composition interspersed with treed peatlands (Courtois et al. 2007; Courbin et al. 2009; Collins et al. 2010; Arsenault and Manseau 2012). This scale provides a sustainable habitat supply that is functionally connected through seasonal movement corridors, and provides space for anti-predator strategies to operate by enabling caribou to effectively separate themselves from higher densities of moose (Alces alces), grey wolves (Canus lupus) (Rettie and Messier 1998) and black bears (Ursus americanus) (Latham et al. 2011), which tend to be associated with early successional, mixed or deciduous forest (<40 years old). Contiguous habitat patch sizes >100 km² have greater value to caribou than smaller patches and disturbed areas (Gurd et al. 2001; Courtois et al. 2004; O’Brien et al. 2006; Courtois et al. 2007; Fortin et al. 2008). Woodland caribou have large home range requirements that enable the local population to distribute at low spatial density by selecting habitats that allow spatial separation from alternate ungulate prey species in order to minimize predation risk (Gurd et al. 2001; Courtois et al. 2004; O’Brien et al. 2006; Courtois et al. 2007; Fortin et al. 2008; Arsenault and Manseau 2012). This habitat spatial requirement makes woodland caribou sensitive to landscape disturbance. Consequently, a local woodland caribou population depends directly and indirectly on all constituent sub-range habitat features within the entire range to sustain itself over multiple generations.

At local spatial scale, woodland caribou seasonally select specific habitat features and areas that support successful reproduction and calf rearing (Arsenault 2003), provide summer and/or winter forage, provide predator avoidance/escape cover, provides security/refuge from predators and extreme weather, and/or

Annex A – Page A-3 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

facilitates movement between discrete areas of use (Courtois et al. 2007; Racey and Arsenault 2007; Sorensen et al. 2007).

According to the Federal Recovery Strategy for woodland caribou, critical habitat is: “the area within the boundary of each boreal caribou range that provides an overall ecological condition that will allow for an ongoing recruitment and retirement cycle of habitat, which maintains a perpetual state of a minimum of 65% of the area as undisturbed habitat; and biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou to carry out life processes” (Environment Canada 2012). Effective protection of critical caribou habitat is possible through management of the amount, type and distribution of disturbance in proximity to critical caribou habitat. Effective protection is defined by ECCC (2016) as “measures and mechanisms that can reasonably be expected to protect critical habitat from alterations that would reasonably be expected to reduce the critical habitat’s capacity to provide for the recovery and survival of a species at risk.”

1.1 Strategic Outcome

NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration and offset measures contribute meaningfully to the conservation and recovery of woodland caribou in Canada, consistent with national and provincial guidance (Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team 2005; Environment Canada 2012).

1.2 Objective

NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration and offset investments reduce the predicted residual Project effects and offset the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects on caribou and caribou habitat in a manner that aligns with provincial and federal policies, management plans and priorities.

1.3 Goals and Targets

• Goal (G1): NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration measures are ecologically relevant, practically located and reasonably protected to minimize potential for re-disturbance by human activity.

− Target (T1): Access is lower on controlled segments compared with uncontrolled segments.

− Target (T2): Continuous improvement of planning tools and environmental management systems to ensure longevity of restoration measures.

• Goal (G2): NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration and offset measures result in self-sustaining and ecologically appropriate vegetation communities that are on trajectory to the compatible surrounding landscape.

− Target (T3): The species composition of revegetated restoration and offset areas regenerates on a typical trajectory of ecological succession.

− Target (T4): The sustained growth trend of revegetated restoration and offset areas is comparable to that of the surrounding landscape.

The objective, goals, and targets of the CHROMP are intended to guide NGTL in the selection and assessment of caribou habitat restoration and offset measures, and reflect an evolution from earlier plans driven by a commitment to continuous improvement. The targets define specific aims for each goal and will be measured by quantifiable performance indicators described in Section 6.0.

Annex A – Page A-4 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

2.0 QUANTIFICATION OF HABITAT DISTURBANCE

2.1 Total Habitat Disturbance

A project’s total habitat disturbance is the spatial area of direct and indirect disturbance before implementation of habitat restoration measures. Total project disturbance to caribou habitat will be quantified using a method consistent with the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (Environment Canada 2011, 2012).

Direct disturbance is calculated as the area of spatial disturbance within the Project Footprint (see Figure 2–1 for an example of the quantification method).

Indirect disturbance is calculated as the area of spatial disturbance within a 500 m buffer from existing disturbance (see Figure 2–2 for an example of the quantification method), including the Project’s direct disturbance. Incremental indirect disturbance is the remaining new indirect disturbance when existing overlapping indirect disturbances are removed. Overlapping permanent disturbances are removed from the calculation of the total habitat disturbance. Overlapping temporary disturbances are retained to reflect those features likely to regenerate to natural vegetation communities over time and might be at a successional stage contributing to functional caribou habitat.

2.2 Remaining Habitat Disturbance

Habitat restoration measures (i.e., onsite mitigation) will be implemented on the Project Footprint in caribou range to reduce the predicted residual effect on caribou and caribou habitat. Restoration of disturbed habitat assumes caribou will use the restored habitat for movement. As a result, spatial separation from primary prey (moose and deer) and from predators will return to pre-disturbance function and mortality risk will return to a level consistent with pre-disturbance conditions (Athabasca Landscape Team 2009). Restoration of anthropogenic disturbances is expected to reduce the degradation of functional habitat for caribou since caribou will no longer exhibit reduced use on or near (i.e., in a zone of influence) the reclaimed disturbance (Oberg 2001). By addressing direct habitat disturbance through restoration measures, indirect disturbance will be reduced or mitigated by improvements to habitat function.

Annex A – Page A-5 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Figure 2–1: Example of Quantification Method for the Project Total Direct Disturbance

Annex A – Page A-6 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Figure 2–2: Example of Quantification Method for the Project Total Indirect Disturbance

Annex A – Page A-7 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Post-construction, as-builts of the pipeline section[s] within caribou range will be used to calculate the final area directly and indirectly disturbed by the Project Footprint to provide the baseline metrics from which the offset values will be calculated. The baseline metrics include:

• Direct Disturbance: the total area of the Project Footprint (ha) including the right-of-way (ROW), temporary workspace and any log deck locations within caribou range (see Figure 2–3).

• Restored Footprint: the total area along the Project Footprint where habitat restoration measures will be implemented. It is assumed restoration measures will be effective on the portion of the footprint available for restoration.

• Remaining Direct Disturbance: the area over the pipeline that must remain visible for aerial inspections (approximately 10 m), and any other areas needed for operational access where restoration measures will not be applied.

• Remaining Indirect Disturbance: the indirect disturbance is calculated by applying a 500 m buffer to all anthropogenic disturbances, including the project remaining direct disturbance, and subtracting any areas accounted for by other existing disturbance buffers (see Figure 2–4).

During operations, NGTL periodically manages vegetation within 5 to 10 m of the centreline of the operational pipeline, in accordance with TransCanada operational procedures for integrity monitoring under Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662-15 (CSA 2015). These areas are allowed to regenerate naturally, but may be periodically managed to allow for inspection and operation access, if needed. Managed operational access is considered a direct disturbance. Therefore, managed operational access points will be quantified and included in the calculation of the total remaining disturbance of caribou habitat. The initial offset value (IOV) is calculated using the total construction disturbance footprint.

Annex A – Page A-8 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Figure 2–3: Example Quantification Method for the Project Remaining Direct Disturbance

Annex A – Page A-9 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Figure 2–4: Example Quantification Method for the Project Remaining Indirect Disturbance

Annex A – Page A-10 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

3.0 HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN

3.1 Habitat Restoration Measures

Site-specific restoration measures will be selected under the guidance of Habitat Restoration Decision Frameworks (see Figure 3–1 and Figure 3–2). These may include tree planting, access management and natural regeneration and are described in Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.4. Selection of restoration measures will be based on suitability, specific site conditions and availability of appropriate materials. For more comprehensive details on the list of potential restoration measures and discussion of their applicability, effectiveness and limitations, see Table 3–1.

3.1.1 Natural Regeneration

Prior to restoration, where applicable and site-specific conditions allow, natural regeneration methods will be employed. Minimal surface disturbance techniques will be employed during construction as general mitigation to promote rapid natural revegetation and provide the benefit of reducing lag in the re- establishment of vegetation consistent with the local ecotype. The technique relies on mowing/mulching and “freezing in” the ROW to avoid disturbance of surface soils, roots, and seed bank, except where grading is necessary.

Since minimal surface disturbance techniques are mitigation measures implemented during construction, they have been removed from NGTL’s decision frameworks for caribou restoration. However, minimal surface disturbance techniques lay the foundation for natural regeneration and rapid re-establishment of vegetation on pipeline ROWs and remain an important mitigation component of the overall caribou restoration program.

3.1.2 Habitat Restoration/Tree Planting

Established reclamation and forestry reforestation practices will be applied to promote revegetation. Restoration measures that create more favorable microsite conditions (e.g., mounding) and planting trees/shrubs, will be considered where site conditions allow. Rollback of coarse woody debris (if available) is useful to enhance local site restoration by providing shade and microsites for planted seedlings and natural re-vegetation from the existing seed bank. Tree species compatible with the surrounding landscape will be planted to mimic natural variation and complexity by optimizing density and spacing at the feature level.

3.1.3 Access Management

Access management for the Project and/or its offset areas in caribou habitat will be planned to:

• manage access along the pipeline ROW in a manner that discourages all forms of access;

• maintain managed access necessary for safe pipeline operations compliant with applicable regulations and guidelines; and

• maintain existing access at identified locations (e.g., third-party industry access, traditional access identified by Aboriginal groups through engagement activities).

Annex A – Page A-11 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Figure 3–1: NGTL Access Management Decision Framework

Annex A – Page A-12 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Figure 3–2: NGTL Habitat Restoration Decision Framework

Annex A – Page A-13 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Table 3–1: Habitat Restoration Measures

Restoration Purpose(s) Considerations Limitations Measure Minimal Primary: Facilitate • Application limited to construction during winter conditions. Minimal surface surface natural • Reduces the need for soil salvage and grading. disturbance disturbance regeneration • Width of grubbing is limited to the trench area and where grading construction will be construction is required. used for the project Secondary: and will be • Reduced disturbance to vegetation and root systems by cutting, Reduce implemented where mowing or walking down; mulching shrubs and small diameter line-of-sight scheduling, soil trees at ground level and freezing in the ROW (mulch depths no conditions more than 3 to 5 cm). (e.g., frozen), and • Intact root systems and seed bed facilitates rapid regeneration of topography allow. vegetation. The extent of minimal • Snow padding or matting preserves shrubs and small trees. disturbance • Minimum disturbance construction is constrained by existing construction is ground topography and to ungraded areas. limited by scheduling • Extending the length of existing bores under roads can reduce the to avoid the need for additional vegetation clearing at ROW access points. restricted activity • Rapid regeneration of vegetation contributes to line-of-sight blocks period for caribou on ROW. (15 February to 15 July) and also by Minimal surface disturbance construction methods reduce impacts existing ground to soil structure and leads to the rapid regeneration of native topography. vegetation. This method aids in achieving the goals of habitat restoration and access management, along with providing a visual barrier along the ROW. Conifer Primary: Habitat • Conifer seedling planting is considered a long-term habitat Conifer seedling seedling restoration restoration measure, effective access management and a line-of- planting is a suitable planting sight measure (effectiveness is expected to take longer than habitat restoration Secondary: 10 years). measure along the Access • Species selection (i.e., black spruce, white spruce or pine) is and will be the main management determined based on the biophysical characteristics of the site, planting measure Reduce adjacent forest stand composition, and restoration objectives. used for the project. line-of-sight Based on published information and Alberta ecosystems, the following conifer planting densities have been formulated: • minimum live seedling density of 1,600-2,000 stems/ha on upland sites; and • minimum live seedling density of 1,200-2,000 stems/ha on lowland sites. Snow Primary: Access • Deciduous shrubs are walked down using construction equipment Snow ramping is a ramping management and piled with layers of snow to create a ramp for vehicle traffic if suitable habitat there is enough snow cover during winter construction. restoration measure Secondary: • Small coniferous trees can also be walked down but only during if there is adequate Reduce years where there is a higher than normal snow fall. snowfall during line-of-sight • When the snow melts in the spring following construction, the trees winter construction Habitat and shrubs recover their original shape and create line-of-sight and where the restoration blocks, access management and provide habitat. correct species are available in adjacent areas.

Annex A – Page A-14 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Restoration Purpose(s) Considerations Limitations Measure Bore Primary: Access • Bore installations at crossings can be extended in length to leave Bore extension is a Extension management vegetation intact adjacent to crossed infrastructure. suitable habitat Habitat • Remaining vegetation serves to manage access to the ROW from restoration technique restoration crossed infrastructure and also provides a line-of-sight block at the if construction crossing. logistics and Secondary: • This method also reduces the overall removal of vegetation on the constraints allow and Reduce ROW. where appropriate line-of-sight vegetation exists. Woody debris Primary: Access • Rollback can be effective immediately following implementation, Woody debris rollback management provided adequate material is available and properly applied (Vinge rollback is a suitable Habitat and Pyper 2012; Caribou Range Restoration Project [CRRP 2007a). habitat restoration restoration Long rollback segments are more effective at managing access measure to augment because all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riders will be less inclined to try to habitat restoration ride through the debris or traverse around it in adjacent forest through the creation stands. of microsites. Where • NGTL has found on previous caribou habitat restoration projects the project is that material availability often limits the segment length that can be contiguous with achieved to 50 to 100 m (75 m on average). other ROWs for its • Coverage ranging from 200 to 300 m3/ha can deter access while entire length in allowing sufficient spaces between the debris to allow seedling caribou range, planting. opportunities to use woody debris • Placement of woody debris rollback can conserve soil moisture, rollback for access moderate soil temperatures and provide nutrients as debris management may be decomposes, prevent soil erosion, provide microsites for seed limited. germination and protection for planted tree seedlings (Pyper and Vinge 2012). Woody debris material availability • Fire risk can be minimized through proper storage and placement limits the segment of materials (Pyper and Vinge 2012). A 25 m rollback-free fuel break lengths that can be placed at 250 m intervals along rollback segments is recommended achieved. by the Integrated Standards and Guidelines for the Enhanced Fire risk is a Approval Process (Alberta Energy Regulator 2013). consideration when Previous NGTL construction experience indicates that material using or storing availability limits the segment length that can be achieved to woody debris. 50 to 100 m (75 m on average). Shrub staking Primary: Habitat • Shrub staking in combination with stabilization measures (e.g., soil Shrub staking is a restoration wraps) is used at watercourses crossed with an open cut method. suitable habitat The installation of live shrub cuttings is primarily used to stabilize restoration measure Secondary: and revegetate slopes and banks. where site conditions Access • Secondary benefit of shrub staking is rapid establishment of allow. It requires the management line-of-sight blocks at these locations. correct vegetation to Reduce be present in line-of-sight adjacent areas and moist soils. Many shrub species can attract prey species such as moose and deer, which can attract wolves. Its application will be limited to riparian areas for bank and slope stabilization as these species can have a negative effect on caribou.

Annex A – Page A-15 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Restoration Purpose(s) Considerations Limitations Measure Mounding Primary: Access • Mounding is used as an access management measure on pipelines, Mounding is a management old roads and seismic lines to discourage off-road vehicle activity suitable habitat Habitat and can be effective immediately following implementation. restoration measure restoration • For access management purposes, mounds should be created using that may be used in (create an excavator to approximately 0.75 m deep, and excavated material conjunction with microsites) is placed right beside the hole (STDS-03-ML-05-314). conifer seedling • For the purposes of enhancing microsites for planted seedlings, planting where mounding can be used in wet, low-lying areas to create ground conditions better-drained microsites to enhance seedling survival. allow. • For previous NGTL caribou habitat restoration projects on pipeline The limitations ROWs, the achievable range in mound density was approximately include scheduling 700 to 1,400 mounds/ha. Mound density is dependent on soil mounding for characteristics, amount of frost and type of equipment used restoration during (STDS-03-ML-05-314). final cleanup, which typically requires • Mounding is often a suitable habitat restoration measure that is freezing-in of soils, used in conjunction with conifer seedling planting, using 2 to availability of 3 seedlings per mound, depending on the form and orientation of specialized the mound. equipment and For previous NGTL caribou habitat restoration projects on pipeline spatial separation of ROWs, the achievable range in mound density was a minimum of 5 m between the 700 mounds/ha and 2 to 3 seedlings per mound. holes and the centreline of the operating pipeline.

3.1.3.1 Site Selection and Monitoring

Geographic Information System (GIS) is used to identify preliminary management and monitoring locations, which in turn are used to establish the baseline condition (of level of existing access) when determining access management locations for the Project. The sites are chosen based on a review of the Project’s construction alignment sheets and proposed access management treatment locations. Locations are further refined during the construction phase to consider site-specific conditions and construction requirements. Performance indicators used to evaluate the effectiveness of access management measures will be included in the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Plan (CHROMMP).

3.1.3.2 Access Management Measures

Access management measures are most effective when implemented on non-contiguous segments of the ROW and at intersections of the pipeline with existing perpendicular linear features relative to contiguous segments. Typically, access management measures are sited on active intersections with other linear features such as roads, utility corridors, seismic lines or watercourses. Potential access management measures include:

• extended trenchless crossings;

• vegetation screens;

• rollback;

• fencing and signs;

Annex A – Page A-16 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

• vegetation planting; and

• mounding.

3.1.4 Line-of-Sight Blocking

Line-of-sight blocking will typically be attained as a secondary effect of other restoration measures. This secondary benefit of other measures is further detailed in Table 3–1. Line-of-sight blocking can be most effective on non-contiguous segments of the ROW. Where NGTL parallels developments that do not implement line-of-sight measures, the NGTL measures are less effective. Therefore, purposely installed line-of-sight measures (such as fabricated screens) will not be used for restoration of the Project Footprint.

3.2 Decision Framework for Habitat Restoration Measures

The Caribou Habitat Restoration Decision Frameworks (Figure 3–2) will be applied to provide guidance on restoration measure selection based on site-specific characteristics. The decision frameworks are principle-based logic models that inform restoration decisions to achieve the objective and goals of the CHROMP. They are based on NGTL’s pipeline construction experience, information obtained from literature reviews, industry best management practices and industry consultation. The decision frameworks are continually revisited and updated based on recent findings from restoration monitoring reporting results.

If engagement with Aboriginal groups and stakeholders has determined there are areas where ongoing access is required for traditional or trapper access, the decision frameworks may be modified or not implemented. The decision frameworks will be applied at the start of construction to identify candidate sites for restoration measures on the Project Footprint and will be reviewed during construction to identify any changes in inputs. Measures will be applied during final cleanup on the Project Footprint.

Figure 3–1 and Figure 3–2 are presented in chronological order of implementation: access management is determined and installed first, and habitat restoration is typically implemented after final cleanup. The decision frameworks provide the logic process for any potential restoration measures or tools that could be applied to the Project Footprint.

Annex A – Page A-17 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

4.0 THE OFFSET SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Conservation and biodiversity offsets are defined as measurable conservation outcomes or environmental values resulting from actions designed to compensate for residual adverse effects arising from a development after appropriate mitigation (restoration) measures are applied. NGTL plans to minimize disturbance relating to construction of Projects wherever feasible. However, when residual project effects on caribou and caribou habitat are predicted, an offset strategy will be prepared to ensure the residual effects are offset in a manner that aligns with provincial and federal legislation, policies, management plans and priorities.

4.1 Offset Strategy and Framework

Supported by a literature review (Annex B), NGTL will develop an offset plan following a strategy consistent with conservation offset development, focusing on the specific conservation needs of boreal caribou. The offset plan will follow a like-for-like habitat restoration framework where offsets are directed to physical habitat restoration measures rather than indirect measures such as contributions to research programs or other financial mechanisms. NGTL anticipates implementing direct measures that are considered highest priority in the federal Recovery Strategy for Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada 2012).

For past NGTL projects in caribou ranges, NGTL has located its offsets in parks to ensure longevity. However, in caribou ranges with particular sensitivities (i.e., the Little Smoky Caribou Range), offsets for the Project may be on-ROW located within the specific range. Past discussions with both AEP and ECCC have indicated that both regulators would be amenable to on-ROW offsets, provided there are mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of vegetation.

4.2 Context of Multipliers

Multipliers are used in the offset calculation formula to address the risk and uncertainty associated with the restoration measures. Risks and uncertainties include challenges and effectiveness of the restoration measures, the areas where restoration is conducted, and the time lag for the measure to become effective.

NGTL has consulted subject matter experts in industry, government and expert agencies through a questionnaire to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness and acceptance of caribou habitat restoration practices (Northern Resource 2014). The average effectiveness of habitat restoration measures, including their respective multipliers, was derived from research on restoration measures effectiveness in support of offset measure planning (Northern Resource 2014). When formal offsetting frameworks and direction are available for Alberta, NGTL will review the new guidance and, if necessary, modify multipliers as appropriate.

To address uncertainty and time lags associated with habitat restoration measures, NGTL will apply the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA 2011) discrepancy risk approach. The underlying principles of the discrepancy approach were developed considering the risk factors associated with habitat restoration. The risk factors associated with habitat restoration measures employed in an offset plan are as follows:

Annex A – Page A-18 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

• delivery risks associated with the effectiveness and achievability of each measure (i.e., challenges and uncertainty of the restoration technique);

• spatial risks associated with the proximity of measures to affected caribou and caribou habitat (i.e., spatial relevance within caribou range); and

• temporal risks associated with the ability of each measure to achieve full effectiveness (i.e., short or long-term time lags).

Multipliers help address the effectiveness and uncertainty of habitat restoration measures (i.e., achievability, spatial relevance and time lags). After applying multipliers to each habitat restoration measure, the effectiveness of the measure is quantified for both direct and indirect remaining project effects.

For habitat restoration measure effectiveness, delay factors and multipliers, see Table 4–1. Spatial multipliers can be applied to the final offset value (FOV) once the offset location has been chosen.

Table 4–1: Temporal and Delivery Risk Multipliers

Measure Habitat Degree of Effectiveness Delay Factor Restoration Application Intensity (Delivery (Temporal Multiplier) Measure Multiplier) 250 m intervals 0.5 (2.0) 1.0 Discrete barriers (high intensity) Continuous (fences/berms) 500 m Intervals 0.4 (2.5) 1.0 (low intensity) Barrier 50 m segments/250 m 0.6 (1.6) 1.0 segments intervals (high intensity) (coarse woody Continuous 100 m segments/500 m debris/ 0.5 (2.0) 1.0 intervals (low intensity) mounding) 250 m intervals 0.83 (short-term delay = 1.2) 0.8 (1.25) Planting for (high intensity) 0.36 (long-term delay = 2.8) Continuous future barrier 500 m intervals 0.83 (short-term delay = 1.2) 0.8 (1.25) (low intensity) 0.36 (long-term delay = 2.8) Planting to Where appropriate 0.83 (short-term delay = 1.2) accelerate Continuous (includes minimum surface 0.8 (1.25) 0.36 (long-term delay = 2.8) reforest state disturbance)

Notes: Habitat restoration measure effectiveness and delay factor multipliers were derived from Northern Resource (2014) – a high effectiveness value has a lower multiplier. Multipliers associated with delay factors are derived from DEFRA (2011). A delay factor of 1.0 implies no penalty as the measure is assumed effective on implementation. Where delays are incremental through years (i.e., planting and minimum surface disturbance) short-term and long-term multipliers are used.

Annex A – Page A-19 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Multipliers address the effectiveness and uncertainty of habitat restoration measures. In the case of delivery multipliers, risks are associated with the effectiveness and achievability of each measure. Where there is greater uncertainty regarding the effectiveness or achievability of offset measures, higher multipliers are applied to accommodate for potential loss or failure of measures. These may include challenges relating to site specific conditions or restoration methods.

The implementation of offset measures will occur in the first appropriate season (late summer after the caribou restricted activity period) following ROW reclamation and restoration. This represents an anticipated and acceptable temporal delay and is addressed by the temporal multiplier. Should a delay of more than one appropriate actionable season occur, it is anticipated that the weight of the temporal multiplier would increase. Additionally, opportunities for earlier implementation of offsets will be assessed to decrease temporal delay.

NGTL applies spatial multipliers to both the caribou habitat restoration measures (restoration activities applied to the Project ROW) and the offset measures (restoration activities at the offset location). In general, the greater the distance from the affected caribou range the offset or habitat restoration measure is applied, the higher the spatial multiplier. Spatial multipliers applied for on-ROW and offset restoration measures for the Project are neutral since the restoration activities applied for both will directly benefit the caribou population where the Project disturbance (direct and indirect) occurred.

4.3 Calculating the Initial Offset Value

The IOV is the area required to be offset after habitat restoration measures are implemented on the restored footprint and include the area of remaining direct and indirect disturbance (Table 4–2). Effectiveness values for each measure and delay factors associated with time lags will be addressed by applying the multipliers suggested by DEFRA (2011) and presented above.

In Table 4–1, Table 4–2 and Table 4–3, the IOV is calculated using the following process steps:

• Categorize the restored Project Footprint as new alignment or parallel alignment. Parallel alignment is assumed to have a lesser effect on caribou compared with new cut alignment due to existing effects on caribou habitat. For the purpose of quantification, parallel alignment is assigned a 20% inherent effect (Northern Resource 2014). New alignment is not afforded a reduction (100% inherent effect).

• Categorize new and parallel alignment segments into their respective restoration units and subdivide each unit by the habitat restoration measures (ha) before applying delivery and temporal multipliers.

• Calculate the residual direct disturbance value (RDDV) by determining the area of parallel and new alignment of direct disturbance and applying the inherent effect multiplier.

• Apply multipliers to determine the residual post-restoration value (RPRV).

• Calculate the residual indirect disturbance value (RIDV) by applying 500 m buffers to all anthropogenic disturbances, including the project remaining direct disturbance, and subtracting any areas accounted for by other existing disturbance buffers.

Annex A – Page A-20 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Table 4–2: Example Initial Offset Value Quantification

Restoration Unit Description (Project ROW) Residual Direct Project Inherent Delivery Risk Spatial Risk Temporal Risk Effect (RPRV Restoration ROW Disturbance Habitat Effect Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier & RIDV) (ha) Measure Alignment (ha) Parallel 15.48 0.2 1.25 1 1.2 1.03 Upland Seedling planting New 0 1 1.25 1 1.2 0 Access control Upland New 0 1 1.6 1 1 0 (e.g., rollback) Parallel 2.53 0.2 1.25 1 2.8 0.36 Lowland Seedling planting New 0 1 1.25 1 2.8 0 Operational access Parallel 3.6 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.72 Natural regeneration (10 m ditchline) New 0 1 n/a n/a n/a 0 Total Project Residual Effect (ha) (∑ RPRV + RIDV) 2.11 Indirect disturbance (RIDV) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 (500 m buffered area) Initial Offset Value (ha) 2.11

Annex A – Page A-21 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Table 4–3: Example Final Offset Value Quantification

Restoration Unit Description (Offset Location) Area of IOV Inherent Effect Delivery Risk Spatial Risk Temporal Risk FOV Restoration Habitat Linear Feature (ha) Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier (ha) Measure Upland Seedling planting Contiguous – 5 1.25 1 1.2 0.00 Tree felling/coarse Upland Contiguous – 5 3.3 1 1 0.00 woody debris Lowland Seedling planting Contiguous – 5 3.3 1 2.8 0.00 FOV (ha) 0.00

Annex A – Page A-22 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

The IOV determined through Calculation 4-1 will be carried forward to calculate the FOV after offset implement location(s) have been determined.

Calculation 4-1:

( ) = ( ( ) + + )

RDDV 𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐈= ∑ (paral𝐡𝐡𝐡𝐡 lel∑ (ha)𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑 x inherent𝐑𝐑 𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨 effect)𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨𝐨 +𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚 (new𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚 cut 𝐑𝐑(ha)𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑 x inherent𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑 effect)

RIDV = (500 m buffer (ha) – all other indirect buffers (ha))

RPRV = ∑ RDDV x (1 – (1/delivery multiplier x 1/temporal multiplier x 1/spatial risk multiplier)`

4.4 The Offset Selection and Implementation Plan

This section identifies the criteria used to select locations for offset measures for the project, the amount of offset area required and outlines a preliminary schedule for measures to be implemented.

NGTL follows the selection criteria outlined in Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (2012), where the preferred approach to implementing offsets considers the regulatory policies and frameworks under which offsets might be structured. There can be several challenges to using this approach including:

• absence of an established offset policy or other regulatory mechanism for developing offsets for caribou and caribou habitat;

• absence of provincial range plans, directives or preliminary guidance for priority caribou management/conservation areas in Alberta and BC; and

• limited availability of suitable offset locations within a caribou range that offer long-term protection.

In light of these challenges, NGTL will reference and if appropriate will incorporate guidance from the Recovery Strategy for Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada 2012), which identifies range intactness, reducing total disturbance and improving habitat condition as priorities.

The selection of offset locations will be completed at two scales: (i) landscape (or regional) scale; and (ii) site-specific (or local) scale. Considerations for selection of offset locations at the landscape scale include risks associated with offset permanence, caribou conservation benefits and spatial context. These risks can be mitigated through the following:

• regulatory mechanisms for protection of an area result in a higher degree of certainty in the permanence of the offsets;

• selecting offset locations that provide incremental conservation benefits, (adding to existing programs, land-use plans or funding); and

• selecting locations in the same woodland caribou range to provide ecological benefit to the affected herd.

Annex A – Page A-23 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

At the site-specific scale, permanence considerations relate to operational access requirements and minimal active use, including recreational, industrial and traditional land use access needs. These considerations are intended to increase success rates for offset measures in areas where re-disturbance is less likely. Appropriate locations will also ensure traditional access is not impeded by restoration measures. Lease holder or disposition agreements that permit application of offset measures and restrict further access are also site-specific considerations that might affect the permanence of offsets.

On past projects, NGTL worked collaboratively with regulators (e.g., AEP) to identify, prioritize and select candidate caribou habitat restoration areas in priority caribou ranges for projects located in a caribou range in Alberta. Selection criteria considered AEP’s priority caribou restoration areas, degree of existing disturbance, opportunities for collaborative partnerships and ease of access. NGTL anticipates ongoing cooperation with AEP as range plans are released.

Conceptually, early implementation of offset measures is a desirable outcome but there are a number of factors to be considered. Construction of the project can only proceed upon regulatory approval. Following regulatory approval, the necessary spatial data will only be available to accurately calculate the direct and indirect residual effects after construction is complete. These calculations are required to determine the initial and FOVs. Offset measures may be implemented as early as possible and may occur before construction; however, finalizing offset requirements will not be possible until after construction is complete.

4.4.1 Offset Location Criteria In offset planning, landscape level offset location selection criteria will include:

• range planning considerations specific to boreal caribou recovery efforts and management from discussions and consultation with provincial and federal regulators and available caribou location data;

• areas with reduced or minimal active traditional, recreational or industrial use needs;

• areas adjacent, or in close proximity to monitoring programs or other wildlife/landscape management objectives (e.g., Algar Restoration Project and LiDea Project [Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance [COSIA] 2015]); and

• areas that fall in provincial parks or other locations afforded long-term protection from future development (these sites will be prioritized with the Province to determine overlaps in provincial planning priorities and caribou restoration priorities).

NGTL gives preference to locating offsets within the affected caribou range. However, final offset placement will result from consideration of both the priorities of the provincial regulators, and/or available and appropriate offset areas.

After identifying and securing a location at the landscape scale, the site-specific scale is evaluated for restoration potential. Once this area has been investigated and caribou habitat considerations such as connectivity of caribou habitat and overall patch size have been taken into account, habitat restoration

Annex A – Page A-24 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019 units are identified and characterized. After habitat restoration units have been characterized, appropriate restoration applications are then implemented.

4.5 Offset Decision Framework

The offset decision framework (see Figure 4–1) will be applied to provide guidance on selection of offset locations and implementation of appropriate offset measures. The decision framework is a principle- based logic model that informs offset decisions to achieve the objective and goals of the CHROMP.

The decision framework will be applied after the implementation of caribou habitat restoration measures on the ROW and the IOV has been calculated. The decision framework guides the selection of the offset locations which will allow calculation of the FOV and selection of appropriate offset restoration measures.

4.6 Quantification of the Final Offset Value

The FOV is calculated once offset locations and offset measures have been identified. Risk multipliers specific to the habitat and habitat restoration measures are applied to account for uncertainty in implementation and time lag.

The FOV is calculated in a manner similar to the IOV. Identified offset locations are categorized by habitat type and habitat offset measures, identified as habitat offset units.

Multipliers are applied to the IOV for delivery, spatial, and temporal risks specific to the proposed offset habitat and habitat restoration measures. The resulting offset area for each restoration unit is then summed to calculate the FOV, using the equation in Calculation 4-2.

Calculation 4-2:

= ( )

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 � 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖 ℎ𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 The FOV will be quantified in the final CHROMP in a format consistent with the example in Table 4–3.

Annex A – Page A-25 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Figure 4–1: NGTL Offset Measures Decision Framework

Annex A – Page A-26 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

5.0 PROPOSED SUBMISSIONS OF CARIBOU PLANS

The following sections outline the contents of NGTL’s proposed submissions of future caribou plans.

5.1 Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan

The CHROMP will be prepared and submitted in conjunction with applicable regulatory applications and will include:

• a description of the caribou habitat restoration sites;

• consultation summaries and considerations based on relevant provincial range or action plans and learning from previous projects;

• quantification of the total area of direct habitat to be restored;

• quantification of the IOV; and

• description of the offset restoration sites and measures that will be implemented, if possible.

5.2 Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Implementation Report and Monitoring Program

NGTL will prepare a Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Implementation Report (CHROIR). The CHROIR will be submitted on or before March 31 after the implementation of restoration on the Project Construction Footprint (PCF) and offset measures, and will include:

• an update from the CHROMP that describes the caribou habitat restoration sites and measures implemented, including mapping that shows that measures implemented at specific locations;

• updated consultation summaries and updates or considerations based on relevant provincial range or action plans and learning from previous projects;

• quantification of the total area of direct habitat to be restored; and

• quantification of the FOV.

The CHROMMP will be submitted on or before March 31, after the implementation of restoration on the PCF and offset measures, and will include:

• a description of the offset restoration sites and measures;

• quantification of the restoration and offsets that were implemented (location, spatial extent and method applied);

• schedule for implementation and completion of offsets that are planned and underway (if any are still outstanding);

• monitoring plan (further discussed in Section 7.0) will define the methods and schedule for monitoring he restoration and offset measures, including an adaptive management process; and

• schedule for filing monitoring reports.

Annex A – Page A-27 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

If possible, deliverables on parallel timelines (e.g., CHROIR and CHROMMP) will be harmonized as a single filing.

5.3 Caribou Habitat and Offsets Monitoring Reports

The Caribou Habitat and Offsets Monitoring Reports will include results of the monitoring program and will be submitted as described in the CHROMMP.

Annex A – Page A-28 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

6.0 MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Monitoring and adaptive management are important elements to inform whether restoration investments are contributing meaningfully to the strategic outcome of conservation and recovery of woodland caribou. To this end, NGTL will develop a CHROMMP to monitor effectiveness of planned habitat restoration measures. The CHROMMP will be submitted to the NEB after the first complete growing season subsequent to implementation of caribou habitat restoration and first season offset measures. The monitoring plan will include details on monitoring (including ground-based, aerial and remote camera monitoring) and adaptive management. It will also include details pertaining to the design of the monitoring periods (methods, frequency and duration) for the habitat measures implemented. It will include information pertaining to the number and location of monitoring and control sites, evaluation criteria and definition of quantifiable performance indicators.

6.1 Monitoring Program

The CHROMMP will be designed to identify and manage issues requiring supplemental or remedial action to achieve restoration goals.

6.2 Monitoring Performance Indicators

After implementation of the caribou habitat restoration and offset measures, NGTL will monitor to validate that the objective, goals and targets outlined in Section 1.0 are achieved.

The success of the restoration and offset measures will be quantified by the performance indicators outlined in Table 6–1 and Table 6–2. The primary measures below are taken from Table 3–1 and the measures may also have a secondary function. The performance indicators are based on NGTL’s experience with restoration measures.

Table 6–1: Performance Indicators to Measure CHROMP Goals and Targets (G1)

Goal Target Primary Measures Performance Indicator (G1) NGTL’s caribou • (T1) Access is Implement access • <20% increase in access habitat restoration and lower on management: (e.g., rate, proportion, count) offset measures are controlled • woody debris from the baseline assessment as ecologically relevant, segments rollback measured by remote cameras practically located, and compared with • mounding • Access (rate, proportion, count) reasonably protected to uncontrolled • vegetation screens on managed segments is lower minimize potential for segments than on non-managed segments re-disturbance by human activity

Annex A – Page A-29 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Goal Target Primary Measures Performance Indicator (G1) NGTL’s caribou • (T2) Continuous • Development and • Long term monitoring shows the habitat restoration and improvement of implementation of a progression and protection of offset measures are planning tools NGTL caribou range restoration and offset measures ecologically relevant, and vegetation practically located, and environmental management reasonably protected to management plan/protocol to minimize potential for systems to ensure ensure protection of re-disturbance by human longevity of habitat restoration activity restoration efforts (cont’d) measures

Table 6–2: Performance Indicators to Measure CHROMP Goals and Targets (G2)

Goal Target Primary Measures Performance Indicator (G2) NGTL’s caribou • (T3) The species Implement habitat Upland and transitional forest habitat restoration and composition of restoration: habitat types: offset measures establish revegetated • minimal surface • achieve ≥80% survival rate for self-sustaining and restoration areas disturbance planted seedlings within ecologically appropriate regenerates on a • seedling planting 10 years following vegetation communities typical path of • shrub staking implementation of restoration that are on a trajectory ecological measures to the compatible succession • demonstrate sustained growth surrounding landscape • (T4) The sustained trends across ≥80% of growth trend of restoration locations within revegetated 10 years following restoration areas implementation of restoration is comparable to measures that of the Treed wetland/lowland habitat surrounding types: landscape. • where tree seedlings are planted (e.g., mounded sites), achieve ≥50% survival rate for seedlings/ transplants within 10 years following planting • demonstrate sustained growth trends across ≥50% of restoration locations within 10 years following implementation of restoration measures Shrub/graminoid wetland habitat types: • within 10 years following implementation of restoration measures: − ≥50% cover of native vegetation species in the Project Footprint − no restricted weeds

Annex A – Page A-30 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Depending on the implemented Project-specific restoration measures, additional performance indicators could be developed. The final performance indicators will be detailed in the Caribou Habitat and Offsets Monitoring Reports.

As outlined above in Table 6–1, the performance indicator for Goal 1 includes measurable parameters to define success of access management. NGTL considers a performance indicator for Target 1 of no increase (0%) in access after construction to be unrealistic. Recognizing this, but needing to establish an acceptable increase in access, NGTL established an increase in access of <20%. This performance indicator is intended to address a range of access changes between 0 to <20%. If it is found that access has increased beyond 20% in areas where caribou restoration measures have been applied, adaptive management measures will be employed at locations where additional access management is deemed necessary.

As illustrated in Table 6–2, the performance indicators for Goal 2 include measurable parameters that reflect the habitat type affected, and a reasonable timeline to achieve restoration success. NGTL has chosen survival rate as the measure because it is not species dependent. The growth rates of conifer species can be variable and tree height over time can differ based on habitat characteristics and site-specific conditions. Given the differences in site conditions between upland and lowland locations, and the potential for site specific influences and factors, tree height was not chosen as a monitoring metric.

6.3 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is the systematic process of monitoring and assessing outcomes and modifying habitat restoration measures, if necessary. NGTL will implement adaptive management by adjusting and/or supplementing offset measures, where warranted, to achieve the targets and goals, and ultimately, the objective of the monitoring plan using quantifiable performance indicators. Adaptive management is intended to:

• evaluate restoration measures, performance and effectiveness;

• identify the cause of any underperforming measures (i.e., microsite conditions that are either not conducive or suitable for establishment of target vegetation); and

• address underperforming measures requiring supplemental or remedial action.

The habitat restoration measures are considered successful when monitoring results indicate restoration has achieved or is on trajectory to achieve the performance indicators and, thereby, the monitoring plan targets. No additional measures will be considered necessary at that point. If performance measures indicate that targets are not on trajectory, restoration measures will be adjusted as soon as feasible and monitoring will continue until a positive trajectory is achieved.

Annex A – Page A-31 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

7.0 CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT OF NGTL APPROACH

Continual improvement reflects the refinements of the quantification methodology and the incorporation of new information as it develops through:

• finalization of provincial range plans and/or restoration initiatives;

• available literature;

• research from industry associations;

• lessons learned from other NGTL projects;

• results from the caribou habitat monitoring program;

• consultation with applicable regulators, resource managers and Aboriginal groups; and

• adaptive management practices in the field.

7.1 Caribou Habitat Continual Improvements

Caribou research is a growing field and it is anticipated that methods to restore habitat will continue to be tested, modified, and improved. NGTL will continue to incorporate new information on caribou mitigation and habitat restoration planning and implementation. If new research identifies success with alternative methods of caribou restoration, NGTL will determine if the methods are applicable for use on pipeline ROWs. Where appropriate and applicable, and supported by the regulatory community, new restoration measures will be incorporated in to the toolbox of measures available to NGTL to restore caribou habitat.

For example, in a recent submission, NGTL added the extension of bored installations to the access management and line-of-sight measures as a potential habitat conservation/restoration measure where conditions are suitable and the installation method is appropriate1. Similarly, measures that prove to be ineffective will be removed from the toolbox and the decision frameworks. For example, NGTL has removed earth and woody debris berms as a restoration measure because these features can be counter-effective, affording predators with improved viewsheds. Earth and woody berms also require large amounts of material that are not readily available under normal pipeline construction and therefore deemed impractical. Wood berms have also been deemed a fire hazard by local forestry officers.

Similarly, and as mentioned earlier in this plan, line-of-sight measures will not be implemented where the proposed pipeline parallels existing infrastructure due to decreased effectiveness. Although purposely installed line-of-sight measures (such as fabricated screens) will no longer be used, it is expected that by using Minimal Surface Disturbance construction techniques and as replanted trees grow on the NGTL restored lines, line-of-sight on the ROW will be reduced over time.

1 Liege Lateral Loop No. 2 (Thornbury Section) and Leismer East Compressor Station Project’s Final Caribou Habitat and Restoration Plan (NEB Filing ID: A87455).

Annex A – Page A-32 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Some key initiatives have identified important lessons learned related to oil and gas development in caribou range. Common among many of these initiatives are lessons learned on which plant species to use, when and where to replant, development of effective techniques to promote natural revegetation and a better understanding of methods to manage access. Key initiatives focused on revegetation and access management, as well as limiting growth and establishing plant species favourable to primary prey (e.g., CRRP 2007a, 2007b; CNRL 2010; Osko and Glasgow 2010). Projects also included tree planting initiatives, coarse woody debris management best practices, habitat enhancement programs and habitat restoration trials in caribou range (COSIA 2015; CRRP 2007a, 2007b; CNRL 2010; Enbridge 2010, 2011). Large-scale habitat restoration projects near Grande Prairie, Cold Lake and Fort McMurray, Alberta, as well as NGTL’s projects in caribou habitat have incorporated learnings from these initiatives (Annex C).

7.2 Industry Collaboration

The COSIA has four key focus areas: tailings, water, land and greenhouse gases. Within the COSIA land focus area is a caribou habitat restoration initiative with the goal of improving woodland caribou habitat quality and herd survival through restoration of historic linear disturbances.

COSIA has developed the following habitat restoration initiatives:

• determining effectiveness of different restoration techniques such as winter tree planting, mounding, seeding and placement of coarse woody debris. The winter tree planting trial was set up to determine the effectiveness of planting black spruce seedlings in wetland areas during winter. Results of the tree planting trial indicated 90% survival of the 900 seedlings planted;

• development of the Landscape Ecological Assessment Planning tool to provide baseline levels of varying land use. Landscape Ecological Assessment Planning can be used to determine the long-term effects of restoration in a given area, which can help guide planting initiatives;

• the Algar Historic Restoration Project takes an integrated regional approach, with six companies working together to repair fragmented habitat across an area of land outside their actual licence areas. This is a five-year program to replant trees and shrubs along the linear footprint in the Algar Region, covering an area of approximately 570 km2; and

• the LiDea Project aims to restore linear disturbances using mounding and tree felling. Rigorous monitoring and measurement programs have been designed for the life of the project, and currently include 37,000 ha of active treatment area. During spring and summer, conifer seedlings are planted along older, mounded seismic lines. LiDea is also experimenting with forest stand modification, which involves bending tree stems from the adjacent forest across the seismic line to create physical barriers and reduce sightlines along the linear corridor.

The Regional Industry Caribou Collaboration (RICC) is part of COSIA and is a multi-industry partnership focused on restoring caribou habitat through regional, collaborative, range-based efforts. The objectives of RICC are to coordinate habitat restoration in the short-term and long-term, coordinate future activity, support and lead scientific research, conduct applied trials and align caribou habitat restoration programs with provincially led Range Plans and Action Plans.

Annex A – Page A-33 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Although currently not an active member of RICC, NGTL has collaborated with its members on restoration projects. A major RICC research effort is to verify the effectiveness of restoration measures using a multi-scale predator/prey collaring program to address current knowledge gaps in habitat use and function. As new information on habitat restoration becomes available, NGTL will incorporate it in the planning and implementation process for its projects in caribou habitat.

NGTL is also a supporter of some significant research initiatives on boreal caribou through the Research and Effectiveness Monitoring Board in BC. The program is multifaceted but includes the restoration of caribou habitat in BC, research into predator/prey relationships, other research on boreal caribou in relation to their habitat, such as wildlife responses to habitat restoration in the Parker Range in BC.

7.3 Lessons from NGTL Habitat Restoration

Preliminary and final caribou habitat restoration plans were completed for NGTL’s Northwest Mainline Expansion Project, Leismer to Kettle River Crossover Project (Leismer) and Chinchaga Lateral Loop No. 3 Project (Chinchaga).2,3,4 Preliminary plans were also completed for Liege Lateral Loop No. 2 – Thornbury Section and 2017 NGTL System Expansion Project.5,6 First year monitoring results are available from on-ROW and offset area restoration. Based on NGTL’s experience with these projects, the following lessons learned will be incorporated into all CHROMPs:

• rollback was used as firewood by land users when stacked as ladders. A more random arrangement of wood piles to discourage wood removal is currently being tested;

• earth berms have been removed as a restoration measure because they have been found to be ineffective. Over time they settle and compact and do not perform as line-of-sight breaks. Predators have been observed by field personnel using these features as vantage points, providing a clear view of the surrounding landscape. Also, earth berms require large volumes of material that are generally not available during pipeline construction, particularly when minimal surface disturbance techniques are being implemented;

• tree planting on a linear corridor can have shading issues that are not seen on cutblocks (typical silvicultural practices). This could result in changes to the planting densities and planting considerations and configurations may be modified as the monitoring program progresses to reflect those site-specific conditions;

• access management cannot be absolute because of safety, as well as operating and maintenance activities that must occur. On previous NGTL projects, lack of access resulted in restoration measures (specifically, access management measures) being destroyed or removed to access the ROW. In the future, access management locations will be strategically placed to allow for maintenance and traditional use access;

2 NEB Filing IDs: A44778, A56798. 3 NEB Filing IDs: A48745, A56819, A60689. 4 NEB Filing IDs: A52951, A69803. 5 NEB Filing IDs: A71014, A72136, A87455. 6 NEB Filing ID: A79253.

Annex A – Page A-34 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

• where restoration measures have failed or been removed due to maintenance and operations, they will be replaced as part of adaptive management;

• line-of-sight breaks and access management on co-located ROWs may be ineffective at a corridor level where NGTL does not have operational control over all dispositions. Future projects that are co-located will not include line-of-sight breaks as part of offset calculations, although they may be utilized in applicable applications and/or as a result of consultation. To ensure long term protection of restoration measures, NGTL uploads the on-ROW restoration locations into a data management system called GeoFind to track locations within the company; and

• NGTL has implemented lattice style access control in areas where sufficient and appropriately sized timber is available. The lattice style is designed to be more effective because it is harder to move without specialized equipment and can be effective over a reduced length of treatment.

Annex A – Page A-35 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

8.0 REFERENCES

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2013. Integrated Standards and Guidelines. Enhanced Approval Process (EAP). Effective: December 1, 2013. Edmonton, AB. 94 pp.

Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. 2005. Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan 2004/05-2013/14. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 4. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. 48 pp.

Arsenault, A.A. 2003. Status and conservation management framework for woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Environment. Fish and Wildlife Tech. Rep. 2003-03. 40 pp.

Arsenault, A.A. and M. Manseau. 2012. Towards best management practices for the effective protection of boreal caribou. Poster presentation at 14th North American Caribou Conference. (draft manuscript in progress.

Athabasca Landscape Team. 2009. Athabasca Caribou Landscape Management Options Report. 75 pp. + Appendices.

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. 2012. Resource Paper: No Net Loss and Loss-Gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offsets. Washington, DC.

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL). 2010. Canadian Natural Resources Limited: Primrose and Wolf Lake: Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Program Development and Implementation. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., Calgary, AB.

Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA). 2015. COSIA: Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. Available at: https://www.cosia.ca/. Accessed September 2015.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2015. CSA Z662-15: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. Toronto, ON. 865 pp.

Caribou Range Restoration Project (CRRP). 2007a. Caribou Range Restoration Project: Guidelines for Planning and Implementation.

Caribou Range Restoration Project (CRRP). 2007b. Little Smoky Caribou Habitat Restoration Pilot Project Summary. Prepared for Suncor Energy, ConocoPhillips Canada, Canadian Forest Products and Alberta Newsprint Co. Unpublished Document.

Collins, W.B., B.W. Dale, L.G. Adams, D.E. McElwain, and K. Joly. 2010. Fire, grazing history, lichen abundance, and winter distribution of caribou in Alaska’s taiga. J. Wildl. Manage 75(2):369-377.

Courbin, N., D. Fortin, C. Dussault, and R. Courtois. 2009. Landscape management for woodland caribou: the protection of forest blocks influences wolf-caribou co-occurrence. Landscape Ecol. 24:1375-1388.

Annex A – Page A-36 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Courtois, R., J.-P. Ouellet, L. Breton, A. Gingras, and C. Dussault. 2007. Effects of Forest Disturbance on Density, Space Use, and Mortality of Woodland Caribou. Ecoscience 14(4): 491-498.

Courtois, R., J-P Ouellet, C. Dussault, and A. Gingras. 2004. Forest management guidelines for forest dwelling caribou in Quebec. Forestry Chronicle 80:598-607.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2011. Biodiversity Offsetting. Technical paper: proposed metric for the biodiversity pilot in England. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. 2010. Waupisoo Pipeline Project: 2010 Green Area Post-Construction Reclamation Assessment. Submitted to Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Calgary, AB.

Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. (Enbridge). 2011. Waupisoo Pipeline 2011 Seedling Monitoring Plot Summary. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., Calgary, AB.

Environment Canada. 2011. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa, ON. vi + 55 pp.

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa, ON. xi + 138 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). 2016. Range Plan Guidance for Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population. Species at Risk Act: Policies and Guidelines Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, ON. 26 p.

Fortin, D., R. Courtois, P. Etcheverry, C. Dussault, and A. Gingras. 2008. Winter selection of landscapes by woodland caribou: behavioral response to geographical gradients in habitat attributes. J. Appl. Ecol. 45:1392-1400.

Gurd, D.B., T. Nudds, and D.H. Rivard. 2001. Conservation of mammals in eastern North America wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conserv. Biol. 15:1355-1363.

Latham, A.D.M., M.C. Latham, N.A. McCutchen and S. Boutin. 2011. Invading white-tailed deer change wolf-caribou dynamics in northeastern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(1):204-212.

Northern Resource Analysts Ltd. 2014. Northwest Mainline Expansion Project: Final Offset Measures Plan for Residual Effects on Caribou Habitat. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, AB.

Oberg, P.R. 2001. Responses of mountain caribou to linear features in a west-central Alberta landscape. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

O’Brien, D., M. Manseau, A. Fall, and M-J Fortin. 2006. Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol. Conserv. 130(1):70-83.

Annex A – Page A-37 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Osko, T. and M. Glasgow. 2010. Removing the Wellsite Footprint: Recommended Practices for Construction and Reclamation of Wellsites on Upland Forests in Boreal Alberta. University of Alberta, Department of Biological Sciences. Edmonton, AB. 61 pp.

Pyper, M. and T. Vinge. 2012. A Visual Guide to Handling Woody Materials for Forested Land Reclamation. Report No. TR-31. Oil Sands Research and Information Network, University of Alberta, School of Energy and the Environment, Edmonton, AB. 10 pp.

Ray, J.C. 2014. Defining habitat restoration for boreal caribou in the context of national recovery: a discussion paper. Prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada/Government of Canada. Accessed from: https://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/ Boreal%20caribou%20habitat%20restoration%20discussion%20paper_dec2014.pdf.

Racey, G.D. and A.A. Arsenault. 2007. In search of a critical habitat concept for woodland caribou, boreal population. Rangifer Special Issue 17: 29-37.

Rettie, J.W. and F. Messier. 1998. Dynamics of woodland caribou populations at the southern limit of their range in Saskatchewan. Can. J. Zool. 76: 251-259.

Sorensen, T., P.D. McLoughlin, D. Hervieux, E. Dzus, J. Nolan, B. Wynes, and S. Boutin. 2007. Determining Sustainable Levels of Cumulative Effects for Boreal Caribou. J. Wildl. Manage. 72(4): 900-905.

Vinge, T. and M. Pyper. 2012. Managing Woody Materials on Industrial Sites: Meeting Economic, Ecological and Forest Health Goals through a Collaborative Approach. University of Alberta, Department of Renewable Resources, Edmonton, AB. 32 pp.

Annex A – Page A-38

Annex B

Caribou Literature Review

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... B-2

2.0 METHODS ...... B-3

3.0 BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU ...... B-5 3.1 Ecology ...... B-5 3.2 Threats and Limiting Factors ...... B-5 3.3 Regulatory Policy, Recovery Objectives and Guidelines for Boreal Caribou ...... B-8

4.0 CARIBOU RECOVERY AND HABITAT RESTORATION ...... B-11

5.0 VEGETATION RE-ESTABLISHMENT ...... B-13 5.1 Tree Planting and Natural Regeneration ...... B-13 5.2 Transplanting and Seeding ...... B-15 5.3 Effects of Human Use on Restoration ...... B-16 5.4 Wildlife Use of Regenerating Linear Disturbance ...... B-18

6.0 OFFSETS ...... B-21 6.1 Definitions ...... B-21 6.2 Hierarchy ...... B-21 6.3 Offset Measures ...... B-22 6.3.1 Canadian Examples...... B-24 6.3.2 International Examples ...... B-25 6.3.3 Challenges ...... B-26 6.4 Offset Design Elements ...... B-26 6.5 Offset Risk and Uncertainty ...... B-28

7.0 KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW ...... B-32

8.0 REFERENCES ...... B-33

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6–1: Multipliers Based on Ecosite Rarity ...... B-29 Table 6–2: The Wetland Replacement Matrix ...... B-29 Table 6–3: Basic Offset Ratios Based on Ecosystem Status ...... B-30

Annex B Table of Contents – Page B-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) has compiled a literature review to provide regulatory and ecological context relevant to boreal caribou, including threats and management considerations for recovery of boreal caribou. This context provides an understanding of the current knowledge of the value and purpose of habitat restoration and offset measures in caribou range.

In addition, available information on offsets, habitat restoration measures and habitat restoration methods were compiled and summarized in Section 6.0. This summary was used to provide the foundation for the toolbox of habitat restoration and offset measures available to NGTL to effectively mitigate potential Project effects on caribou and caribou habitat. Knowledge gaps that contribute to uncertainty in caribou habitat restoration are identified in Section 7.0. Based on the results of the literature review, the habitat restoration and offset measures best suited for caribou range are identified.

Annex B – Page B-2 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

2.0 METHODS

The literature review incorporates regulatory and ecological context to inform the selection of appropriate habitat restoration and offset measures. The key results from current boreal caribou literature as well as previous and ongoing habitat restoration initiatives, techniques implemented, and their reported successes and failures were reviewed to inform all Project-specific Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan (CHROMP).

The following presents further details on the approach, rationale and method used to conduct the literature review to inform NGTL offset measures planning decisions including scientifically-based definitions, mitigation hierarchy, offset measures, design elements and multipliers.

The literature review of habitat restoration and offset measures was completed using a systematic approach and standard research techniques, which enabled NGTL to consider the most recent published knowledge of caribou habitat restoration in the development of all CHROMPs. Literature reviewed included federal and provincial recovery strategies and management plans, peer-reviewed primary scientific articles, previously submitted NGTL caribou habitat restoration and offset filings, publicly available government reports, in-house reference material, guidance documents from expert individuals/agencies, and established offset policies and emerging offset policies from provincial, state and federal agencies in Canada and internationally.

The literature review included a systematic search of the following internet, industry and scholarly databases for queried keywords and phrases:

• Google;

• Google Scholar;

• Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) database, including Oil Sands Leadership Initiative historic filings;

• ScienceDirect (sciencedirect.com), JSTOR (jstor.org), ISI Web of Science (https://isiknowledge.com/) and ELSEVIER (elsevier.com) for biological and environmental science journal databases, including other related research fields and disciplines;

• provincial, state and federal government agency websites for established or emerging offset policies and frameworks (countries included: Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, UK and the United States);

• expert agency websites that provide scientific review and best-practice guidance and frameworks for established and emerging offset programs (organizations included: Alberta Conservation Association, Business Biodiversity Offset Programme, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Pembina Institute and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets); and

• expert individual websites (author-specific, where available) for published articles and associated links or documents related to the aforementioned sources.

Annex B – Page B-3 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

The following search terms were used in the literature review:

• caribou habitat restoration;

• boreal caribou;

• boreal forest and forested wetlands restoration;

• linear corridor restoration/reclamation;

• linear feature restoration in boreal forest and forested wetlands;

• Alberta caribou recovery/range plan/policy/action plan; and

• offset and associated modifiers, such as environmental, conservation, biodiversity, allowance, compensatory, mitigation, bio-banking, direct, indirect, in-kind, out-of-kind, like for like, multiplier and ratio.

The COSIA website (COSIA 2017) was searched to gather knowledge on current habitat restoration programs, techniques and monitoring results, including the COSIA Joint Industry Project Regional Industry Caribou Collaboration Project, LiDea Project, the Algar Historic Restoration Project, the Cenovus Caribou Habitat Restoration Project collaboration and Oil Sands Leadership Initiative environmental performance projects.

Several technical sessions related to habitat restoration for caribou were presented at both the 15th and 16th North American Caribou Workshops (2014; 2016). Relevant information for caribou habitat restoration planning related to use of rollback, vegetation heights, seasonal use of linear corridors by both prey and predator, efficacy of seedling planting, and monitoring wildlife use of restored linear features is summarized in the relevant sections of the literature review.

Caribou habitat restoration is receiving increasing research attention and it is anticipated that methods to restore habitat will continue to be tested and modified in the near future. NGTL will continue to incorporate this new information into the literature review, as it becomes available.

Annex B – Page B-4 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

3.0 BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU

3.1 Ecology

The boreal population of woodland caribou is listed as Threatened on Schedule 1 of Species At Risk Act, by COSEWIC and ‘At Risk’ under the Alberta Wildlife Act (AEP 2017a; COSEWIC 2017; Government of Canada 2018).

Woodland caribou in Alberta are found in bogs and fens with low to moderate tree cover and tend to avoid marshes, uplands, heavily forested wetlands, water and areas of human use (Thomas and Gray 2002). Local caribou population ranges encompass areas large enough for all life processes (calving, rutting, wintering). Therefore, woodland caribou require large tracts of continuous undisturbed habitat, as they disperse when calving to reduce predation risk (Environment Canada 2011a, 2011b; Vistnes and Nellemann 2001). Preferred habitat is typically mature coniferous forest (e.g., jackpine and black spruce) with abundant lichen, muskeg and peatlands intermixed with upland or hilly areas (Bradshaw et al. 1995; Brown et al. 2007; Brown et al. 1986; Courtois and Ouellet 2007; Neufeld 2006; O’Brien et al. 2006; Rettie and Messier 2000; Stuart-Smith et al. 1997).

Sufficient canopy cover or wind exposed areas are required to keep snow depth at low enough levels to allow foraging (Collins and Smith 1991; LaPerriere and Lent 1977; Schaefer and Pruitt 1991).

Boreal woodland caribou do not undergo seasonal migrations and remain in forest and peat habitats throughout the year (Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team 2005). Forested peat complexes are the primary habitat for boreal caribou and they require large contiguous tracts of this preferred habitat to maintain low population densities across their range as an anti-predator tactic (Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team 2005). Boreal caribou maintain spatial separation from other ungulates by occupying habitat that has a lower density of other ungulate species (ASRD and ACA 2010).

The rutting season occurs in early to mid-October, and caribou have a gestation period of approximately 7.5 to 8 months. In northern Alberta, most calves are born in the first two weeks of May (ASRD and ACA 2010).

Compared with other forest-dwelling ungulate species, woodland caribou exhibit low reproductive potential. Adult cows are typically three years old before they begin producing young and only produce a single calf annually (ASRD and ACA 2010).

3.2 Threats and Limiting Factors

Threats to boreal woodland caribou identified by the federal Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2012b), in descending order of direct impact on caribou population trend, are:

• predation;

• habitat alteration from human land-use activities;

• natural disturbance of habitat;

• hunting; and

Annex B – Page B-5 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

• climate change and severe weather.

Other threats considered to have a lower level of concern include parasites and disease, stress responses associated with sensory disturbance (noise and light), vehicle collisions and pollution.

Available literature supports apparent competition as the likely causal pathway for woodland caribou population declines, whereby primary prey species (e.g., moose, deer) increase with increasing proportions of early seral habitat on the landscape, causing a numerical response of predators (Seip and Cichowski 1996; Thomas and Gray 2002; Wittmer et al. 2005; Latham 2009; Environment Canada 2012b). Wolves are considered the primary predators of caribou across northern Canada and predation by wolves was implicated as the most common cause of death for adult caribou in northeastern Alberta (McLoughlin et al. 2003). Black bear can also be a common predator of caribou (Rettie and Messier 1998; Zager and Beecham 2006).

Increases in predator numbers subject caribou to unsustainable levels of predation, causing population decline (Wittmer et al. 2005). Predator densities capable of causing caribou declines are usually sustained by abundant alternate prey sources, such as moose or white tailed deer (Thomas and Gray 2002; Wittmer et al. 2005; Peters et al. 2013). Predation on caribou is thought to be largely incidental, given the low densities of woodland caribou compared with much more abundant prey species (Wittmer et al. 2005).

The selection of peatlands and old-growth forest by caribou, and non-use of these areas by moose, wolves (Rettie and Messier 1998) and black bears (Latham et al. 2011) was determined to result in spatial separation (James et al. 2004). This strategy is believed to be used to combat the widespread influence that wolves have in an ecosystem (Ripple and Beschta 2004; Ripple et al. 2014). Removal or alteration of habitat (e.g., forest harvesting [McCutchen 2007]) will dissolve what spatially separates caribou and primary prey (e.g., moose). Following forest harvest, moose and woodland caribou were more likely to use the same habitat, and woodland caribou suffered higher rates of wolf predation (Peters et al. 2013).

The influence of anthropogenic linear feature density on predation rates might be equally as important to caribou mortality as the density of predators (Whittington et al. 2011). The ultimate cost to caribou habitat suitability appears lower for linear feature induced changes compared with forestry induced changes (i.e., cutblocks) (DeCesare et al. 2012).

Linear feature-induced changes have been previously linked to changes in predator functional response (predator kill rate) while forestry induced changes have been previously linked to changes in predator numerical response (predator density).

Evidence shows scale dependent variation in caribou resource selection, where habitat selection at the population and individual seasonal home range scale is affected by forestry cutblocks (DeCesare et al. 2012). Forestry cutblocks are linked to increased predator densities (Latham et al. 2011). Conversely, caribou distribution is shown to be strongly influenced by linear disturbance at the finer (location level) scale (DeCesare et al. 2012).

Linear corridors provide improved access for predators such as wolves. Several studies have found that linear corridors are attractive to bears (McKay et al. 2014) and especially wolves as easy travel routes

Annex B – Page B-6 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

(Thurber et al. 1994; Stuart-Smith et al. 1997; James 1999; James and Stuart-Smith 2000; Whittington et al. 2011). As a result, linear disturbances can influence predator/prey dynamics (Bergerud et al. 1984; Edmonds and Bloomfield 1984; Rohner and Kuzyk 2000; DeCesare et al. 2010). Wolves travel faster along linear disturbances (James 1999; McKenzie et al. 2012; Dickie et al. 2016b; Dickie et al. 2017) and encounter rates between wolves and caribou have been shown to increase near linear features (James et al. 2004; Whittington et al. 2011).

Furthermore, it is suggested that while wolves increase movement rates on linear disturbance features, their movement rates decrease in relation to increased vegetation recovery height (Dickie et al. 2017) and proximity to disturbance features. This implies behaviour closely associated with prey searching and hunting (Ehlers et al. 2014). However, modelling the dynamic use of the landscape by wolves, primary prey (moose) and caribou showed that wolves experience no additional advantage accessing caribou from linear features, although they do benefit in accessing primary prey species (McCutchen 2007; Mummel et al 2016). This is supported by a study that found that kill sites were no closer to linear features than random (Latham et al. 2011).

Caribou are sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., industrial activity [Dyer et al. 2001], Dyer et al. 2002) and habitat alteration (e.g., forestry [Peters et al. 2013]), and to natural disturbance (e.g., burns [Schaefer and Pruitt 1991]). Long-term reduction in habitat effectiveness adjacent to linear features can occur as caribou have been shown to partially avoid habitats near rights-of-way (ROWs) (Dyer 1999; Oberg 2001). Avoidance of habitat near anthropogenic disturbances leads to indirect habitat loss through reduced habitat effectiveness for caribou (Dyer et al. 2001).

Methods and study populations vary among research studies that demonstrate caribou avoidance of disturbances by varying distances: 70 m (seismic lines and maintained trails [DeCesare et al. 2012]), 250 m (roads and seismic lines [Dyer et al. 2001]) and 1,000 m (industrial developments such as well sites [Dyer et al. 2001]). The federal Recovery Strategy for boreal caribou defines disturbance of critical habitat as the area affected by human-caused disturbance, including a 500 m buffer around the disturbance to account for avoidance by caribou, and the area affected by fire less than 40 years old (Environment Canada 2012b).

Restoration of disturbance assumes that caribou will return to being spatially separated from primary prey (moose, deer) and predators, and hence natural levels of mortality risk (Athabasca Landscape Team 2009). Early stage regrowth on linear disturbance has also been shown to substantially reduce access and movement rates of wolves, suggesting that functional caribou habitat recovery on linear features may occur faster than the return of historic vegetation structures (Dickie et al. 2017).

Management of boreal caribou habitat to maintain viable populations over time will require both minimizing the impact of future development and recovery of the existing industrial footprint.

Annex B – Page B-7 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Woodland caribou populations are very low in many areas and, therefore, populations simply might not rebound due to increasing rates of inbreeding and other, well defined detrimental effects of genetic drift that are characteristic of small, genetically isolated populations (Bijlsma et al. 2000; Hedrick and Kalinowski 2000; Keller and Waller 2002; Frankham 2005;). This phenomenon, known as the Allee effect, was recently suggested to likely occur in the boreal population of woodland caribou in Alberta (Hervieux et al. 2013; Serrouya et al. 2012).

3.3 Regulatory Policy, Recovery Objectives and Guidelines for Boreal Caribou

The identified regulatory policy and management documents considered to develop Project-specific plans include:

• Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan, 2004/05 to 2013/14 (Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team 2005);

• A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta (Government of Alberta 2011);

• Alberta Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan (AEP 2017b);

• federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (Environment Canada 2012b);

• federal Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population in Canada for the Period 2012 to 2017 (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017a);

• federal Action Plan for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada - Federal Actions - 2017 [Proposed] (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017b); • Provincial Restoration and Establishment Framework for Legacy Seismic Lines in Alberta (Government of Alberta 2017a);

• Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration Operational Toolkit for British Columbia (Golder 2015a);

• Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration Monitoring Framework (Golder 2015b); and

• Government of Alberta Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions (MSSC) (Government of Alberta 2018).

Further information on each of the documents listed above is summarized in the following paragraphs. NGTL will continue to work with provincial and federal regulators to align the approach to caribou with current provincial and federal policies.

The Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta (Government of Alberta 2011) identifies recovery strategies that include maintenance and restoration of caribou habitat, establishment of range-specific habitat objectives, management of other wildlife populations (predators and primary prey), adaptive management, as well as legislative and social considerations. A key strategy adopted by the Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta is the development of range-specific assessments and objectives (i.e., action plans), which builds on the work of previous recovery strategies, such as the Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan 2004/05 – 2013/14 (Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team 2005).

Annex B – Page B-8 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

The Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan contains range-specific caribou plans for the province, as well as province-wide goals and strategies. The overall plan has the goal to restore all legacy footprint in caribou ranges over the next 40 years to significantly improve habitat over time. The plan also calls for establishing conservation areas in portions of some caribou ranges. The plan specifically speaks to management of critical caribou habitat in Alberta including options for managing towards 65% undisturbed habitat.

Similar to the provincial policy, the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (Environment Canada 2012b) stresses the importance of landscape level planning, such as planning development activities at appropriate temporal and spatial scales, incorporating caribou habitat requirements in fire management plans, establishing key protected areas and incorporating adaptive management. One of the management approaches suggested in the federal Recovery Strategy to address effects of habitat alteration on boreal caribou is to undertake coordinated actions to reclaim boreal caribou habitat through restoration efforts.

This might include restoration of industrial features such as roads, seismic lines, pipelines, cut lines and clearings (Environment Canada 2012b). NGTL adopts the definition of caribou habitat provided in the Recovery Strategy (i.e., habitat in defined caribou ranges that is necessary to maintain or recover self- sustaining local populations throughout their distribution).

NGTL is continuing to work with Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) to align with the provincial caribou policy, the draft Little Smoky and A la Peche Range Plan and Caribou Range Plans currently under development for the Northeast, Northwest, Jasper, Narraway/Prairie Creek, and Nipisi/Slave Lake caribou range planning areas (AEP 2017b). Draft range-specific Caribou Action Plans were released in December 2017 (AEP 2017b).

The goal of the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada is to achieve self-sustaining local populations in all boreal caribou ranges throughout their current distribution in Canada, to the extent possible (Environment Canada 2012b). Population and distribution objectives identified in the Recovery Strategy include, to the extent possible:

• maintain current status of the 14 existing self-sustaining local populations; and

• stabilize and achieve self-sustaining status for the 37 nonself-sustaining local populations (a group that includes the WSAR, ESAR and Chinchaga caribou ranges).

The federal Recovery Strategy identifies critical habitat for the boreal woodland caribou as:

• the area within the boundary of each caribou range that provides an overall ecological condition that will allow for an ongoing recruitment and retirement cycle of habitat, which maintains a minimum of 65% of the area as undisturbed habitat; and

• biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou to carry out life processes (Environment Canada 2012b).

Therefore, the habitat threshold that provides a measurable probability for a local caribou population to be self-sustaining is considered to be 65% undisturbed habitat in the range (Environment Canada 2012b).

Annex B – Page B-9 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

This threshold has also been adopted under the Government of Alberta’s draft Woodland Caribou Range Plan (AEP 2017b).

The Provincial Restoration and Establishment Framework for Legacy Seismic Lines in Alberta (the Framework) outlines the Government of Alberta’s approach and restoration objective for caribou habitat restoration programs in Alberta, containing processes and expectations for program planning, delivery, quality control and monitoring (Government of Alberta 2017a). The document also outlines controls for data management. The Framework was developed to be applicable to all provincially led restoration programs on caribou ranges in the province, subject to adjustments based on learnings as part of an adaptive management approach.

In addition to the recovery planning and policy documents described above, NGTL has considered the Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions (MSSC) (Government of Alberta 2018) to develop caribou- specific habitat restoration measures. Both the approval standard conditions and recommended best management practices provided in the MSSC are intended to achieve the following desired outcomes for caribou range:

• reducing all sources of human-caused direct mortality associated with anthropogenic features;

• reducing excessive predator-caused mortality;

• reducing habitat loss;

• reducing the partial avoidance demonstrated by caribou in relation to industrial features; and

• reducing potential increases in distribution and productivity of other prey species.

Two other documents considered by NGTL in the development of caribou-specific habitat restoration measures were prepared for the BC Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society, as part of the BC Governments Boreal Caribou Implementation Plan. The Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration Operational Toolkit for British Columbia was prepared as an operational handbook and is intended to guide implementation of reclamation techniques for restoring caribou habitat. It is a toolkit of measures to address vegetation recovery of disturbed features, as well as recommending measures to address human and wildlife accessibility and mobility of these features. The toolkit includes guidance for:

• reclamation of new disturbance and historical footprint;

• restoration both in and outside of lease holders’ approvals;

• approved access control treatments and specifications; and

• monitoring of treatment applications to determine success.

The Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration Monitoring Framework (Golder 2015b) describes the rationale and recommended protocols to monitor the effectiveness of boreal caribou habitat restoration treatments with consideration of both a Project-level scale and a NE BC restoration program-level scale. Performance measures and recommended targets defined within the Framework are used to gauge the effectiveness of treatment measures applied over short term and long-term periods.

Annex B – Page B-10 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

4.0 CARIBOU RECOVERY AND HABITAT RESTORATION

Boreal lowland habitat types naturally have very slow rates of vegetation establishment and growth, making tree seedling establishment and growth in a 15-year period unpredictable. Guidelines for wetland restoration associated with oil sands mining (CEMA 2014) focus on disturbance types that are not applicable to pipeline construction and operation. Furthermore, reclamation of bogs and fens is in experimental stages. Historically there have not been standards and guidelines specific for reclamation of linear corridors including pipelines and seismic lines. As a result, restoration criteria and guidelines for forested areas in Alberta (AENV 2001, 2008, 2010; AESRD 2013a, b, c) were used to develop appropriate specifications for caribou-specific habitat restoration measures. Earlier NGTL Caribou Habitat Restoration Plans were guided by documents specific to disturbance types such as open pit mining or well-sites such as Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region or 2010 Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities for Forested Lands. These documents include specifications for various indicators using an end land use approach that targets reclamation to commercial forests, which conceptually provide other ecosystem functions including wildlife habitat (AENV 2010). The application of these guidelines to caribou-specific habitat restoration measures needs to be approached with caution, since they relate to a very different disturbance type (i.e., bitumen mining vs. pipeline ROW) and are developed for different objectives.

With these limitations in mind, it is recognized that the AEP guidelines for oil sands reclamation are developed for boreal forests with similar attributes to those on NGTL projects and, therefore, some of the thresholds and indicators were used to guide the development of targets and performance indicators for caribou-specific habitat restoration measures.

In particular, the quantifiable targets associated with treed lowland and shrubby/graminoid lowland habitat types incorporated the concept of plant community composition as an appropriate indicator to assess reclamation status and progress in these wetland habitats (AENV 2010). This is supported by the suggestion that the number and abundance of characteristic species (i.e., species typically found in undisturbed native wetland plant communities) and the number of restricted weeds are measures for plant community health (Ciborowski et al. 2012).

A common approach in reclamation of forested land in Alberta is the application of provincial standards developed to achieve equivalent land capability to support target end land uses, often with a focus on merchantable forest stands (e.g., AENV 2010; AESRD 2013a). In relation to oil sands mining in northeastern Alberta, Straker and Donald (2011) and Hawkes (2011) have suggested that current reclamation standards might not be suitable where there is a broader set of management objectives such as maintenance of biodiversity, creating functional forest ecosystems or restoration of species specific wildlife habitat.

The Reclamation Assessment Criteria for Pipelines (AENV 2001) recommends that equivalent land capability should take into account natural variability, which considers the range of landscape attributes that are encountered and influenced by slope, drainage, coarse fragments, vegetation growth and composition, and soil colour, texture, aggregate strength and size.

Annex B – Page B-11 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

The Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities for Forested Lands (AESRD 2013a) provides reclamation criteria that apply to well site leases and access roads, and associated facilities such as pits, campsites and offsite sumps. Criteria are provided to determine whether a reclaimed site meets equivalent land capability, based on function and operability of the land to support the production of goods and services consistent in quality and quantity with the surrounding landscape. A minimum 25% cover of herbaceous and of woody species is recommended for naturally regenerating and planted sites in forested lands. The document suggests that ecosystem function can be determined when natural processes are evident, such as proper drainage, moisture retention and cycling, soil and site stability, and nutrient cycling (i.e., litter formation). Recommendations for assessing reclamation success are provided for various factors such as drainage, erosion, soil stability, woody debris, plant community composition and cover, litter and LFH development, and soil characteristics.

The Alberta Regeneration Standards for the Mineable Oil Sands (AESRD 2013b) are similarly applicable to reforestation of oil sands mines. The standards outline protocols for establishment and performance surveys to determine reforestation establishment and continued growth, where commercial forestry is the end land use. Seedling planting or target densities are not specified. The standard does, however, provide guidance on determining poorly revegetated areas based on the size (≥0.5 ha) and proportion (≥25%) of trees affected by mortality, foliage loss/discolouration, missing or low density, physical damage, or poor form or vigour.

In response to the lack of clarity around habitat restoration objectives, treatment quality, monitoring and establishment targets, in 2017 the Government of Alberta released the Provincial Restoration and Establishment Framework for Legacy Seismic Lines in Alberta (Government of Alberta 2017). The framework outlines requirements for government-led restoration programs on legacy linear features and provides recommendations for voluntary based industry-led programs to move towards a common restoration objective. Indicators of restoration success are established within the framework to determine whether habitat is on a trajectory to become effective habitat. These indicators include:

• restoration programs and locations have been selected based on relevance to woodland caribou and contribute to efforts to restore large tracts of woodland caribou habitat;

• where advanced regeneration is not evident, treatments have addressed site limiting factors and have established appropriate trees based on the adjacent habitat;

• where advanced regeneration is already present and to the degree feasible, this advanced regeneration has been protected; and

• the treatments limit human and predator movement on the landscape (Government of Alberta 2017).

Habitat restoration planning steps are outlined including site selection, treatment delivery and quality control, survival assessment (years 2 to 5) and establishment survey (years 8 to 10). Establishment monitoring targets are provided with consideration for upland and transitional sites versus lowland treed sites; and in consideration of treated areas versus an advanced regeneration site. Regenerating trees must have reached a minimum height target by years 8 to 10 to count toward the stocking objective. Data management for provincial programs is also outlined as well as a commitment to adaptive management.

Annex B – Page B-12 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

5.0 VEGETATION RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Restoration of disturbed habitat has become one of the key components for caribou conservation identified through the federal Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2012b) and in provincial boreal caribou recovery planning (Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team 2005; Government of Alberta 2011; Government of Alberta 2016). This section summarizes information from habitat restoration guidelines and frameworks, previous caribou habitat restoration initiatives and published research. Information on restoration methods employed and effectiveness or success of restoration is included.

5.1 Tree Planting and Natural Regeneration

Recent research has shown positive results for establishing native vegetation on seismic lines and other linear features using techniques such as planting tree and shrub seedlings, and site preparation, such as mounding and ripping, to create microsite conditions that are conducive to both planted seedling growth and natural vegetation encroachment (Cody 2017; COSIA 2017; CRRP 2007a; Fuse Consulting 2014; Golder 2015c; Golder and CNRL 2016; Peters 2017, Filicetti at al., 2019). Measures such the use of coarse woody debris as rollback can address site condition issues, including competition from non-target or undesired plant species, erosion, frost, and heat or moisture deficiencies (CRRP 2007a; Vinge and Pyper 2012; Pyper and Vinge 2012). These methods are consistent with the approach adopted by NGTL in previous caribou habitat restoration initiatives.

Growth of planted and ingress seedlings on upland and lowland seismic line sites were measured ranging in age since treatment from 9 to 13 years following restoration treatment (Golder 2015c). Mounding with black spruce seedlings planted was the primary site preparation applied. Planted black spruce on treated sites were significantly taller and had significantly greater leader growth than ingress spruce. Black spruce on treated lowland sites were significantly taller and had significantly greater leader growth than those on upland sites. Overall, lowland sites had taller seedlings, with planted seedlings taller than ingress seedlings. Treatment age, shrub cover and depth to water did not have a significant effect on the height of planted and natural ingress black spruce seedlings. Mounding and planting of black spruce on wetter sites accelerated recovery time of vegetation to a height of 1.4 m by a minimum of 4 to 5 years compared to natural ingress on treated lines, and by 10 years compared to naturally recovery on untreated lines. Use of site preparation in lowland sites followed by seedling planting decreased the time for seedling establishment to reach 1.5 m in height, by approximately 5 years, when compared to natural ingress (Golder 2015c).

Natural revegetation and successful planting initiatives benefit from construction practices that minimize disturbance during development of the footprint. Minimum disturbance pipeline construction techniques that avoid grubbing and grading are effective at facilitating rapid regeneration of native vegetation in the ROW, particularly in areas with a deciduous vegetation component (TERA 2011a, b, 2012). Implementation of minimum disturbance construction can be limited by such factors as terrain that requires grading, ground conditions (e.g., non-frozen soils) and construction methods (e.g., crossings of third-party dispositions).

Annex B – Page B-13 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

A trial natural revegetation response inventory program in west–central Alberta reported that 85% of disturbed sites did not require artificial recovery, since a natural recovery projection was observed on previously disturbed sites (CRRP 2007b). Similarly, a study on the natural vegetation recovery of Low Impact Seismic (LIS) lines was noted to mirror general recovery patterns reported for conventional lines wherein upland and deciduous forest types support taller and more recovery of woody biomass compared to lowland and wetland forest types (Golder and Explor 2016). Controlling for forest type, LIS lines typically supported shrubs >0.8 m high within 10 years. For mulched LIS lines between one and ten years old recovery to shrub coverage was immediate and greater than the 0.5 m height which has been indicated in recent studies to influence wolf movement. Additionally, over half of sampled LIS lines in lowland ecosites supported black spruce seedlings. Many lowland lines supported seedlings >0.5 m tall immediately after they were mulched (i.e., 1 year after being mulched). These results confirm that by mulching, line preparation is preventing the ground disturbance impacts from conventional disturbance methods (Golder and Explor 2016). Line orientation, mulch distribution pattern, and ecosite type all had a significant effect on the average height of vegetation regenerating on LIS lines. Vegetation height was significantly greater on lines with a north-south orientation compared to lines with an east-west orientation. Compared to lines with a continuous mulch distribution, lines with scattered mulch or no mulch supported significantly higher vegetation. Lines that occur in wetlands, lowlands and upland coniferous ecosites had significantly shorter vegetation compared to lines occurring in deciduous uplands (Golder and Explor 2016).

Although regenerating conifers provide a better visual barrier, the faster growth rates of deciduous species provides for effective results more quickly (Diversified Environmental Services 2004). Research suggests that planting shrubs along with trees allows trees to grow healthier, faster and with less competition for nutrients and water from fast-growing grasses (COSIA 2017). It might also provide important habitat benefits for wildlife, compared with only planting tree seedlings, by providing hiding cover (Bayne et al. 2011).

Conventional seismic lines have been reported to have very slow reforestation rates (Osko and MacFarlane 2000; Revel et al. 1984), and recovery is strongly influenced by the characteristics of the adjacent forests (e.g., site productivity, tree and shrub species and heights) (Bayne et al. 2011). Conventional seismic lines cleared by bulldozer have been reported to take as long as 112 years to reach 95% recovery to woody vegetation in the absence of restoration efforts (Lee and Boutin 2006). Slow tree regeneration has been attributed to root damage from the original disturbance, compaction of the soil in tire ruts, insufficient light reaching the forest floor, maintenance of apical dominance from surrounding stands, introduction of competitive species (i.e., planted seed mixes), site drainage (i.e., regeneration slowest on poorly drained sites with low nutrient availability such as bogs) and repeated disturbances (e.g., all-terrain vehicles [ATVs], animal browsing, repeated exploration) on seismic lines (Lee and Boutin 2006; MacFarlane 1999, 2003, Revel et al. 1984; Sherrington 2003).

In van Rensen (2014; et al. 2015), the conditions that result in natural vegetation regeneration were explored. Natural vegetation regeneration is known to occur, but site-specific detailed information from linear disturbances where natural regeneration has occurred within boreal ecosystems, concluded that linear disturbances in mesic sites are the most likely to regenerate naturally without restoration treatments implemented (all things being equal), whereas a linear disturbance in a bog or fen is least

Annex B – Page B-14 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

likely to regenerate naturally. Natural regeneration to 3 m vegetation height within 30 years is inversely related to terrain wetness, line width, proximity to roads as a proxy for human use of lines, and lowland ecosites such as fens and bogs (van Rensen 2014). Areas adjacent to major rivers illustrate high probability of regeneration. Overall, terrain wetness and the presence of fens have the strongest negative effect on natural regeneration. Passive restoration was defined as leaving a treatment candidate site to vegetate naturally to 3 m vegetation height within 30 years without implementing revegetation techniques such as planting seedlings or using a seed product (van Rensen et al. 2015).

A recent study on seismic line restoration that focused on habitat suitable for caribou (i.e., treed peatlands) has shown evidence that the application of mounding and ripping restoration treatments resulted in a higher density of regenerating trees compared to both untreated seismic lines and adjacent undisturbed forest (Filicetti at al., 2019). Mounding can create microtopography that is similar to the hummock and hollows that were removed on seismic lines, and ripping within drier areas allows for improved moisture availability and aeration. Although mounding and ripping restoration treatments show positive results in restoring caribou habitat, this study occurred over a short time period (i.e., an average of 3.8 years), therefore, studies will need to continue over a longer time period to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of mounding and ripping (Filicetti at al., 2019).

As tree regeneration on seismic lines is a key determinant of caribou recovery success (MacFarlane 2003), factors that hinder revegetation efforts should be mitigated. Although seismic lines and pipeline ROWs are both linear disturbances, drawing parallels between regeneration success on these different features should be done with caution. Restoration issues on seismic lines might not be comparable to pipeline ROWs, given differences in disturbance mechanisms, degree of soil and vegetation disturbance, reclamation practices and width of the features (i.e., the wider openings of ROWs allow more light and insolation than narrow seismic lines, which might facilitate better vegetation regrowth).

Evidence presented at the 15th North American Caribou Workshop demonstrated winter tree planting and mechanically bending/felling live trees into a linear disturbance are emerging mitigation options that are currently being implemented in caribou habitat restoration programs (North American Caribou Workshop 2014; Bentham and Coupal 2015a; Golder and CNRL 2016). Tree bending/felling might be particularly promising as it promotes natural revegetation by increasing cone deposition onto the disturbance footprint and creating microsites through shading and dropped dead woody debris (Cody et al. 2016). Note that these treatments have been applied on seismic lines that are substantially narrower than pipeline ROWs and do not require continued operation activities, as do pipelines. Bentham and Coupal (2015a, b; 2016) explore the lessons learned from habitat restoration programs implemented on pipeline and other ROW projects as a comparison to historical seismic line recovery.

5.2 Transplanting and Seeding

Transplanting native vegetation appears to be difficult to implement on a large scale as part of a habitat restoration program for the following reasons (Golder 2012a):

• inconsistent availability of vegetation suitable for transplant;

Annex B – Page B-15 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

• potential for degradation of neighbouring vegetation communities if transplants are sourced from adjacent stands;

• transplanting programs often result in the storage of plant materials under less than ideal conditions due to uncontrollable factors (i.e., weather); and

• other treatments, such as seeding and seedling planting, have been shown to be more successful in comparison.

An alternative to salvage and transplanting vegetation is to seed disturbed areas using seed collected from the same geographic region as the restoration project. Broadcasting seed either aerially or using ground methods (by hand or mechanically) is also an option. However, since pipeline ROWs are relatively narrow openings (compared with cutblocks, for example), sufficient natural seed ingress from the adjacent undisturbed habitat can facilitate natural recovery without additional seed application. Logistically, the feasibility of seeding can be constrained where the reclamation project is a substantial distance from an airport or airfield (i.e., for aerial seeding), or where ground access during non-frozen conditions is restricted by wet soils. Furthermore, direct seeding of conifers is not a preferred reforestation technique, partly due to problems with seed predation (BC MOF 1997).

5.3 Effects of Human Use on Restoration

The ability of linear features to recover to a natural forested state is affected considerably by human use. Recovery of conventional seismic lines to functioning mountain caribou habitat was identified to occur within 20 years following disturbance in west–central Alberta (Oberg 2001).

Seismic lines in the Little Smoky Caribou Range that were allowed to revegetate naturally reportedly achieved an average height of 2 m across all ecosite types, within 20 to 25 years, when they had not been recently disturbed by human activity (e.g., recleared to ground level for winter access or seismic program use [Golder 2009]). The average age of trees on the control lines (disturbed sites, cleared areas with minimal vertical cover of vegetation and vegetation regrowth of 0.5 m or less) was only 10 years, suggesting sites that are continually disturbed or re-cleared by human activity take longer to regenerate.

Restoration efforts have also failed when ATVs destroyed seedlings after planting (Enbridge 2010; Golder 2011, 2012b). Evidence of the effects of repeated motorized access on vegetation establishment and regrowth supports the use of access management tools to enhance restoration success (Golder 2015d).

Subjective expert ratings suggest that the effectiveness of most physical access management measures (e.g., berms, excavations, rollback, visual screening) varies considerably between negligible and high effectiveness in managing human access (Golder 2007). Effectiveness of access management measures likely depends on suitable placement (e.g., placed to prevent detouring around an access management point), enforcement and public education of the intent of the access management (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 1995).

Public education (e.g., signs) facilitates respect for the purpose of, and compliance with, access management measures.

Annex B – Page B-16 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Mounding has been found to discourage human access (i.e., truck and ATV) during snow-free periods and also creates microsites that improve vegetation establishment (reviewed in Golder 2007; Golder 2017a). Excavator mounding is a well-researched and popular site preparation technique in the silviculture industry (Macadam and Bedford 1998; MacIsaac et al. 2004; Roy et al. 1999). Target density of mounding for access management and/or microsite creation purposes can vary from 1,400 to 2,000 mounds/ha (AENV 2010; Golder 2012a; Golder 2015a and 2015d). However, these mound densities relate to restoring seismic lines that were not frozen-in to allow heavy equipment access. Furthermore, mounds cannot be excavated within 5 m of the operating pipeline, which reduces the mound density relative to disturbances that do not have similar restrictions (Bentham and Coupal 2016). As a result, the mound density that can realistically be achieved in pipeline ROWs is lower.

Human access on open and closed (i.e., gated, barriered and recontoured) roads was monitored using remote cameras (Switalski and Nelson 2011). That study found that the frequency of detection of humans on closed roads was significantly lower than on open roads, but not significantly different among road closure types. The monitoring results also indicated significantly higher levels of hiding cover and lower line of sight distances on barriered and recontoured roads compared with open roads (Switalski and Nelson 2011). A similar study investigated the effectiveness of different approaches (i.e., year-round closure, seasonal closure, deactivation, and deactivation and closure) at limiting motorized vehicle traffic on unpaved roads designed to support forestry operations (i.e., resource roads) (Hunt and Hupf 2014).

Results demonstrated that closure or deactivation approaches significantly reduced traffic on resource roads (about 78%), with year-round closure being the least effective while seasonal (i.e., hunting) closure was among the most effective approach (Hunt and Hupf 2014). The effectiveness of different approaches did not depend on road quality (Hunt and Hupf 2014). Physical access management measures provide short-term solutions to manage access and allow for natural regeneration (Golder 2009). Once linear features have regenerated to a pole sapling or young forest structural stage, they no longer facilitate ATV access (Sherrington 2003).

The techniques described above to block human access also contribute to achieving sufficient revegetation to block line of sight. Short term management for access and line of sight blocking should ultimately lead to long term access management by way of revegetation of disturbed areas (Golder 2007).

Expediting growth of visual barriers along linear features can be achieved by concentrating restoration efforts on productive upland habitats, since woody vegetation species grow more quickly on these sites compared with lowland sites. Although regeneration of conifer species provides the best year-round visual barrier, their growth can be slow. Using combined plantings of conifer and fast-growing deciduous woody species in small areas (e.g., narrow strips of plantings across the ROW) can establish visual barriers in the short to medium term, while maintaining the objective of regenerating conifer leading vegetation in the long term.

Coarse woody material (rollback) can be effective to manage human access as well as to conserve soil moisture, moderate soil temperatures, provide nutrients as debris decomposes, limit soil erosion, provide microsites for seed germination and protection for introduced tree seedlings (Pyper and Vinge 2012; Vinge and Pyper 2012). Rollback is effective immediately following implementation, provided adequate

Annex B – Page B-17 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

material is available and properly applied. Debris should be spread evenly across the entire footprint width at a coverage/density that will not restrict ability to plant seedlings or limit planted or natural seedling growth. Where sufficient material is available, the suggested woody debris coverage at selected locations is 60 to 100 m3/ha on upland sites and 25 to 50 m3/ha on lowland sites, to mimic natural processes (Pyper and Vinge 2012; Vinge and Pyper 2012). Where sufficient material is available, woody debris coverage of 150 to 200 m3/ha along ROWs can be used to manage human and wildlife access (Vinge and Pyper 2012). The storage and placement of woody debris must consider reducing ladder fuels to reduce fire hazard (Pyper and Vinge 2012). Short segments (i.e., <100 m) of rollback might be less effective at deterring human access because ATV and snowmobile riders might try to ride through the debris or traverse around it in adjacent forest stands (Vinge and Pyper 2012). Complete rollback (i.e., over an entire linear disturbance) could be used to prevent motorized access (Pyper and Vinge 2012), however, availability of material is a limiting factor. The Integrated Standards and Guidelines for the Enhanced Approval Process recommend a 25 m rollback-free fuel break be placed every 250 m along segments of rollback (AER 2013).

5.4 Wildlife Use of Regenerating Linear Disturbance

Increasing research effort has been placed on assessing how wildlife use, particularly travel by predators, is influenced by regenerating seismic lines (e.g., Bayne et al. 2011; Dickie 2015, Dickie et al. 2016a, b; Dickie et al. 2017; Finnigen et al. 2014) and treated restoration areas (e.g., Cody 2017; Hawkes 2011; Peters 2017).

A pilot study in the Little Smoky Caribou Range measured effects of revegetating linear disturbances on wildlife use and mobility (Golder 2009). Data were collected for a group of predators (i.e., cougar, wolf, coyote, lynx, grizzly and black bears) and prey (i.e., moose, deer, caribou). Results of the pilot study indicated that revegetated seismic lines (i.e., minimum 1.5 m vegetation regrowth) were preferred by both predator and prey species compared with control lines (i.e., vegetation regrowth of 0.5 m or less), and control lines were used primarily for travel (i.e., both predators and prey species were constantly moving as opposed to standing or foraging). In addition, human use was almost exclusively limited to the control lines. The line of sight measured on the revegetating lines was typically less than 50 m long. It was suggested that moose and deer might have been attracted to the revegetated lines for forage availability and perceived cover protection (Golder 2009). The preference for regenerating seismic lines by wolves can be explained as a response to increased prey use of these lines (Golder 2009). The study also showed that caribou travelled more quickly (running more frequently) and did not engage in standing-related behaviour on control lines, whereas on revegetating lines, running was rare and standing-related behaviour occurred more often.

Vegetation height has been shown to be a significant factor in influencing wolf selection of linear disturbance features (Dickie 2015; Dickie et al. 2016a; Dickie et al. 2017). Dickie et al. (2016a; 2017) demonstrated that small increases in vegetation height, cover, and roughness slows wolf travel. For example, wolves travelled 1.5 km/hr to 1.7 km/hr slower when average Least Cost Path vegetation height was 0.50 to 1.0 m compared to less than 0.50 m. Wolf selection of linear disturbance features decreased with increasing vegetation with wolf travelling speed substantially lowered (wolf movement rates slowed by 66%; from 4.4 km/hr to within 1.5 km/hr to average forest speed) when vegetation height exceeded

Annex B – Page B-18 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

0.50 m. Increasing vegetation height above this threshold resulted in only small reductions in movement rates. However, 34% of a linear feature’s Least Cost Path should have vegetation exceeding 4.86 m to slow wolves to the same speed as the forest (Dickie 2015).

Similar results were reported by Finnegan et al. (2014) with movement rates of both wolves and grizzly bears decreasing by up to 70% on historical seismic lines where vegetation heights exceeded 1.4 m. Human use of seismic lines was also affected by vegetation height, declining markedly once vegetation height exceeded 2.0 m (Finnegan et al. 2014). Finnegan et al. (2014) classified seismic lines with vegetation heights less than 1.4 m as high human/predator use, vegetation heights between 1.4 m and 2 m as moderate human/predator use, and seismic lines with vegetation height greater than 2 m as low human/predator use. Linking LiDAR measurements of vegetation regeneration upon seismic lines and GPS telemetry data, the relationship between vegetation height and the use of seismic lines by grizzly bears, wolves, and caribou within five caribou ranges was investigated. Over 55,300 km (77%) of seismic lines established before 1995 have a current average vegetation height of less than 1.5 m. Animal response to seismic lines varied seasonally and was related to regeneration stage. Results suggest that bear use of seismic lines is primarily governed by access to food while wolves and caribou may use seismic lines for travel. Finnegan et al. (2016) described a planning tool to prioritize lines for restoration based on the probability of overlap between caribou and predators. This research is the first to prioritize habitat restoration for caribou based on connecting animal response to regeneration and yields important tools towards initiating restoration of caribou habitat across the Boreal forest.

Another ongoing project in northern Alberta involving the Cold Lake caribou herd (Multi-Scale Responses by Predators and Prey to Deactivation/Restoration of Habitat Disturbance Features: Individual and Population Components [McNay et al. 2014]) is currently investigating the responses of predator and prey species to the deactivation or restoration of habitat disturbance features. The goal of the project is to determine how different species (wolves, bears, moose and caribou) use the landscape, and how the presence or absence of linear disturbances might influence the functional and numerical response of predators (McNay et al. 2014). Preliminary results suggest that among all species seasonal and annual movements are variable, with substantial overlap between the range extents of all four species. Additionally, in these range overlaps, were 19 instances where predator and prey could have encountered one another. Furthermore, preliminary results present 11 deaths of 94 collared animals: two caribou, three moose, one bear and five wolves. Predator kill sites identified included 143 bear sites and 93 wolf sites. These kill sites were implicated in the deaths of 11 caribou, 22 moose and six deer. Ongoing data collection and processing will provide future results from scat analysis, prey body condition, habitat modelling and mapping.

The Multi-Scale Responses project aims to address several management questions regarding the desired vegetative and spatial characteristics on the landscape to reduce caribou mortality, how silvicultural techniques and habitat restoration measures can be implemented to achieve these characteristics, the association between specific characteristics and predator efficiency and/or density, and when deactivated linear features can be considered to have lost their disturbance function (McNay et al. 2014). This project is associated with the RICC initiative.

Annex B – Page B-19 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Mechanically bending or felling live trees over a linear disturbance (often referred to as line blocking, particularly when used in conjunction with other treatments such as mounding) is another potential measure that might have benefits for managing access and reducing wolf use (e.g., Cody 2017; Golder and CNRL 2016; Dickie et al. 2016b).

Trees are typically bent or felled from both sides of the linear disturbance. Tree felling entails cutting trees at the base from the edge of the linear disturbance and allowing them to fall across the linear disturbance.

Tree bending requires mechanically bending from the base of the tree, partially exposing roots, so that the tree leans over the linear feature, close to the ground. Tree bending can be expensive and the process is time consuming. A preliminary assessment of tree felling along seismic lines to block access was completed in the Little Smoky herd range in Alberta during summer and fall 2004 (Neufeld 2006). While results of that study showed no statistical significance between wolf use of blocked versus non-blocked seismic lines, there was an indication that wolves tended to use areas with unblocked seismic lines more often than areas with blocked seismic lines (Neufeld 2006).

Based on these results, it was concluded that if tree felling is to be used as a line blocking measure, it should be investigated more thoroughly, and not relied on solely as a mitigation tool (Neufeld 2006). Preferably, line blocking should be used with other management actions such as habitat restoration (Neufeld 2006), and continue to be evaluated for effectiveness using an adaptive management approach. As previously described, tree felling or bending is often completed in conjunction with other measures, such as mounding, spreading coarse woody debris or seedling planting to achieve line-blocking.

As presented at the 15th North American Caribou Workshop, preliminary results of linear feature blocking programs suggest that this type of mitigation can be effective in reducing wildlife use of linear features (Cody et al. 2016; Donnelly et al. 2016).

Annex B – Page B-20 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

6.0 OFFSETS

6.1 Definitions

Conservation and biodiversity offsets are generally defined as measurable conservation outcomes or environmental values resulting from actions designed to compensate for residual adverse effects arising from a development after appropriate habitat restoration measures are applied. Conservation offsets generally refers to an increased quantity, quality, or security of specific environmental values outside the Project Footprint to compensate for residual adverse effects arising from the development activity (Croft et al. 2011; DSEWPC 2012a; Environment Canada 2012a). Conservation offsets are generally applied in circumstances where the environmental values are specific to either individual species or plant communities under threat. Parameters can range from numbers of individuals of a threatened species or characteristics of its habitat, to the area and quality of threatened communities or ecotypes (Bull et al. 2013a; DSEWPC 2012a; Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007).

Some literature suggests that the potential overlapping benefit of conservation offsets might be the indirect conservation of localized biodiversity values where offsets are implemented (Bull et al. 2013b; Croft et al. 2011; DSEWPC 2012a).

Alternatively, biodiversity offsets are discussed primarily in the context of ensuring either no net loss or a net gain of biodiversity value opposed to more generalized environmental values associated with conservation offsets (BBOP 2012c; Calvet et al. 2015; Department of Conservation 2010; Doswald et al. 2012; Maron et al. 2012; McKenney and Kiesecker 2010; Pilgrim and Ekstrom 2014; Sustainable Prosperity 2014; ten Kate and Crowe 2014; TEEB 2010). Habitat offset aimed at achieving and detecting no net loss can only be successful where the offset ratio is large, monitoring is long-term, robust and precise and funding is available to substantially increase the amount of habitat if monitoring indicates that this is necessary (Pickett et al. 2013). Biodiversity offsets imply broader considerations of a landscape’s ability to maintain biodiversity, while still acknowledging the application might be focused on specific objectives (BBOP 2012c; Kiesecker et al. 2009; McKenney 2005; Poulton 2014).

NGTL follows an approach consistent with the adopted design elements for the development of conservation offsets (offsets) recognizing that the environmental values of concern are specific to the threats and unique conservation needs of caribou and their habitat. Literature reviewed suggests a strong preference for equivalency between the nature of the residual effects and the value added by an offset measure (i.e., like for like) (Bull et al. 2013a; Habib et al. 2013; Poulton 2013). This approach is particularly relevant when offsets target specific environmental values rather than a more general mandate that might suit higher-level biodiversity management objectives (Bull et al. 2013b; Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007).

6.2 Hierarchy

The sequence of actions to identify the need, availability and suitability of offsets is outlined in the Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (BBOP 2012c). Under this accepted standard, potential effects of a proposed development activity are assessed in context of a mitigation hierarchy. The mitigation hierarchy includes four steps: avoid, minimize, restoration/rehabilitation and offset (BBOP 2012c).

Annex B – Page B-21 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Maximizing the degree to which each step is pursued before continuing to the next is the recommended practice to reduce residual effects and the potential need for offsets (BBOP 2012c; DSEWPC 2012a; Environment Canada 2012a; Madill and Darling 2017). Offsets are a measure of last resort within the mitigation hierarchy, as their ability to counterbalance ecological losses outside the Project Footprint is more uncertain and of greater risk than habitat restoration measures applied to the Project Footprint (Bull et al. 2013a; Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007; Morris et al. 2006). Offsets counterbalance residual effects by replacing equivalent ecological mechanisms.

In the context of caribou habitat restoration measures that could be applied to the Project Footprint, the first steps of the mitigation hierarchy can be described as:

• Avoid: measures taken during project planning stages to avoid potential effects (i.e., route selection, locating temporary workspaces and facilities outside of caribou range).

• Minimize: measures taken to reduce the intensity, extent and/or duration of potential effects (including direct, indirect and cumulative effects, as appropriate) that cannot be completely avoided, as far as is practically feasible (i.e., reduction of footprint size, minimum ground disturbance construction methods, activity scheduling, using existing access and minimizing vegetation clearing).

• Restore: measures taken to rehabilitate or restore equivalent ecological mechanisms following construction.

6.3 Offset Measures

In referenced literature, including Environment Canada (2012a) guidance, existing offset programs commonly use the design elements and frameworks recommended by BBOP (2012c) as the standard best practice. Under BBOP, initial planning stages first consider the legal framework and/or policy requirement for an offset. Currently, there is minimal guidance or policy specific to caribou recovery or offsets in general in Alberta (Poulton 2014; Way 2017). In the absence of caribou range plans, and where disturbance exceeds 35%, Environment and Climate Change Canada considers all existing habitat to be critical habitat (Corcoran and Eyre 2017). Offsets may be relevant, if, after applying avoidance and mitigation measures, the Project will have residual effects. In considering proposed offsets, Environment and Climate Change Canada will assess whether the offset is consistent with the range plan (Corcoran and Eyre 2017). Notwithstanding, offset criteria, guidelines and frameworks referenced in the development of the CHROMP considered examples and applications presented in primary literature, as well as currently available but emerging science to address the unique conservation needs of caribou and their habitat.

According to BBOP (2012c), as well as DSEWPC (2012a), BC MOE (2014b), Calvet et al. (2015), Croft et al. (2011), Environment Canada (2012a), McKenney (2005), Poulton (2015), Sustainable Prosperity (2014), Schneider (2011), ten Kate et al. (2004) and Weber (2011), offset measures can be categorized as:

Annex B – Page B-22 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Direct Offsets

• Like for like habitat restoration or various methods of land securement such as land acquisition, provincial protective notations, rezoning and transfer of development rights.

• Population management measures such as fish restocking programs as defined by DFO (2013b), or other programs that provide benefit to species conservation and management.

Indirect Offsets

• Financial offset mechanisms such as bio-banking systems, trust funds or other trading programs where contributions are made in advance of the Project development proceeding.

• Research and monitoring programs such as financial contributions to develop the scientific knowledge concerning the environmental value or ecological mechanisms.

A habitat-based rationale specifies that direct offsets are distinct from indirect offsets based on whether habitat is, or will be, directly modified (Bull et al. 2013a; BBOP 2012a). Direct offsets in the form of land securement for habitat have been used recently by proponents of other industrial projects, including the Joslyn North Mine Project (Total E&P Canada Ltd.), the Roman Coal Mine (Peace River Coal Inc.), the True North Forest (Shell Canada), Trans Mountain Pipeline (Kinder Morgan Canada) (Poulton 2015) and a recent Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA 2012).

Indirect offsets are considered measures that contribute to research programs, industry-specific knowledge gaps concerning uncertainty of environmental values or ecological mechanisms, and financial compensatory mechanisms through established banking trusts (BBOP 2012c; Croft et al. 2011; DSEWPC 2012a; Madill and Darling 2017; Schneider 2011; ten Kate et al. 2004).

Financial offsets ensure greater ecological effectiveness of offsets than the direct approach (Calvet et al. 2015). However, in terms of ecological and geographical equivalence, the direct offsets approach is better at taking specific ecological features into account. From an economic perspective, the banking mechanism is more efficient than the direct offsets approach, but the economic constraints behind this mechanism can lead to inappropriate biodiversity conservation outcomes.

An evaluation of offset opportunities for caribou in Alberta and practical impediments for implementation was completed by Robichaud and Knopf (2015). The authors concluded that a number of actions to offset impacts of development and achieve no net loss or net positive impact for caribou are theoretically feasible (i.e., if implemented they should work), including habitat restoration and manipulations of the large mammal predator-prey system. However, implementation challenges are substantial and include a lack of mechanisms for setting aside some resources for long periods of time, public opposition to predator control, and uncertainty associated with loss-gain calculations. A framework and related policy for offsets are currently lacking in Alberta and their development is urgently needed to guide successful design and implementation of offsets for caribou.

Annex B – Page B-23 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

6.3.1 Canadian Examples

In Canada, compensating for lost fish habitat was first introduced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) as a policy objective to achieve net gain of habitat within its 1986 Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO 1986). In 2013, DFO amended the Fisheries Act, embedding a modernized approach to offsetting into regulation. Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting (DFO 2013), requires proponents of projects that cause serious harm to fish and fish habitat to offset that harm to maintain and enhance the ongoing productivity of important fisheries serving the public interest.

Offset measures include habitat restoration and enhancement, habitat creation, chemical or biological manipulations (stocking of fish or control of aquatic invasive species), complementary measures (contributions to scientific research to maintain or enhance productivity of fisheries) and habitat banking in advance of the Project’s impact.

Provincial requirements for compensation of the permanent loss of wetlands are discussed in Alberta’s Wetland Policy (Government of Alberta 2013). Where permanent losses occur, the policy employs restorative and non-restorative replacement objectives where offset ratios consider the value of wetland lost versus the value of wetland replaced. Wetland evaluation criteria include biodiversity, water quality improvement, flood reduction, human value and relative abundance (current versus historical). Offsets for wetlands in Alberta are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and follow guidance documents and frameworks for other wetland compensation programs in Canada (Cox and Grose 2000). A proponent is offered the options of reducing their own impact, implementing restorative treatment, which could take the form of the developer’s own restoration, enhancement or construction of another wetland, or paying an in-lieu fee into a government-authorized fund (Poulton 2015).

The Alberta Land Stewardship Act has provisions that endorse in general terms the research and development of new legal and policy tools to pursue objectives and regional plans (Poulton 2015). Among these are offsets.

Conservation offset policy is very much in early development in Alberta. However, the Government of Alberta has committed to interested stakeholders to examine a number of regulatory instrument options, including a regulation-based biodiversity offset policy, available under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act. In Canada, both federally and provincially, there is generally a lack of frameworks that enable best practices on offsets (Sustainable Prosperity (2014). Alberta is focusing its policy development upon adapting a model of conservation offsetting which was developed in Alberta originally for greenhouse gases and wetlands (Poulton 2015). NGTL will continue its participation in this and other stakeholder consultation opportunities provided by the Government of Alberta into the future.

The British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) Policy for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Procedures) (BC MOE 2014a) consider design elements in terms of environmental value and ecological equivalency (BC MOE 2014a). The Procedures for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Procedures) recognize the importance of the best available data and information to be used for developing procedures for specific environmental values, associated components and risks (BC MOE 2014b). Environmental values and risks are reviewed in the

Annex B – Page B-24 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019 context of the mitigation hierarchy; offsets are judged on a case-by-case basis in consideration of the residual effects (Madill and Darling 2017).

BC MOE (2014b) introduced the concept of environmental indicators as the metrics to trend and report on the processes affecting environmental components. Environmental risks are considered in terms of probability of occurrence and consequence to the environmental value and graded using a qualitative matrix (BC MOE 2014b).

British Columbia’s new Water Sustainability Act came into force in early 2016, while some of the regulations supporting it are under development. Ontario’s Endangered Species Act allows for a form of offsetting through the use of overall benefit permits. The overall benefit permit authorizes a person, company or organization to perform a harmful activity, as long as they provide an overall benefit to the species or environmental resource through impact monitoring, effectiveness monitoring and supplementary actions to achieve the overall benefit (i.e., offset measures). Examples such as these demonstrate how several provinces have regulatory and policy regimes incorporating the mitigation hierarchy and the concepts of habitat offsets or compensation.

Although offset mechanisms can be found in various policies and pieces of legislation in Canada, implementation is in early stages and policy-makers and program operators are still interpreting what the policies mean for how best to implement offsets in practice. While many are cautiously optimistic that offsets will achieve positive outcomes, it remains too early to say conclusively if they are indeed being applied in ways that support conservation goals and protect biodiversity and habitat (Sustainable Prosperity 2014).

6.3.2 International Examples

In the United States, early examples of offset policies include the Clean Water Act (1972) and the Endangered Species Act (1973). Compensatory mechanisms under these legislative acts (as they evolved) generally consider the type, degree and scale of habitat disturbance, where compensation ranges from habitat restoration activities through financial contributions to trusts or other conservation programs. Previously, the United States Department of the Interior had an Instruction Memorandum, which outlined offsite mitigations where Project effects could not be mitigated to an acceptable level onsite (1740/1790 [310/230] P, Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-204). The United States wetland and stream mitigation policies are well-established offset programs. Conservation banks for wetlands, stream mitigations and threatened species management have seen modest increases at both state and federal jurisdictions in the Unites States recently (Environmental Law Institute 2002). Some of these programs follow no net loss design elements within environmental impact assessment criteria, while others provide indirect contributions to specific conservation programs. Similar offset models are observed in Africa, the European Union and South America, which are either emerging policies or voluntary contributions (Madsen et al. 2011).

Madsen et al. (2011) documented at least 45 existing compensatory mitigation programs, ranging from banking of biodiversity credits through allocation of development fees, to policies that drive one-time offsets. At time of publication, there were another 27 programs in various stages of development (Madsen et al. 2011). Countries with offset policies enabled through legislation include Australia, Brazil, Canada,

Annex B – Page B-25 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

New Zealand, Sweden and the United States (Bovarnick et al. 2010; DEFRA 2013; DSEWPC 2012a; Government of Western Australia 2011; Madsen et al. 2011; NSW Government 2014; Queensland Government 2014).

Offset policies in Australia and New Zealand generally follow the mitigation hierarchy with no net loss objectives (Department of Conservation 2010; DSEWPC 2012a; Government of Western Australia 2011; NSW Government 2014; Queensland Government 2014). With established policies dating back nearly 20 years, offset programs are relatively diversified with established bio-banking trust funds (or conservation banks) and other offset mechanisms under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Australia) and The Conservation Act (New Zealand). Bio-banking trust funds have provided flexibility to align offsets toward the priority conservation objectives. A prominent example is The Reef Trust, with the strategic objective of improving water quality, habitat, managing invasive species and protecting threatened species in The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (Commonwealth of Australia 2015).

6.3.3 Challenges

Where offset policies are established, some have been acknowledged as imperfect, uncertain or ineffective in maintaining environmental values (Bull et al. 2013a; DEFRA 2013; Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007; Madsen et al. 2011; Morris et al. 2006). One of the most common criticisms levelled at offsets is that they exchange certain and almost immediate losses for uncertain future gains. In the case of restoration offsets, gains might be realized after a time delay of decades, and with considerable uncertainty (Laitila et al. 2014). Offsets are perceived as more remote and uncertain than actions directly applied to prevent, reduce or repair a development’s effects. Offsets cannot make unacceptable development acceptable; they simply provide an additional tool that can be used during the environmental impact assessment process (BBOP 2012c; DEFRA 2013; Department of Conservation 2010; DSEWPC 2012a).

Bull et al. (2013a) provides a recent review of the theoretical and practical challenges of offset guidelines, frameworks and policy, and identifies the importance of an established policy or legal framework to direct, protect and sustain offsets programs. Additional recommendations for offset criteria include, objectives (i.e., equivalency, permanency and uncertainty) and the degree of financial investment necessary to achieve gains (i.e., multipliers) be based on scientific research, rather than a priori assumptions of offset effectiveness (Bull et al. 2013a).

Despite the complex and inter-relating challenges associated with offset design, objectives, implementation and compliance, they are not considered sufficiently flawed to be dismissed as a policy instrument. In the absence of conclusive scientific research to provide guidance, adaptive management is suggested to provide an opportunity to reduce uncertainty risk for specific circumstances where offset response cannot be adequately predicted or does not achieve gains (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007).

6.4 Offset Design Elements

Design elements are offset selection factors chosen in consideration of the potential environmental effects of the Project, as well as the unique conservation needs, including equivalency, additionality, location, timing, duration and accountability. Design elements consider the environmental values, available offset

Annex B – Page B-26 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

measures, their effectiveness and the achievability of objectives (Bull et al. 2013a; BBOP 2012c; DSEWPC 2012b; McKenney 2005; McKenney and Kiesecker 2010).

Proponents advocate offsets as an effective and operationally efficient mechanism for enhancing environmental values and achieving important conservation objectives (Bovarnick et al. 2010; BBOP 2013; Croft et al. 2011; Dyer et al. 2008; McKenney 2005; McKenney and Kiesecker 2010; Pickett et al. 2013; Sustainable Prosperity 2014). Offsets in their various forms (e.g., like for like mitigation, banking or trading programs, and land securement) provide flexibility for stakeholders, industry and regulatory authorities to exercise a number of measures where legislative frameworks and policy exist. However, a large amount of effort is required for successful outcomes (Pickett et al. 2013). The reasons why offsets are undertaken vary. Offsets can be undertaken voluntarily or can be a regulatory requirement imposed as a condition of approval before receiving a permit for a specific project (Calvet et al. 2015; Doswald et al. 2012; Poulton 2015; Sustainable Prosperity 2014). A key benefit of offsets is that they allow both offset purchasers and offset creators flexibility. Developers will look at the cost of complying with offset requirements and will factor that cost into project costs, ultimately deciding whether or not to proceed with their proposed project or whether to redesign the project to lessen impacts on environmental values (Sustainable Prosperity 2014).

International best practices suggest that offset design elements should be considered on a case-by-case basis and reflective of the legislative framework governing the offset requirement. Furthermore, offset design elements should address residual effects of the development and provide benefit to environmental values or equivalent ecological mechanisms affected (BBOP 2012c; 2013; DEFRA 2013; DSEWPC 2012a; Environment Canada 2012a; ten Kate et al. 2004).

Monitoring of habitat offset projects is required pre- and post-development to determine success, and long-term monitoring is required to evaluate sustainability (Pickett et al. 2013; Quintero and Mathur 2011).

The following design elements are identified as a starting point for the development conservation allowances or conservation offsets (Doswald et al. 2012; Environment Canada 2012a; Pilgrim and Ekstrom 2014; Sustainable Prosperity 2014):

• Effectiveness: the likelihood that the objective of the offset will be achieved, and that the chance of failure is minimized.

• Equivalency: offsets should compensate for adverse impacts by protecting, enhancing or restoring equivalent ecological mechanisms at another site.

• Additionality: offsets should provide ecological protection beyond what would be provided under a business-as-usual scenario.

• Location: the location of offsets should have comparable ecosystem values, such as species composition and habitat structure, and should be determined based on an assessment of the relevant species and habitat/ecosystem context.

• Timing: the preference is for offsets that can be implemented before the adverse impacts of proposed development occur.

Annex B – Page B-27 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

• Permanence: the positive effects of offsets should last an appropriate amount of time (ideally, in perpetuity) to compensate for the duration of the ecological loss resulting from the project.

• Accountability: offsets should be formalized through written documentation, or, where possible, formalized through permitting or other conditions.

Additional offset design elements described by Environment Canada (2012a) include:

• Providing an operational framework relevant to the jurisdiction within which the project is located.

• Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy and international best practice suggested by BBOP (2012c, 2013) and other offset policies (Department of Conservation 2010; DSEWPC 2012a; Government of Western Australia 2011; NSW Government 2014).

• Alignment of environmental values with the unique conservation needs of caribou and federal recovery strategy objectives (e.g., (Environment Canada 2012b) and provincial guidelines (Government of Alberta 2011).

• Providing consistency with current federal and provincial position statements and expert agency recommendations concerning offsets (Croft et al. 2011; DEFRA 2011; Dyer et al. 2008; Poulton 2014; Schneider 2011; Weber 2011).

6.5 Offset Risk and Uncertainty

Multipliers for offset measures are used to address the risks and uncertainties associated with different types of offset measures (Australian Government 2012; BBOP 2012c; Croft et al. 2011; DEFRA 2012; Dyer et al. 2008; McKenney and Kiesecker 2010; Moilanen et al. 2009). Within the literature, multipliers vary considerably between regulatory jurisdictions and agencies, including the methods used to calculate an appropriate multiplier (Australian Government 2012; Barker 2017; BBOP 2012b; Cole 2010; Croft et al. 2011; Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning 2007; Government of Alberta 2013; Moilanen et al. 2009; Queensland Government 2014). Offset measures based on scientific knowledge or proven techniques reduce the need for higher multipliers as uncertainty and risk concerning offset effectiveness are predictable (BBOP 2013; Cox and Grose 2000; Croft et al. 2011; DSEWPC 2012a; Moilanen et al. 2009). Higher multipliers are employed to discourage development activities where the permanent loss of environmental values or ecological mechanisms may occur, or in areas that are considered more at risk or of higher value (Cox and Grose 2000; Croft et al. 2011; DSEWPC 2012a; Government of Alberta 2013; Moilanen et al. 2009). Indirect offsets (e.g., research programs) generally incur higher multipliers where equivalency to the environmental values or ecological mechanisms could not be achieved (Cox and Grose 2000; DSEWPC 2012a; Government of Alberta 2013; Moilanen et al. 2009).

A minimum multiplier of 1 has been proposed for direct offsets (i.e., like for like measures) to achieve no net loss for equivalent environmental values or ecological mechanisms (Croft et al. 2011; DEFRA 2012; DSEWPC 2012a). However, several studies investigating the effectiveness of offset programs indicate that compliance and monitoring are currently insufficient to achieve no net loss, and suggest that a higher offset ratio might be required, even with improved compliance (Harper and Quigley 2005a, b; Quigley and Harper 2006). Examples of multipliers previously proposed or published are provided below.

Annex B – Page B-28 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

A like for like model for offset multipliers in Alberta was developed, using ecosite rarity as a surrogate for biodiversity (Croft et al. 2011). Ecosites were chosen as the preferred unit of measure since they provide a coarse filter representation of ecosystem form and function across the landscape, are well understood and are relatively easily identified using remote sensing techniques and existing predictive models. The relative abundance or rarity of ecosites across the landscape provides a reliable and defendable measure of relative biodiversity value. Offset ratios ranged from 1:1 to 4:1, depending on the respective rarity of the ecosite being disturbed and the ecosite where offsets were located. An offset ratio of 1:1 was proposed for offsets located in ecosites of equal or greater rarity than the disturbed ecosite, and the offset ratio increased to 4:1 if more common ecosites were offset (Table 6–1).

Table 6–1: Multipliers Based on Ecosite Rarity

Disturbance Ecosites e,f,g c,g a,b d e,f,g 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 Offset Ecosites c,g 2:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 a,b 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:1 d 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 Source: Croft et al. (2011). In situations where offsets are required outside of the natural subregion where the residual effects occurred, proposed multipliers are either doubled (ecosite exists in the subregion where the disturbance occurred) or increased to 10 (ecosite does not exist within the natural subregion where the disturbance occurred). Successional stage was not considered when determining equivalency as it was assumed that if two locations (i.e., project footprint and offset location) are classified as the same ecosite then the characteristics unique to the ecosite (e.g., species composition) will be the same at some point in time (Croft et al. 2011).

The Alberta Wetland Policy (Government of Alberta 2013) uses incremental multipliers that consider restorative and non-restorative objectives for the permanent loss of wetlands. Based on the Wetland Replacement Matrix (Table 6–2), multipliers vary from 0.125 to 8, based on the value of wetland lost versus the value of the wetland replaced (Government of Alberta 2013). Wetland evaluation criteria include biodiversity, water quality improvement, flood reduction, human value and relative abundance (i.e., current versus historical, where data exists). A midpoint multiplier of 3 is the suggested multiplier necessary to achieve the goals of the policy, and takes into account factors such as decreased function of a restored versus natural wetland, time lag between restoration and return of function and failure of some proportion of restored wetlands (Government of Alberta 2013).

Table 6–2: The Wetland Replacement Matrix

Value of Replacement Wetland D C B A Value of Lost A 8:1 4:1 2:1 1:1 Wetland B 4:1 2:1 1:1 0.5:1 C 2:1 1:1 0.5:1 0.25:1

Annex B – Page B-29 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Value of Replacement Wetland Value of Lost D 1:1 0.5:1 0.25:1 0.125:1 Wetland (cont’d)

Notes: Value of wetlands goes from A (highest) to D (lowest). Source: Government of Alberta (2013). The Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy (Queensland Government 2014) prescribes multipliers up to a maximum of 4, except where connectivity is impacted (multiplier set at 1) or for disturbance on protected areas (multipliers may be as high as 10). In South Africa, offset ratios are based on the status of the ecosystem being disturbed (Table 6–3), and could be adjusted depending on the condition of the affected habitat, the presence of threatened species, the presence of special habitats, the biodiversity process value of the affected habitat, and the importance of biodiversity underpinning valued ecosystem services (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning 2007).

Table 6–3: Basic Offset Ratios Based on Ecosystem Status

Ecosystem Status Offset Ratio Critically endangered (only under exceptional 30:1 circumstances where offsets are appropriate) Endangered 20:1 Vulnerable 10:1 Least threatened 1:1 Source: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2007). A theoretical analysis of offset multiplier requirements using a probabilistic modelling approach concerning offset delivery, ability to achieve no net loss and uncertainty risks associated with habitat restoration has been developed (Moilanen et al. 2009). Multipliers rapidly move from 2 to greater than 100 where the predicted probability of restoration failure exceeds 0.5 (i.e., greater than 50%) and the information gap concerning uncertainty of habitat restoration is moderate to high (i.e., α >0.4) (Moilanen et al. 2009). Moilanen et al. (2009) suggest that if improvements to the conservation value through habitat restoration is slow (i.e., within a 150-year planning horizon), it is questionable whether the habitat should be considered restorable at all. Uncertainty may be partially alleviated by establishing several areas with variable offsets, rather than a single, large area with only one type of offset (i.e., bet-hedging) (Moilanen et al. 2009).

Where uncertainty and time lags exist, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the United Kingdom (DEFRA 2012) proposes multipliers for discrepancies or risks based on the model developed by Moilanen et al. (2009). These risks are defined below.

• Delivery Risk: the key factors that contribute to delivery risk include effectiveness (i.e., probability of failure or underperformance), additionality (i.e., is the offset contributing to habitat above and beyond what is required or already in place) and permanence (i.e., protection from future disturbance). There is an inverse relationship between these categories and the delivery risk ratings (e.g., as effectiveness improves, delivery risk declines).

Annex B – Page B-30 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

• Spatial Risk: the key factors that contribute to spatial risk include proximity to the population or herd affected, and equivalence of the habitat disturbed by the project and the offset habitats. Spatial risk increases as the proximity of offset habitat to disturbance habitat increases.

• Temporal Risk: temporal risk is associated with delay factors, such as the time required for habitat restoration measures to achieve the offset objective and goals.

Multipliers can be applied to address risks associated with the delivery of the restoration or offset measure. While multipliers may compensate for uncertainty associated with the delivery of restoration or offset measures, multipliers will not compensate for complete failure of these measures (DEFRA 2012). The approach of implementing a variety of measures in more than one location (i.e., bet-hedging) is suggested to achieve a more reliable outcome (Moilanen et al. 2009).

Effectiveness of restoration and offset measures is based on the likelihood that the implemented measure will achieve the offset objective and goals, or the potential for failure or underperformance. Limited empirical data and long-term studies are available that demonstrate habitat restoration and offset measures will be effective (IUCN 2014; Rey Benayas et al. 2009). A meta-analysis of studies on ecological restoration indicated that restored habitats had lower biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services than did reference systems (86 and 80%, respectively) (Rey Benayas et al. 2009). Another study on the effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada determined that approximately two-thirds of compensation projects resulted in net losses in habitat productivity (Quigley and Harper 2006). Within this study, artificially increasing the offset ratio to 2:1 was not sufficient to achieve no net loss for a substantial proportion of projects, and projects that achieved a net gain in habitat had offset ratios of approximately 5:1 (Quigley and Harper 2006).

Due to the uncertainty in the effectiveness of habitat restoration measures, a qualitative approach is taken by NGTL to determine offset multipliers, based on the factors contributing to delivery risk noted above. Effectiveness of habitat restoration measures will be categorized based on the best available literature and learning from past NGTL restoration programs and other industry initiatives.

Annex B – Page B-31 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

7.0 KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review provided the opportunity to identify the following knowledge gaps:

• restoration criteria (e.g., defined guidelines or quantifiable objectives) for restoration of boreal ecosystems for wildlife habitat values, in particular habitats that do not support merchantable timber (e.g., treed bogs and fens);

• although research programs have begun on understanding the functional responses of caribou, wolves and primary prey (e.g., moose, deer) to restoration treatments, understanding movements and habitat use to reclaimed habitats in various stages of successional progression, as well as to access and line-of-sight management continues to be a knowledge gap;

• long-term monitoring of vegetation recovery on linear disturbances and of predator response to access management measures; and

• uncertainty risk for specific circumstances where offset response cannot be adequately predicted or does not achieve gains.

Annex B – Page B-32 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

8.0 REFERENCES

Alberta Energy Regulator. 2013. Integrated Standards and Guidelines. Enhanced Approval Process (EAP). Effective: December 1, 2013. Edmonton, AB. 94 pp.

Alberta Environment. 2001. Reclamation Assessment Criteria for Pipelines - 2001 Draft. Edmonton, AB. 70 pp. + Appendices.

Alberta Environment. 2008. Guideline for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases, 2nd Edition. Prepared by M.L. Harris of Lorax Environmental for the Wetlands and Aquatics Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association. Fort McMurray, AB. 103 pp. + Appendices.

Alberta Environment (AENV). 2010. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, 2nd Edition. Prepared by the Terrestrial Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association. Fort McMurray, AB. 332 pp.

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2017a. Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing – 2015. Updated April 2017. Available at: http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/albertas-species-at-risk- strategy/general-status-of-alberta-wild-species/documents/SAR-2015WildSpeciesGeneral StatusList-Mar2017.pdf

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2017b. Caribou Range Planning in Alberta Fact Sheet. Available at: http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/caribou-management/caribou-action- range-planning/documents/CaribouRangePlanningAlberta-May2017.pdf

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013a. 2010 Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities for Forested Lands (Updated July 2013). Edmonton, AB. 65 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013b. Alberta Regeneration Standards for the Mineable Oil Sands. Edmonton, AB. 71 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2013c. Reforestation Standard of Alberta. Government of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 230 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association (ESRD and ACA). 2010. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta: Update 2010. Wildlife Status Report No. 30. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, AB. 88 pp.

Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. 2005. Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan 2004/05- 2013/14. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 4. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. 48 pp.

Athabasca Landscape Team. 2009. Athabasca Caribou Landscape Management Options Report. 75 pp. + Appendices.

Annex B – Page B-33 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Australian Government. 2012. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environment Offsets Policy. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra, Australia. 30 pp.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 1995. A Compendium of Physical Access Control Measures for Roads and Other Rights-of-Way. A Component of the Access Management Initiative in Northeastern BC.

Barker, J. 2017. Offsetting in Caribou Range: The NGTL Experience. A presentation provided February 22, 2017 to the Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets. Presentation available at: http://www.aaco.ca/uploads/4/8/2/4/48245677/ngtl_offsets.pdf

Bayne, E.M., H. Lankau and J. Tigner. 2011. Ecologically-Based Criteria to Assess the Impact and Recovery of Seismic Lines: The Importance of Width, Regeneration, and Seismic Line Density. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 192. Edmonton, AB. 98 pp.

BC Ministry of Environment. 2013. Guidance for the Development of Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plans for South Peace Northern Caribou. 23 pp.

Bentham, P. and B. Coupal. 2015a. Habitat Restoration as a Key Conservation Lever for Woodland Caribou: A review of restoration programs and key learnings from Alberta. Rangifer, Vol 35 (2015): Special Issue No. 23.

Bentham P. and B. Coupal. 2015b. If You Build It, Will They Come? Caribou Habitat Restoration for Pipeline Projects. Proceedings of the 2014 10th International Pipeline Conference & Exposition. IPC2014. September 29 - October 3, 2014, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Bentham and Coupal. 2016. Caribou Habitat Restoration for Pipeline Projects. Proceedings of the Environmental Concerns in Rights of Way Management International Symposium. September 20 - 23, 2015. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Bergerud, A.T., R.D. Jakimchuk and D.R. Carruthers. 1984. The buffalo of the north: Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and human developments. Arctic 37(1):7-22.

Bijlsma, R., J. Bundgaard and A.C. Boerema. 2000. Does inbreeding affect the extinction risk of small populations? Predictions from Drosophila. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13(3):502-514.

Bovarnick, A., Alpizar F. and C. Schnell (eds.). 2010. The Importance of Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Economic Growth and Equity in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Economic Valuation of Ecosystems.

Bradshaw, C.J.A., D.M. Hebert, A.B. Rippin and S. Boutin. 1995. Winter peatland habitat selection by woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1567-1574.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2014a. Policy for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Policy): Working Document. Victoria, BC. 4 pp.

Annex B – Page B-34 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2014b. Procedures for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Procedures): Working Document. Ecosystems Branch, Environmental Sustainability and Strategic Policy Division. Victoria, BC. 68 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1997. Silviculture Prescriptions Field Methods Book. Interim Draft. Victoria, BC. Available online at: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/sil/Sil411/Sil411.htm. Accessed: XXX.

Brown, G.S., W.J. Rettie, R.J. Brooks and F.F. Mallory. 2007. Predicting the impacts of forest management on woodland caribou habitat suitability in black spruce boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 245(1-3):137-147.

Brown, W.K., J. Huot, P. Lamothe, S. Luttich, M. Pare, G. St. Martin and J.B. Theberge. 1986. The distribution and movement patterns of four woodland caribou herds in Quebec and Labrador. Rangifer Special Issue No. 1:43-49.

Bull, J.W., K.B. Suttle, A. Gordon, N.J. Singh and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2013a. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 0(0):1-12.

Bull, J.W., K.B. Suttle, N.J. Singh and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2013b. Conservation when nothing stands still: Moving targets and biodiversity offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(4):203-210.

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. 2012a. Glossary. Washington, DC.

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. 2012b. Resource Paper: No Net Loss and Loss-Gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offsets. Washington, DC.

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. 2012c. Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. Washington, DC.

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. 2013. To No Net Loss and Beyond: An Overview of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Washington, DC.

Calvet, C., C. Napoléone and J.-M. Salles. 2015. The biodiversity offsetting dilemma: Between economic rationales and ecological dynamics. Sustainability 7(6):7357-7378.

Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. 2017. COSIA: Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. Website: https://www.cosia.ca/. Accessed: May 2018.

Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement.com. 2012. Recommendations for, and Voluntary Contributions, Towards a Kesagami Range Caribou Action Plan. Ottawa, ON.

Caribou Range Restoration Project. 2007a. Caribou Range Restoration Project: Guidelines for Planning and Implementation.

Caribou Range Restoration Project. 2007b. Little Smoky Caribou Habitat Restoration Pilot Project Summary. Prepared for Suncor Energy, ConocoPhillips Canada, Canadian Forest Products and Alberta Newsprint Co. Unpublished Document.

Annex B – Page B-35 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Ciborowski, J.J.H., A. Grgicak-Mannion, M. Kang, R. Rooney, Z. Hongcheng and K. Kovalenko. 2012. Development of a Regional Monitoring Program to Assess the Effects of Oil Sands Development on Wetland Communities Final Report. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association.

Clean Water Act. 1972. Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. P.L. 92-500.

Cody. M. 2017. Cenovus Caribou Habitat Restoration Project Conservation offset insights from the LiDea Project. A presentation provided January 5, 2017 to the Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets. Presentation available at: http://www.aaco.ca/events--publications.html

Cody, M., McNay, S., Sutherland, G., Nielsen, B. 2016. Presentation. Forest habitat restoration using innovative silviculture methods in the Cold Lake herd range in Alberta. 2016 North American Caribou Workshop. Thunder Bay, ON. May 2016.

Cole, S. 2010. How Much is Enough? Determining Adequate Levels of Environmental Compensation for Wind Power Impacts Using Equivalency Analysis: An Illustrative & Hypothetical Case Study of Sea Eagle Impacts at the Smøla Wind Farm, Norway.49 pp.

Collins, W.B. and T.S. Smith. 1991. Effects of wind-hardened snow on foraging by reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Arctic 44(3):217-222.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2017. Canadian Species at Risk. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm. Accessed: November 2017.

Commonwealth of Australia. 2015. Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan. 102 pp.

Corcoran, K and M. Eyre. 2017. Offsetting for Caribou: The Federal Regulatory Perspective. A presentation provided February 9, 2017 to the Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets. Presentation available at: http://www.aaco.ca/events--publications.html

Courtois, R. and J.-P. Ouellet. 2007. Modeling the impact of moose and wolf management on persistence of woodland caribou. Alces 43:13-27.

Cox, K.W. and A. Grose. 2000. Wetland Mitigation in Canada: A Framework for Application. North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa, ON. 93 pp.

Croft, C.D., T. Zimmerling and K. Zimmer. 2011. Conservation Offsets: A Working Framework for Alberta. Sherwood Park, AB.

Cumulative Environmental Management Association. 2014. Guidelines for Wetlands Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases. Third Edition. 494 pp.

DeCesare, N. J., M. Hebblewhite, H. S. Robinson, and M. Musiani. 2010. Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species conservation. Animal Conservation 13:353–362.

Annex B – Page B-36 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

DeCesare, N.J., M. Hebblewhite, F. Schmiegelow, D. Hervieux, G.J. McDermid, L. Neufeld, M. Bradley, J. Whittington, K.G. Smith, L.E. Morgantini, M. Wheatley and M. Musiani. 2012. Transcending scale dependence in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. Ecological Applications 22(4):1068-1083.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2011. Biodiversity Offsetting. Technical Paper: Summary of the Options Impact Assessment for Biodiversity Offsetting. London, UK. 9 pp.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2012. Biodiversity Offsetting Plots. Technical Paper: The Metric for the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot in England. London, UK. 24 pp.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2013. Biodiversity Offsetting in England Green Paper. London, UK. 33 pp.

Department of Conservation. 2010. Biodiversity Offsets Programme. Government of New Zealand.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2007. Provincial Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets. Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Republic of South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa. 91 pp.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 2013a. Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent's Guide to Offsetting. Ecosystem Programs Policy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa, ON. 19 pp.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2012a. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Environmental Offsets Policy. Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra, Australia. 30 pp.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2012b. How to Use the Offsets Assessment Guide. Australian Government. 19 pp.

Dickie, M. 2015. The Use of Anthropogenic Linear Features by Wolves in Northeastern Alberta. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Ecology. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Dickie, M., Serrouya, R., DeMars, C., Cranston, J., Boutin, S. 2016a. Poster: Functional Restoration of Linear Features: The Big Bad Wolf's Perspective. Poster session displayed at the 16th North American Workshop. Thunder Bay, ON. May 19, 2016.

Dickie, M., Serrouya, R., McNay, S., Boutin, S. 2016b. Faster and farther: wolf movement on linear features and implications for hunting behaviour. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Annex B – Page B-37 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Dickie, M., Serrouya, R., DeMars, C., Cranston, J., Boustin, S. 2017. Evaluating functional recovery of habitat for threatened woodland caribou. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Diversified Environmental Services. 2004. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Ladyfern Pipeline d-87-H/94-H-1, British Columbia to NE Section 20-Township 94-Range 12 W6M, Alberta: Revegetation Monitoring Report Year 2 (2003). Prepared for Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.

Doswald, N., M. Barcellos Harris, M. Jones, E. Pilla, and I. Mulder. 2012. Biodiversity Offsets: Voluntary and Compliance Regimes. A Review of Existing Schemes, Initiatives and Guidance for Financial Institutions. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre and United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. Cambridge, UK. 24 pp.

Donnelly M., Saxena, A., and R. Serrouya. 2016. Choosing the right lines: coordinated habitat restoration across industrial sectors in Alberta. Presentation given to the 16th North American Caribou Workshop. Thunder Bay, ON. May 20, 2016.

Dyer, S., J. Grant, T. Lesack and M. Weber. 2008. Catching Up: Conservation and Biodiversity Offsets in Alberta's Boreal Forest. Ottawa, ON.

Dyer, S.J. 1999. Movement and distribution of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in response to industrial development in northeastern Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

Dyer, S.J., J.P. O'Neill, S.M. Wasel and S. Boutin. 2001. Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):531-542.

Dyer, S.J., J.P. O'Neill, S.M. Wasel and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80(5):839-845.

Edmonds, E.J. and M. Bloomfield. 1984. A Study of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in West-Central Alberta, 1979 to 1983. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB.

Ehlers, L.P.W., C.J. Johnson and D.R. Seip. 2014. Movement ecology of wolves across an industrial landscape supporting threatened populations of woodland caribou. Landscape Ecology 29(3):451-465.

Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. 2010. Waupisoo Pipeline Project: 2010 Green Area Post-Construction Reclamation Assessment. Submitted to Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Calgary, AB.

Environment Canada. 2011a. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa, ON. vi + 55 pp.

Annex B – Page B-38 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Environment Canada. 2011b. Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada: 2011 Update. Ottawa, ON. 102 pp + Appendices.

Environment Canada. 2012a. Operational Framework for Use of Conservation Allowances. Gatineau, QC. 13 pp.

Environment Canada. 2012b. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa, ON. xi + 138 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017a. Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population in Canada for the Period 2012-2017. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. ix + 94 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017b. Action Plan for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada - Federal Actions - 2017

Environmental Law Institute. 2002. Banks and Fees: The Status of Off-Site Wetland Mitigation in the United States. Washington, DC.

Filicetti, A.T., M. Cody and S. E. Nielsen. 2019. Caribou Conservation: Restoring Trees on Seismic Lines in Alberta, Canada. Forests 10 (2):185.

Finnegan, L., K. Pigeon, J. Cranston, and G. Stenhouse. 2014. Analysis and Restoration of Seismic Cutlines in Southern Mountain and Boreal Caribou Range in West-Central Alberta. Unpublished document.

Finnegan, L, K. Pigeon, D. MacNearney, J. Cranston, D. Hervieux, M. Hebblewhite, M. Musiani, L. Neufeld, F. Schmiegelow and G. Stenhouse. 2016. Towards caribou habitat recovery: considering natural regeneration and resource selection by grizzly bears, wolves, and caribou to prioritize restoration of legacy seismic lines. Presentation given at the 16th North American Workshop. Thunder Bay, ON. May 18, 2016.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1986. Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat. Fish Habitat Management Branch. Pub. No. DFO/4486. Ottawa, ON. 28 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013. Fisheries Protection Policy Statement. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ecosystem Programs Policy. Ottawa, ON. 22 pp.

Frankham, R. 2005. Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation 126(2):131-140.

Fuse Consulting. 2014. Linear Feature Restoration in Caribou Habitat: A summary of current practices and a roadmap for future programs. Prepared for Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance by Matthew Pyper, John Nishi, and Lynn McNeil. Report date December 29, 2014.

Gibbons, P. and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2007. Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management & Restoration 8(1):26-31.

Annex B – Page B-39 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Golder Associates Ltd. 2005. Firebag Project 2004 Seismic Line Reclamation Study Annual Report. Prepared for Suncor Firebag Inc. Calgary, AB.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2007. Audit of Operating Practices and Mitigation Measures Employed Within Woodland Caribou Ranges. Submitted to Caribou Landscape Management Association. Peace River, AB.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2009. Caribou Habitat Restoration Pilot Study. Final Report. Submitted to ConocoPhillips Canada, Suncor Energy, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Edmonton, AB.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2011. Waupisoo Pipeline 2011 Seedling Monitoring Plot Summary. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. Calgary, AB.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2012a. Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration. Prepared for BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Calgary, AB.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2012b. Interconnect Pipeline 2011 Seedling Monitoring Plot Summary.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2015a. Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration Operational Toolkit for British Columbia. Prepared for BC Science and Community Environmental Knowledge (SCEK) Fund's Research and Effectiveness Monitoring Board (REMB). Calgary, AB.

Golder. 2015b. Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration Monitoring Framework. Prepared for BC Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Fund’s Research and Effectiveness Monitoring Board. Project BCIP-2016-02. Report 1529986-001-R-Rev0. Available at: http://www.bcogris.ca/sites/default/files/bcip-2016-02-restoration-monitoring-framework-final- dec151.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2017.

Golder. 2015c. 9 to 13 Year Follow-up Monitoring in the Little Smoky Caribou Range 15-ERPC-07: Caribou Range Restoration Treatment Sites. Submitted to Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada, Foothills Land Management Forum, and the Government of Alberta. Available at: http://auprf.ptac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PTAC_Caribou-Range-Restoration-Treatment- Sites-Report_2015-12-22.pdf

Golder. 2015d. Parker Caribou Range: Boreal Caribou Restoration Pilot Program Plan. Submitted to the British Colombia Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society’s Research and Environmental Monitoring Board. 30 November 2015.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) and Explor. 2016. Natural Recovery on Low Impact Seismic Lines in Northeast British Columbia (BCIP-2016-18). Prepared for: BC Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society. Prepared by: J. Tigner, M. Taylor, C. Parker, C. Shapka and P. Bentham. Available: http://www.bcogris.ca/sites/default/files/bcip-2016-18-natural-recovery-lis-final-report- golderexplor.pdf

Golder. 2017a. CNRL Kirby 2016 Seedling Monitoring Report. Memo from Christine Robichaud (Golder Associates Ltd.) to Kale Bromley (CNRL). January 2017. Pp. 7 + Appendices.

Annex B – Page B-40 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Golder and CNRL 2016. Linear Deactivation: Winter and Summer Planted Seedling and Wildlife Response Monitoring. Presentation given to the Canadian Land and Reclamation Association. February 25, 2016.

Government of Alberta. 2011. A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta. 2 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2013. Alberta Wetland Policy. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, AB. 25 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2016. Draft Little Smoky and A La Peche Caribou Range Plan. June 2, 2016.

Government of Alberta. 2017. Restoration and Establishment Framework. Prepared for Alberta Environment and Parks, Land and Environment Planning Branch, Edmonton, Alberta. xii + 70 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2018. Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions. December 18, 2018. Accessed: January 2019. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/133e9297-430a-4f29-b5d9- 4fea3e0a30c2/resource/aa3e5504-22c8-472d-8ab5- 35b99c07b74a/download/masterschedstandardsconditions-dec18-2018.pdf

Government of Canada. 2018. Species at Risk Public Registry. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm. Accessed: May 2018.

Government of Western Australia. 2011. WA Environmental Offsets Policy. Department of Environment and Conservation. 4 pp.

Habib, T.J., D.R. Farr, R.R. Schneider and S. Boutin. 2013. Economic and ecological outcomes of flexible biodiversity offset systems. Conservation Biology 27(6):1313-1323.

Harper, D.J. and J.T. Quigley. 2005a. A comparison of the areal extent of fish habitat gains and losses associated with selected compensation projects in Canada. Fisheries 30(2):18-25.

Harper, D.J. and J.T. Quigley. 2005b. No net loss of fish habitat: A review and analysis of habitat compensation in Canada. Environmental Management 36(3):343-355.

Hawkes, V.C. 2011. Early successional wildlife monitoring on reclamation plots in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium. British Columbia Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation, Vancouver, BC.

Hedrick, P.W. and S.T. Kalinowski. 2000. Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:139-162.

Hervieux, D., M. Hebblewhite, N.J. DeCesare, M. Russell, K. Smith, S. Robertson and S. Boutin. 2013. Widespread declines in woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) continue in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 91(12):872-882.

Hunt, L.M. and M. Hupf. 2014. The effectiveness of road closures and deactivations at reducing traffic: A case of resource roads used for recreational activities in Ontario, Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 90(5):670-677.

Annex B – Page B-41 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2014. Biodiversity Offsets Technical Study Paper. Gland, Switzerland. 65 pp.

James, A.R.C. 1999. Effects of industrial development on the predator-prey relationship between wolves and caribou in northeastern Alberta. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

James, A.R.C. and A.K. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1):154-159.

James, A.R.C., S. Boutin, D.M. Hebert and A.B. Rippin. 2004. Spatial separation of caribou from moose and its relation to predation by wolves. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):799-809.

Keller, L.F. and D.M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17(5):230-241.

Kiesecker, J.M., H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, N. Nibbelink, B. McKenney, J. Dahlke, M. Holloran and D. Stroud. 2009. A framework for implementing biodiversity offsets: Selecting sites and determining scale. BioScience 59(1):77-84.

Laitila, J., A. Moilanen, and F.M. Pouzols. 2014. A method for calculating minimum biodiversity offset multipliers accounting for time discounting, additionality and permanence. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5(11):1247-1254.

LaPerriere, A.J. and P.C. Lent. 1977. Caribou feeding sites in relation to snow characteristics in northeastern Alaska. Arctic 30(2):101-108.

Latham, A.D.M. 2009. Wolf ecology and caribou-primary prey-wolf spatial relationships in low productivity peatland complexes in northeastern Alberta. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

Latham, A.D.M., M.C. Latham, N.A. McCutchen and S. Boutin. 2011. Invading white-tailed deer change wolf-caribou dynamics in northeastern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(1):204-212.

Lee, P. and S. Boutin. 2006. Persistence and developmental transition of wide seismic lines in the western Boreal Plains of Canada. Journal of Environmental Management 78(3):240-250.

Macadam, A. and L. Bedford. 1998. Mounding in the Sub-Boreal Spruce Zone of west-central British Columbia: 8-year results. The Forestry Chronicle 74(3):421-427.

MacFarlane, A.K. 1999. Revegetation of wellsites and seismic lines in the boreal forest. B.Sc. Honour's Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

MacFarlane, A.K. 2003. Vegetation response to seismic lines: Edge effects and online succession. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

Annex B – Page B-42 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

MacIsaac, D.A., G.R. Hilman and P.A. Hurdle. 2004. Alternative Silvicultural Systems for Harvesting and Regenerating Spruce-Dominated Boreal Mineral Wetlands. Information Report NOR-X-399. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service and Northern Forestry Centre. Edmonton, AB. 60 pp.

Madill, H. and L. Darling. 2017. Offsetting for Caribou - Policy and Regulatory Perspective: British Columbia Government. A presentation provided March 7, 2017 to the Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets. Presentation available at: http://www.aaco.ca/events--publications.html

Madsen, B., N. Carroll, D. Kandy and G. Bennett. 2011. Update: State of Biodiversity Markets. Washington, DC.

Maron, M., R.J. Hobbs, A. Moilanen, J.W. Matthews, K. Christie, T.A. Gardner, D.A. Keith, D.B. Lindenmayer, and C.A. McAlpine. 2012. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biological Conservation 155:141-148.

McCutchen, N.A. 2007. Factors affecting caribou survival in northern Alberta: The role of wolves, moose, and linear features. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

McKay, T., K. Graham and G. Stenhouse. 2014. Grizzly Bears and Pipelines: Response to Unique Linear Features. Year 2 (2013) Final Report. Alberta Upstream Petroleum Research Fund (13-AU-ERPC-03). Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Program. Hinton, AB.

McKenney, B. 2005. Environmental Offset Policies, Principles and Methods: A Review of Selected Legislative Frameworks.

McKenney, B.A. and J.M. Kiesecker. 2010. Policy development for biodiversity offsets: A review of offset frameworks. Environ Manage 45(1):165-176.

McKenzie, H.W., E.H. Merrill, R.J. Spiteri and M.A. Lewis. 2012. How linear features alter predator movement and the functional response. Interface Focus 2(2):205-216.

McLoughlin, P.D., E. Dzus, B. Wynes and S. Boutin. 2003. Declines in populations of woodland caribou. The Journal of Wildlife Management 67(4):755-761.

McNay, R.S., G. Sutherland, L. Giguere, K. Sittler, F. MacDonald and V. Brumovsky. 2014. Multi-Scale Responses by Predators and Prey to Deactivation/Restoration of Habitat Disturbance Features - Individual and Population Components. Interim Report - 2013-2014. Mackenzie, BC.

Moilanen, A., A.J.A. van Teeffelen, Y. Ben-Haim and S. Ferrier. 2009. How much compensation is enough? A framework for incorporating uncertainty and time discounting when calculating offset ratios for impacted habitat. Restoration Ecology 17(4):470-478.

Morris, R.K.A., I. Alonso, R.G. Jefferson and K.J. Kirby. 2006. The creation of compensatory habitat—Can it secure sustainable development? Journal for Nature Conservation 14(2):106-116.

Annex B – Page B-43 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Mummel, M., Gillinham, M., Johnson, C., Parker, K., and Watters, M. 2016. Understanding the impact of linear features on predation risk and avoidance of wolves by Boreal caribou. Presentation given at the 16th North American Workshop. Thunder Bay, ON. May 19, 2016.

Neufeld, L.M. 2006. Spatial dynamics of wolves and woodland caribou in an industrial forest landscape in west-central Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

New South Wales Government. 2014. NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects. Office of Environment and Heritage. Sydney, NSW. 33 pp.

North American Caribou Workshop. 2014. Caribou Conservation and Management: What's Working? 15th North American Caribou Workshop. Whitehorse, YT. 98 pp.

North American Caribou Workshop. 2016. Connecting Caribou with our Community. 16th North American Caribou Workshop. Thunder Bay, ON.

O’Brien, D., M. Manseau, A. Fall and M.-J. Fortin. 2006. Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: An application of graph theory. Biological Conservation 130(1):70-83.

Oberg, P.R. 2001. Responses of mountain caribou to linear features in a west-central Alberta landscape. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

Osko, T. and A.K. MacFarlane. 2000. Natural Reforestation Rates on Seismic Lines and Wellsites in Comparison to Natural Burns Or Logged Sites. Boyle, AB.

Peters, J. 2017. The Algar Caribou Habitat Restoration Project Case Study. A presentation provided January 5, 2017 to the Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets. Presentation available at: http://www.aaco.ca/events--publications.html

Peters, W., M. Hebblewhite, N. DeCesare, F. Cagnacci and M. Musiani. 2013. Resource separation analysis with moose indicates threats to caribou in human altered landscapes. Ecography 36(4):487-498.

Pickett, E.J., M.P. Stockwell, D.S. Bower, J.I. Garnham, C.J. Pollard, J. Clulow, and M.J. Mahony. 2013. Achieving no net loss in habitat offset of a threatened frog required high offset ratio and intensive monitoring. Biological Conservation 157:156-162.

Pilgrim, J.D., and J.M.M. Ekstrom. 2014. Technical Conditions for Positive Outcomes from Biodiversity Offsets. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Gland, Switzerland. 46 pp.

Poulton, D. 2013. Alberta's New Wetland Policy as a Conservation Offset System. Calgary, AB.

Poulton, D. 2014. Biodiversity Offsets: A Primer for Canada. Prepared for Sustainable Prosperity and the Institute of the Environment.

Poulton, D.W. 2015. Biodiversity and Conservation Offsets: A Guide for Albertans. Calgary, AB.

Annex B – Page B-44 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Queensland Government. 2014. Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy. Version 1.1. State of Queensland. Australia. 63 pp.

Quigley, J.T. and D.J. Harper. 2006. Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss. Environmental Management 37(3):351-366.

Quintero, J.D., and A. Mathur. 2011. Biodiversity offsets and infrastructure. Conservation Biology 25(6):1121-1123.

Rettie, W.J. and F. Messier. 1998. Dynamics of woodland caribou populations at the southern limit of their range in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:251-259.

Rettie, W.J. and F. Messier. 2000. Hierarchical habitat selection by woodland caribou: Its relationship to limiting factors. Ecography 23:466-478.

Revel, R.D., T.D. Dougherty and D.J. Downing. 1984. Forest Growth and Revegetation Along Seismic Lines. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, AB. 228 pp.

Rey Benayas, J.M., A.C. Newton, A. Diaz and J.M. Bullock. 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: A meta-analysis. Science 325:1121-1124.

Ripple, W.J. and R.L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves and the ecology of fear: Can predation risk structure ecosystems? BioScience 54(8):755-766.

Ripple, W.J., J.A. Estes, R.L. Beschta, C.C. Wilmers, E.G. Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen, M. Letnic, M.P. Nelson, O.J. Schmitz, D.W. Smith, A.D. Wallach and A.J. Wirsing. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science 343(6167):1241484.

Robichaud, K. and K. Knopff. 2015. Biodiversity offsets and caribou conservation in Alberta: opportunities and challenges. Rangifer, Vol 35 (2015): Special Issue No. 23, 2015. 99-

Rohner, C. and G. Kuzyk. 2000. Wolves and caribou in west-central Alberta: Predator responses to industrial resource development. Research News 3:1-4.

Roy, V., P.-Y. Bernier, A.P. Plamondon and J.-C. Ruel. 1999. Effect of drainage and microtopography in forested wetlands on the microenvironment and growth of planted black spruce seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:563-574.

Schaefer, J.A. and W.O. Pruitt Jr. 1991. Fire and woodland caribou in southeastern Manitoba. Wildlife Monographs 116:3-39.

Schneider, R.R. 2011. An Integrated Planning Approach for Selecting Conservation Offsets in Northern Alberta.

Annex B – Page B-45 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Seip, D.R. and D.B. Cichowski. 1996. Population ecology of caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer, Special Issue 9:73-80.

Serrouya, R., D. Paetkau, B.N. McLellan, S. Boutin, M. Campbell and D.A. Jenkins. 2012. Population size and major valleys explain microsatellite variation better than taxonomic units for caribou in western Canada. Molecular Ecology 21(11):2588-2601.

Sherrington, P.M. 2003. Measuring boreal forest fragmentation change in response to seismic line, wellsite and road revegetation with scanned false-colour infrared aerial photography. MGIS Thesis, University of Calgary. Calgary, AB.

Straker, J., and G. Donald. 2011. Assessing re-establishment of functional forest ecosystems on reclaimed oil sands mine lands. British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium.

Stuart-Smith, A.K., C.J.A. Bradshaw, S. Boutin, D.M. Hebert and A.B. Rippin. 1997. Woodland caribou relative to landscape patterns in Northeastern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61(3):622-633.

Sustainable Prosperity. 2014. Getting Biodiversity Offsets Right: A Research Agenda for Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Switalski, T.A. and C.R. Nelson. 2011. Efficacy of road removal for restoring wildlife habitat: Black bear in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Biological Conservation 144(11):2666-2673. ten Kate, K., and M.L.A. Crowe. 2014. Biodiversity Offsets: Policy Options for Governments. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Gland, Switzerland. 91 pp. ten Kate, K., J. Bishop and R. Bayon. 2004. Biodiversity Offsets: Views, Experience, and the Business Case. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd., London, UK.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2011a. Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Horn River Mainline Project, Part II. Updated September 11. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2011b. Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. TMX – Anchor Loop Project. Prepared for Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012. Supplemental Update for the Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan for the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Horn River Mainline Project, Part II. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, AB.

The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers. London, UK.

Thomas, D.C. and D.R. Gray. 2002. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada, in COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 98 pp.

Annex B – Page B-46 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer and S.A. Thomasma. 1994. Gray wolf response to refuge boundaries and roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(1):61-68.

van Rensen, C. K. 2014. Predicting Patterns of Regeneration on Seismic Lines to Inform Restoration Planning in Boreal Forest Habitats. M.Sc. thesis. Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta. 66 pp.

van Rensen, C.K., S.E. Nielsen, B. White, T. Vinge and V.J. Lieffers. 2015. Natural regeneration of forest vegetation on legacy seismic lines in boreal habitats in Alberta's oil sands regions. Biological Conservation 184:127–135.

Vistnes, I. and C. Nellemann. 2001. Avoidance of cabins, roads, and power lines by reindeer during calving. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(4):915-925.

Way, N. 2017.The potential role of offsets in the mitigation hierarchy for caribou conservation in Alberta. A presentation provided January 25, 2017 to the Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets. Presentation available at: http://www.aaco.ca/events--publications.html

Weber, M. 2011. Experimental Economic Evaluation of Offset Design Options for Alberta: A Summary of Results and Policy Recommendations. Prepared for Alberta Land Use Secretariat.

Whittington, J., M. Hebblewhite, N.J. DeCesare, L. Neufeld, M. Bradley, J. Wilmshurst and M. Musiani. 2011. Caribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: A time-to-event approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:1535–1542.

Wittmer, H.U., A.R. Sinclair and B.N. McLellan. 2005. The role of predation in the decline and extirpation of woodland caribou. Oecologia 144(2):257-267.

Zager, P. and J. Beecham. 2006. The role of American black bears and brown bears as predators on ungulates in North America. Ursus 17(2):95-108.

Annex B – Page B-47

Annex C

Consultation Log

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Summary of Consultation with Federal and Provincial Agencies Related to Caribou

Name and Title Date and Method Consultation Related to Caribou AEP North Corridor Expansion (NCE) Project introduced to AEP during an update for other NGTL Projects in development (NCC North Star 1 Loop Section and NWML Boundary Lake North). NGTL Natalka Melnycky, Senior Wildlife Biologist November 29, 2018 Webex stated that the NCE CHROMP would be based on the established NGTL methods and protocols Courtney Hughes, Land Management and Meeting recently submitted for other NGTL projects in the region to provide a consistent approach for Biodiversity Specialist offset planning and caribou habitat restoration. NGTL will be contacting AEP to set up an NCE specific meeting in January 2019. NGTL provided a brief Project summary, having requested a meeting with AEP to review the Don Williams, Operations Unit Head, Regional proposed NCE Project. General consultation on caribou located within the Red Earth caribou Integrated Approvals range for the Red Earth Section 3 pipeline. General consultation of the Hidden Lake North Unit Rick Goy, Lands Team Lead, Regional Integrated Addition in the Chinchaga caribou range. Topics included winter construction timing being Approvals necessary due to the very wet conditions for Red Earth Section 3 pipeline. Opportunities for HDD January 23, 2019, Meeting Jeff Poeckens , Land Management Specialist of Loon River to adhere to early in/early out principle were discussed. Hidden Lake North Unit Natalka Melnycky, Senior Wildlife Biologist Addition requires a 12-month construction schedule with timing anticipated in Q1 2021 pending Chris Briggs, Senior Fisheries Biologist NEB Decision. NGTL’s goal is to initiate activities prior to the February 15 timing window. NGTL Chris Grainger, Land Management Specialist and AEP discussed proximity to the existing high-grade gravel road and industrial activity as mitigating factors for relaxation of timing window. Environment Canada Paul Gregoire (Wildlife Biologist) Richard Wiacek (Manager) NGTL emailed information about the Project, contact information, a Project fact sheet and routing Greg Wilson (Wildlife Biologist) March 20, 2019 email information. NGTL also offered to meet with ECCC to discuss offset measures and caribou habitat Wildlife Biologist restoration related to the NCE Project. Environment Climate Change Canada

Annex C – Page C-1

Annex D

Change Log

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Summary of Changes made to the Current Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan Filing, Relative to Previously Filed NGTL Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan Documents

Relevant Reference Change Made Comments A new column has been added to the IOV Calculation table in Section 4 of the CHROMP to Table 4-1 in the CHROMP ‘Area Restored’ column added to table clearly show how areas of existing disturbances that will be restored within the PCF are handled in the IOV calculation. Information from a recently published paper documenting success of tree establishment with various site preparation methods has been incorporated into the literature review in Annex B Updated literature added Section 5.1 of Annex B. The updated Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions (Government of Alberta, 2018) has also been incorporated into Annex B. Aside from the changes noted above and Project-specific details and quantifications, there are N/A N/A no substantial changes to this CHROMP relative to the recently filed NGTL CHROMPs (see NEB Filing ID A6F4R2, A6I0K5, A5Y3R7, A88269-10, and A95255-8).

Annex D – Page D-1

Annex E

Photo Plates

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Plate 1: Example of the effectiveness of minimal disturbance construction in forested areas. Photo shows growth after one growing season. Photo source: NGTL.

Plate 2: Example of coarse woody debris rollback for access management on a non-parallel pipeline ROW. The debris also creates microsites to enhance vegetation establishment and growth. Photo source: NGTL.

Annex E – Page E-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Plate 3: Example of conifer seedling planting on a pipeline ROW. The upland area has sufficient drainage and suitable soils for seedling establishment and growth. Photo source: Jacobs.

Plate 4: Example of access management implemented on a ROW with parallel developments. Note the ATV tracks that divert around the woody debris rollback. Photo source: NGTL.

Annex E – Page E-2 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Plate 5: Aerial view of mounding in lowland on a non-parallel portion of the ROW. Photo source: NGTL.

Plate 6: Aerial view of combination rollback and mounding as access management on a non-parallel portion of the ROW. Photo source: NGTL.

Annex E – Page E-3 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Plate 7: Example of a wood berm designed to deter access and reduce line-of-sight. This measure is no longer used due to the risks associated with forest fires. Photo source: NGTL.

Plate 8: Example of a vegetation screen retained along edge of pipeline right-of-way at intersection with an existing linear disturbance. Vegetation screens block line-of-sight and can effectively manage access. Photo source: Jacobs.

Annex E – Page E-4 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Plate 9: Example of a ramp-over area where a snow ramp was packed over vegetation in a treed lowland. The resultant vegetation screen will also contribute to natural regeneration. This measure can only be used in seasons with high snowfall. Photo source: Jacobs.

Plate 10: Fabricated line-of sight on a ROW paralleled by another ROW and a power line. This measure is not fully effective due to the presence of adjacent developments where no line-of-sight measures are implemented. Photo source: NGTL.

Annex E – Page E-5 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Plate 11: Example of mounding combined with conifer seedling planting on a ROW. The combination of measures is intended to manage access and facilitate revegetation of conifers. Photo source: NGTL.

Plate 12: Example of shrub staking in the riparian area at a watercourse crossing. Photo source: NGTL.

Annex E – Page E-6 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan April 2019

Plate 13: Example of lattice placement of rollback. Photo source: NGTL.

Annex E – Page E-7

Annex F

Typical Drawings

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan March 2019

Annex F - Page F-1 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan March 2019

Annex F - Page F-2 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan March 2019

Annex F - Page F-3 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan March 2019

Annex F - Page F-4 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan March 2019

Annex F - Page F-5 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Corridor Expansion Project Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan March 2019

Annex F - Page F-6 Appendix 11 Traditional Knowledge Report North Corridor Expansion Project

Traditional Knowledge Report

For the Communities of: • Beaver First Nation • Métis Nation of Alberta • Bigstone Cree Nation • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 • Cadotte Lake Métis • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 • Dene Tha’ First Nation • Métis Settlement General Council • Doig River First Nation • Nose Creek Settlement • Driftpile Cree Nation • Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement • Duncan’s First Nation • Peavine Métis Settlement • East Prairie Métis Settlement • Peerless Trout First Nation • Gift Lake Métis Settlement • Sucker Creek First Nation • Horse Lake First Nation • Swan River First Nation • Loon River First Nation • Tallcree First Nation Rev 0 April 2019 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited

Docum ent Title Traditional Knowledge Report

Credit Sheet

Engaged Aboriginal groups: • Beaver First Nation • Bigstone Cree Nation • Cadotte Lake Métis • Dene Tha’ First Nation • Doig River First Nation • Driftpile Cree Nation • Duncan’s First Nation • East Prairie Métis Settlement • Gift Lake Métis Settlement • Horse Lake First Nation • Loon River First Nation • Métis Nation of Alberta • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 • Métis Settlement General Council • Nose Creek Settlement • Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement • Peavine Métis Settlement • Peerless Trout First Nation • Sucker Creek First Nation • Swan River First Nation • Tallcree First Nation

AX0921181128CGY i Traditional Knowledge Report

Contents

Credit Sheet ...... i Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... v 1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Objectives ...... 1-2 2. Methods ...... 2-1 2.1 Community Engagement ...... 2-1 2.2 Review of Existing Data Sources and Literature ...... 2-2 2.3 Traditional Knowledge Studies and Independent Collection of Traditional Knowledge Data ...... 2-2 3. Results...... 3-1 3.1 Beaver First Nation ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Literature Review ...... 3-1 3.2 Bigstone Cree Nation...... 3-2 3.2.1 Literature Review ...... 3-2 3.3 Cadotte Lake Métis ...... 3-3 3.3.1 Literature Review ...... 3-3 3.4 Dene Tha’ First Nation ...... 3-4 3.4.1 Literature Review ...... 3-4 3.5 Doig River First Nation ...... 3-5 3.5.1 Literature Review ...... 3-6 3.6 Driftpile Cree Nation ...... 3-7 3.6.1 Literature Review ...... 3-8 3.7 Duncan’s First Nation ...... 3-8 3.7.1 Literature Review ...... 3-8 3.8 East Prairie Métis Settlement ...... 3-10 3.8.1 Literature Review ...... 3-10 3.9 Gift Lake Métis Settlement ...... 3-11 3.9.1 Literature Review ...... 3-11 3.9.2 Traditional Knowledge ...... 3-11 3.10 Horse Lake First Nation ...... 3-12 3.10.1 Literature Review ...... 3-12 3.11 Loon River First Nation ...... 3-14 3.11.1 Literature Review ...... 3-14 3.12 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5...... 3-14 3.12.1 Literature Review ...... 3-15 3.12.2 Traditional Knowledge ...... 3-15 3.13 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6...... 3-17 3.13.1 Literature Review ...... 3-17 3.14 Nose Creek Settlement ...... 3-17 3.14.1 Literature Review ...... 3-17 3.15 Peavine Métis Settlement ...... 3-19 3.15.1 Literature Review ...... 3-19 3.15.2 Traditional Knowledge ...... 3-19 3.16 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement ...... 3-22

AX0921181128CGY iii Traditional Knowledge Report

3.16.1 Literature Review ...... 3-22 3.16.2 Traditional Knowledge ...... 3-23 3.17 Peerless Trout First Nation ...... 3-24 3.17.1 Literature Review ...... 3-24 3.18 Sucker Creek First Nation ...... 3-25 3.18.1 Literature Review ...... 3-25 3.19 Swan River First Nation ...... 3-26 3.19.1 Literature Review ...... 3-26 3.19.2 Traditional Knowledge ...... 3-27 3.20 Tallcree First Nation ...... 3-28 3.20.1 Literature Review ...... 3-29 4. Summary ...... 4-1 5. References ...... 5-1 5.1 Literature Cited ...... 5-1 5.2 GIS Data and Mapping References...... 5-5

Appendix A Project-related Issues Summaries

Tables 2-1 Status of the Traditional Knowledge Studies Being Completed by Each Participating Aboriginal Group ...... 2-3 3-1 Fishing Locales Currently Used by Bigstone Cree Nation Community Members ...... 3-3 3-2 Traditional Land Use Sites Currently Used by Dene Tha’ First Nation Community Members ..... 3-5 3-3 Fishing Locales Currently Used by Duncan’s First Nation Community Members ...... 3-9 3-4 Traditional Land and Resource Sites Currently Used by Horse Lake First Nation Community Members...... 3-13 3-5 Traditional Land and Resource Sites Currently Used by Nose Creek Settlement Community Members...... 3-18

Figure 1-1 Regional Location ...... 1-3

iv AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BC British Columbia CH2M CH2M HILL Energy Canada, Ltd. EA Environmental Assessment EAS Environmental Alignment Sheets EPP Environmental Protection Plan ESA Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment GPS Global Positioning System ha hectare(s) Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. km kilometre(s) KP Kilometre Post MD Municipal District mm millimetre(s) MSGC Métis Settlements General Council NCC North Central Corridor NEB National Energy Board NGTL NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. NPS nominal pipe size NWML Northwest Mainline OD outside diameter PCF Project Construction Footprint the Project the proposed North Corridor Expansion Project Q1 first quarter Q3 third quarter Q4 fourth quarter RFMA Registered Fur Management Areas ROW right-of-way RSA Regional Study Area TBD to be determined TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge TK Traditional Knowledge TLU Traditional Land Use TLRU Traditional Land and Resource Use TWS temporary workspace

AX0921181128CGY v Traditional Knowledge Report

1. Introduction

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited, understands Traditional Knowledge (TK) to be a body of unique knowledge built up and held by a group of people through generations of living in close contact with nature. It is cumulative, dynamic, and builds upon the historic experiences of a people and adapts to social, economic, environmental, spiritual, and political change. It may consist of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Traditional Land Use (TLU)/Traditional Land and Resource Use (TLRU) information, however, it also forms part of a larger body of information, which encompasses knowledge about cultural, environmental, economic, political, and spiritual inter-relationships, which is typically identified by, and gathered through, engagement with interested Aboriginal groups.

NGTL works with interested potentially affected Aboriginal groups to collect TK information and to incorporate this information into Project planning, as available and appropriate. Through the collection of TK with interested groups, NGTL seeks to: • identify and consider potential adverse effects of the proposed North Corridor Expansion Project (the Project) on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes • incorporate TEK and TLRU into Project planning • identify concerns about the Project • propose measures to avoid, mitigate or otherwise manage potential adverse Project effects on Aboriginal interests

Information resulting from the Project’s Aboriginal engagement program, publicly-available literature, and completed TK studies is provided in this report. Further information is provided in Section 13 of the Application. TK information from this report has been integrated into the overall Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) and was considered in the identification of effects pathways and potential effects for TLRU (Section 5.14) as well as for relevant biophysical elements (e.g., wildlife, fisheries, and vegetation), given the close connection to TLRU (i.e., traditional species harvested and other resources required for TLRU activities). Further, the mitigation planned for the Project as described in the ESA and the Project-specific Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) (Appendices 1A to 1D) was developed after considering available TK information and, where appropriate, was incorporated into Project planning. Consideration of this information includes evaluating whether NGTL’s planned mitigation would effectively manage the identified potential interactions, or whether additional or refined mitigation is warranted. NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Aboriginal groups through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise.

NGTL will continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

1.1 Project Overview

NGTL is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 52 and Section 58 of the NEB Act to construct, own, and operate new pipeline facilities in Alberta that will form an integral part of the existing NGTL System. These facilities are referred to as the North Corridor Expansion Project (the Project) and are described in detail in this subsection.

The Project consists of three pipeline sections, totaling approximately 81 kilometres (km), that will loop the existing NGTL North Central Corridor (NCC) and Northwest Mainline (NWML) natural gas pipelines in Alberta, as well as construction and operation of a compressor station unit addition and associated connectivity piping (Figure 1-1). Components of the Project are as follows:

AX0921181128CGY 1-1 Traditional Knowledge Report

• NCC Loop (North Star Section 2) consisting of approximately 24 km of 1,219-millimetre (mm) outside diameter (OD) (nominal pipe size [NPS] 48) pipe with tie-in points at valves NCCA 90 and NCCA 100 of the existing NCC pipeline. The North Star Section 2 is located approximately 20 km north of the Town of Manning, Alberta. • NCC Loop (Red Earth Section 3) consisting of approximately 32 km of 1,219-mm OD (NPS 48) pipe with tie-in points at valves NCCA 30 and NCCA 40 of the existing NCC pipeline. The Red Earth Section 3 is located approximately 45 km north of the Hamlet of Red Earth Creek, Alberta. • NWML Loop No. 2 (Bear Canyon North Extension) consisting of approximately 25 km of 914-mm OD (NPS 36) pipe with tie-in points at valves NW35 and NW50 of the existing NWML and the Alces River Compressor Station. The Bear Canyon North Extension is located approximately 50 km southwest of the Hamlet of Worsley, Alberta. • Hidden Lake North Compressor Station Unit Addition (Hidden Lake North Unit Addition) consisting of a 30-megawatt compressor unit addition and related components at or near the existing Hidden Lake North Compressor Station. The Hidden Lake North Unit Addition is located approximately 100 km north of the Hamlet of Worsley, Alberta.

The proposed pipelines will generally require an approximately 32-metre wide construction right-of-way (ROW) with additional temporary workspace (TWS) of variable widths to accommodate safe pipeline construction activities (for example, at staging areas, soil storage areas, crossing).

Temporary infrastructure, such as access roads, travel lanes, stockpile sites, borrow pits/dugouts, slurry sites, contractor yards, and construction campsites, will be required during construction.

Pending regulatory approval, Project construction for the pipeline components is planned for the third quarter (Q3) of 2021 to the first quarter (Q1) of 2022, and construction for the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition is planned for Q1 2021 to Q1 2022. The targeted in-service date for the Project is April 2022.

NGTL commissioned CH2M HILL Energy Canada, Ltd. (CH2M), now Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs), to prepare an ESA, as part of the Application, to identify potential effects, predict the residual effects, and evaluate their significance associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning or abandonment of the Project. This TK Report is a collection of the TK information and concerns from participating Aboriginal groups, gathered for the Project, that has been used to inform the ESA.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this TK Report are to describe the results of the literature review and the results of Project-specific TK studies including concerns and recommendations conducted by Aboriginal groups engaged on the Project by: • presenting TK, such as the nature and location of trails, habitation sites, medicinal and food source plants, hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering places, and sacred areas, while maintaining the confidentiality of each community’s proprietary information • identifying existing concerns with, and potential effects of, the Project on the current use of land by each community to contribute to final Project design

Information presented in this TK Report will inform the ESA, regulatory permitting, and construction planning for the Project.

1-2 AX0921181128CGY 120000 180000 240000 300000 360000 420000 480000 540000 600000 660000 720000 780000 840000 900000

1 5

QR r QR

e Dog Ri v v i e

r R

o l

f f 6640000 u 6640000 2019 e B April Littl S er al v er t Ri iv r D R e u Petitot iv FIGURE 1-1 n Y R ornaday e¯ a H R o i d t l v i es e n a R f r f

R iv

i er u REGIONAL LOCATION AND v

e r B r e i v TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE en R Ste REGIONAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 6580000 6580000 Z a m Little er a R J v ap a i ENVIRONMENTAL AND R id ck R i s fish A v M e SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT m r S er e

a v g b i a ht R e H FOR THE PROPOSED a h r a n e R r T R r NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. i e i i ts v M s a v R e o e e r ive r l n r r vin e O R NORTH CORRIDOR EXPANSION PROJECT r Dene Tha' River v i

ve i l v

d i W iver e a R R First Nation R WOOD

hisch K o er r r C o v e tch y Ri n 6520000

6520000 a F H n le e o o itt i v t t BUFFALO r 707535 L Hay-Zama R n z t he o R High Bus e Wildland P l i Ri v 58 Level ve e Provincial Park QR r r er 88 Highway o v ST Tuch d i Rainbow i R Sikanni Old C R h i Growth c Lake i h

r Railway F e Wood Buffalo a o ver c

Provincial n tas Ri r v h i d

a Provincial Park s Park R g Beaver o a n A Tallcree R h Hydrology

I R

i First Nation a

v First Nation i

t e v 6460000 6460000 B e

n r h 88 r QR r a r ve e r Waterbody K i MACKENZIE v ve M R i i aig R H R r B A o COUNTY a civ i M it r e S T e w LU r R Settlement c u iv Paddle Prairie k g er h r r A k ve R Ri i a

O Métis Settlement M S ProphetR E M iv C r F Indian Reserve er v e r K B i R ve ir A g Ri eb L e t a A H K n g r L B W Bu R T S A o o i B Populated Area I t l M v

h v C r COUNTY OF e u e e d r E 6400000 6400000

a r v T Bes i Milligan Hills i d a R r n a H e I y Birch Mountains v NORTHERN R Ri R e R f Provincial Park i R iv Park/Protected Area e v E R e Wildland i M T h e i r u C r LIGHTS v T s W i e k A n B Provincial Park o e n r r Ri g a ve R k r Municipal Boundary

i iver S ") QR35 A River N M lls eikle R E Provincial Boundary Chinchaga Ho ive er Riv tc r ov er hk D REGIONAL Wildland is Notikewin s R Métis Nation of Alberta Provincial iver Provincial MUNICIPALITY OF Region Boundaries 6340000 6340000 Park r Park e WOOD BUFFALO 97 iv Proposed Project Components QR y R cka B Ma e Hidden Lake North a Notikewin er Ch t CLEAR HILLS ver NORTHERN iv t Ri

ow o R )" Compressor Station Unit Addition ad n e River Manning r r COUNTY e SUNRISE te v r Clearw a (Hidden Lake North Unit Addition) C R i MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF Grand Rapids a e B r i R

m lu ve v v e Ri i r

e be y e e COUNTY r r W River t Wildland e r r h d OPPORTUNITY NO. 17

r ite u t R

o m o v e n ad i

R v C

iver Dunvegan e n Provincial Park North Central Corridor Loop l R i itt

L o er Loon River v e

r R o i

e West Wildland R

Doig River Cadotte L Hor r se (North Star Section 2)

v n

i g

e First Nation

R i o

v 6280000 6280000

Lake Métis t First Nation o Provincial Park Peerless Trout

m i s

a H E D R G h u r g r a a r First Nation

ek e l n North Central Corridor Loop a v e i f R i s w u g e n (Red Earth Section 3) a n g MNAR6 a y Peace River a H R t ver iv n Peace i e er Corridor o Trout R v H r Ri M r Northwest Mainline Loop No. 2 oberly River e o Provincial H v 29 M Fort i u (Bear Canyon North Extension) e R 64 Greene Valley s a QR St John Park kwa e r

s e QR r u R M r Provincial Park v Sand Lake t Taylor i e Regional Study Area - (RSA) Fairview i R v 63 v R i PEACE RIVER Provincial Duncan's i e QR

v r R r e e d

6220000 6220000 v r s i Horse Lake First Nation e Traditional Land

aw R Park l r REGIONAL DISTRICT r n e

i f e t Clayhurst First Nation v a d d i and Resource Use P k Peace River r Gift Lake n n R

s Ecological i i

i e Peavine Crow Lake r a

n e n K i v Wildland Métis a Ri v W L e Reserve R in o 49 e Métis Provincial st l l i l R d Settlement r QR ad Provincial Park h i i Settlement C S D v Park SCALE: 1:2,500,000

e Bigstone r

r Dawson Winagami Lake e km Creek 754 Cree Nation iv QR R 0 20 40 60 80 100 Provincial Park y Gwillim Lake a SADDLE HILLS P Sucker Creek M (All Locations Approximate) Provincial Park u Lesser Slave Lake s L First Nation COUNTY k i wl R 6160000 6160000 w tt O i l Provincial Park v

e er as er ka Smo v u k i 59 y R R k QR iv R High i

e MNAR5 t

r i Swan River a

i Sexsmith v

p e

Prairie I r Driftpile First Nation Slave Grande Young's Point La Biche River S Nose Creek First Nation a Bearhole Lake Provincial Park Lake n UTM Zone 11N Settlement 34 Wildland d M

Prairie R Proposed Routing: NGTL 2019; Road: NRCan 2015;

Provincial Park QR e i d

Grizzly Ridge Provincial Park v Railway: AltaLIS 2016; Hydrology, Waterbody: NRCan

R e r l r e i e e

i Rive h ver r v r apit East Prairie Wildland L c i y 2007-2011, AltaLIS 2014; Indian Reserve: Government of e W a B i R v R Ri Valleyview Métis Settlement lf Canada 2018; City/Town: AltaLIS 2018; Park/Protected Area: 33 Provincial Park W o i

y 2 813 v e 6100000 6100000 QR

a ATPR 2012; Municipal Boundary: AltaLIS 2017; Provincial QR QR r r r Boundary: ESRI 2005; Métis Nation of Alberta Association u Narr 44 M QR40 QR Regional Zones: AB Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Athabasca Affairs 1998; Regional Study Area (RSA): Jacobs 2019; a 43 G P w oose R e HillShade:TERA Environmental Consultants 2008. QR ive m Métis Nation of Alberta and Métis Settlement Generala Council r

b y i Although there is no reason to believe that there are R n a River administrative centres are located in Edmonton,i AB 36 r any errors associated with the data used to generate v 55 ve e R QR ea this product or in the product itself, users of these data r 32 QR B QR iver are advised that errors in the data may be present. 120000 180000 240000 300000 360000 420000 480000 540000 600000 660000 720000 780000 840000 900000 Mapped By: JPW Checked By: DR 707535_ESA_Figure1_1_TK_Report_TLRU_RSA_Rev1.mxd Traditional Knowledge Report

2. Methods

The following subsections describe the approach taken to gather relevant TK information from Aboriginal groups engaged on the Project to support the ESA for the Project. Data was collected through a variety of methods including literature/desktop review, TK studies, and map review meetings depending on the level of engagement of each community. Table 2-1 describes the status of TK studies being completed by each Aboriginal group currently engaged on the Project. The Project Construction Footprint (PCF), the TLRU Local Study Area, and the TLRU Regional Study Area (RSA) are defined, and the rationale for spatial boundaries are described in Section 4.2.1 of the ESA. Figures 4.2.1 to 4.2.9 in Section 4.2.1 show these spatial boundaries.

In this report, TK information is presented in the context of the Project areas that are within or proximate to the traditional territories, regional boundaries, and/or areas of interest identified by Aboriginal groups. TK information is organized by each Aboriginal group and is discussed at the level of the proposed pipeline sections and compressor station unit addition where these were identified by an Aboriginal group and where information is available.

2.1 Community Engagement

NGTL has undertaken engagement activities with Aboriginal groups to provide Project information and seek feedback from Aboriginal groups in order to anticipate, prevent, mitigate and manage conditions that have the potential to affect Aboriginal groups. A summary of NGTL’s Aboriginal engagement to date is included in Section 13 of the Application. The following Aboriginal groups are engaged in TK studies for the Project: • Beaver First Nation • Bigstone Cree Nation • Cadotte Lake Métis • Dene Tha’ First Nation • Doig River First Nation • Driftpile Cree Nation • Duncan’s First Nation • East Prairie Métis Settlement • Gift Lake Métis Settlement • Horse Lake First Nation • Loon River First Nation • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 • Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement • Peavine Métis Settlement • Peerless Trout First Nation • Swan River First Nation • Tallcree First Nation

Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Settlements General Council, Nose Creek Settlement, and Sucker Creek First Nation were notified of the Project. Since providing the initial Project notification package to Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Settlements General Council, Nose Creek Community, and Sucker Creek First Nation, NGTL followed up with emails and by telephone to verify whether the Aboriginal groups had any questions or concerns related to the Project. NGTL has not received a response from these Aboriginal groups. NGTL will continue to provide ongoing engagement, Project updates and Project information to these Aboriginal groups.

AX0921181128CGY 2-1 Traditional Knowledge Report

2.2 Review of Existing Data Sources and Literature

Background TK data were compiled using publicly available TK reports, environmental assessments for Projects with a similar socio-cultural context or regulatory context, and academic reports. The review of publicly available secondary data is useful in developing an understanding of baseline conditions within the Project area. Secondary data, where available, helped provide context for understanding Aboriginal groups’ relationship to, knowledge of, and use of the land that is essential to the overall physical, cultural and spiritual health of Aboriginal groups. The background information was considered in conjunction with baseline information from relevant biophysical elements (e.g., wildlife and vegetation), given the close connection to TLRU (i.e., species harvested and other resources required for TLRU).

As part of ongoing Project engagement, the results of the literature review, including TK information and relevant source information, were shared with Aboriginal groups. Aboriginal groups were invited to review and provide NGTL with feedback and additional sources of information. As part of that process, some groups provided concerns about the literature being relied on. Other groups did not provide any response. In an effort to address and incorporate community feedback, the following approach was taken for the literature review and ESA. • Where feedback from an Aboriginal group identified the literature as incomplete, this feedback, in addition to any new and/or corrected information, was included in this TK Report and considered in the ESA where applicable. NGTL informed the group that it was taking this approach, clarified that the literature review was publicly available information in and around the Project area and may not encompass complete traditional use for the entire traditional territory, that the literature review is only one of many sources used to inform the ESA, requested they provide any additional sources of TK and TLRU information that they would like considered, and confirmed that ongoing efforts include working with interested Aboriginal groups on community-led Project-specific TK studies in addition to TK shared as part of ongoing engagement. • Where inaccuracies were noted, accurate information and/or sources were requested and where received, it was incorporated into the TK Report and used to inform the ESA, where applicable. • Where an Aboriginal group requested that the information from the literature review not be used in the ESA, NGTL only included the literature review in the TK Report and did not rely upon this information to inform the ESA. NGTL also informed the group that it was taking this approach prior to filing the ESA. • If no feedback was provided, NGTL notified the group that the information would be considered in the TK Report and subsequently used to inform the ESA, where relevant.

Drafts of the literature reviews were sent to Aboriginal groups on January 25, 2019. Responses from Aboriginal groups are reported in the section for that Aboriginal group.

2.3 Traditional Knowledge Studies and Independent Collection of Traditional Knowledge Data

NGTL notified potentially affected Aboriginal groups of the Project in Q3 of 2018, and interested Aboriginal groups participated in TK studies or site visits for the Project. These studies were designed to allow each Aboriginal group to assess the area and document TK information for the Project. Aboriginal groups were invited to participate in TK studies or site visits of Project components located within their traditional territories. Since the Project components are geographically dispersed, potentially affected Aboriginal groups were identified by their respective Project component(s). The status of TK studies being completed by each participating Aboriginal group is described in Table 2-1. TK studies are ongoing and the nature of these TK studies were defined by each Aboriginal group.

2-2 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Table 2-1. Status of the Traditional Knowledge Studies Being Completed by Each Participating Aboriginal Group Aboriginal Group Interest in Method of Status of Study Conducting a Study Study

Beaver First Nation Yes Independent Underway for North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, Bear Canyon North Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition.

Bigstone Cree No N/A On November 1, 2018, Bigstone Cree Nation advised the Nation Project is in Peerless Trout First Nation territory and Bigstone Cree Nation has no concerns at this time.

Cadotte Lake Métis Yes Independent Underway for North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, Bear Canyon North Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition.

Dene Tha’ First Yes Independent Underway for North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, Nation Bear Canyon North Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition.

Doig River First Yes Independent Underway for Bear Canyon North Extension and Hidden Nation Lake North Unit Addition.

Driftpile Cree Yes Site visit Letter of no concern received on January 28, 2019 for Nation Hidden Lake North Unit Addition.

Duncan’s First Yes Independent NGTL is working together with Duncan’s First Nation to Nation define an independent TK study for the Project.

East Prairie Métis Yes Independent Underway for Bear Canyon North Extension. Settlement

Gift Lake Métis Yes Independent Complete. Settlement Received interim report on October 23, 2018 for Red Earth Section 3. Received interim report on November 9, 2018 for North Star Section 2. Received final report December 21, 2018 for North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3.

Horse Lake First Yes Independent Underway for North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, Nation Bear Canyon North Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition.

Loon River First Yes Independent Pending agreement with NGTL on appropriate scope and Nation costs.

Métis Nation of Yes Independent Complete. Alberta Region 5 Received final report. February 27, 2019 for Red Earth Section 3.

Métis Nation of Yes Independent Underway for North Star Section 2, Bear Canyon North Alberta Region 6 Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition.

Paddle Prairie Yes Independent Site visit results received on February 12, 2019 for Hidden Métis Settlement Lake North Unit Addition.

Peavine Métis Yes Facilitated Complete. Settlement Final report received on January 21, 2019 for North Star Section 2, and North Central Corridor Loop (Red Earth Section 3).

Peerless Trout First Yes TBD NGTL is working together with Peerless Trout First Nation to Nation define an independent TK study for the Project. Pending agreement with NGTL.

AX0921181128CGY 2-3 Traditional Knowledge Report

Table 2-1. Status of the Traditional Knowledge Studies Being Completed by Each Participating Aboriginal Group Aboriginal Group Interest in Method of Status of Study Conducting a Study Study

Swan River First Yes Independent Complete. Nation Final report received on February 25, 2019.

Tallcree First Yes Independent Underway for North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3. Nation

Note: TBD = to be determined

2-4 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

3. Results

This section summarizes the results of the literature review and Project-specific TK collection to date for the Project. A detailed summary of concerns identified by each Aboriginal group and NGTL’s responses to each potentially affected Aboriginal group is provided in the Project-related Issues Summaries for the Project (Appendix A) and will be addressed by the mitigation measures described in the Project-specific EPPs (Appendices 1A to 1D of the ESA). To date, Aboriginal groups have not specifically identified any trails or travelways, fishing sites, hunting sites, gathering sites, habitation sites, trapping sites, gathering areas or sacred sites within the PCF that require additional mitigation beyond what is outlined in the Project-specific EPPs.

Since the Project components are geographically dispersed, different Aboriginal groups were identified for different Project components. Some Aboriginal groups have traditional territories that interact with more than one Project component.

The following subsections contain the results of the literature review for available TK information regarding each Aboriginal group, and the results of TK studies for the Project, if available.

3.1 Beaver First Nation

Beaver First Nation is engaged on the North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, Bear Canyon North Extension and the Hidden Lake North Unit Additional. An independent TK study is underway for North Star Section 2; Red Earth Section 3; Bear Canyon North Extension; and, Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. To date, NGTL has not yet received the results of the TK study conducted by Beaver First Nation.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Beaver First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.1.1 Literature Review

Beaver First Nation is located in High Level, Alberta and has two reserves: Boyer 164 (4,249.30 hectares [ha]) and Child Lake 164A (2,826 ha). Boyer 164 is the most populated reserve. As of September 2018, Beaver First Nation had a registered population of 1,126 members with 444 community members living on-reserve (INAC, 2018a).

Beaver River First Nation is a signatory of Treaty 8 and is affiliated with the North Peace Tribal Council (INAC, 2018a). The North Peace Tribal Council provides children, health, and Tribal law enforcement services (North Peace Tribal Council, 2018). The Council was founded in 1987 by Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha’ First Nation, Little Red River Cree, and Tallcree First Nation. In 1995, Lubicon Lake Nation was accepted into the membership (Beaver First Nation, 2018).

Hunting, fishing, and trapping are activities that Beaver First Nation community members continue to practice. Moose and deer are both harvested, and caribou were frequently hunted historically (Site C First Nations Engagement Team, 2013).

On other pipeline projects, Beaver First Nation has expressed concerns regarding potential effects on hunting, trapping, and wildlife. These include potential effects on game trails and mineral licks, disruption of wildlife patterns, moose movement, and disruption of furbearer habitat. Degradation of lakes, rivers, and freshwater streams from watercourse crossing methods and potential effects to fish habitat were also concerns that were raised (CH2M, 2018a).

AX0921181128CGY 3-1 Traditional Knowledge Report

On other pipeline projects, Beaver First Nation also recommended that caribou and moose habitat should be protected and considered in pipeline routing. In addition, all game trails should be flagged and buffered prior to construction and all nesting areas should be avoided. Beaver First Nation recommended an environmental monitor from the community to be onsite during construction and post-construction, and that companies actively engage Beaver First Nation in all proposed reclamation activities (CH2M, 2017a).

The results of the literature review indicate that Beaver First Nation hunt, fish, and trap throughout their traditional territory, however, the information obtained was not at a level that was able to identify TLRU sites and activities specific to the TLRU RSA for the Project.

3.2 Bigstone Cree Nation

Bigstone Cree Nation is engaged on the Red Earth Section 3 for the Project. NGTL notified Bigstone Cree Nation of the Project and Bigstone Cree Nation provided NGTL with a statement of no concern on November 1, 2018.

NGTL continues to engage with Bigstone Cree Nation to provide Project updates and Project information.

3.2.1 Literature Review

Bigstone Cree Nation is located near Wabasca, Alberta and has seven reserves including Desmarais Settlement, Jean Baptiste Gambler (198.7 ha), Wabasca 166 (8,452.40 ha), Wabasca 166A (682.10 ha [most populated reserve]), Wabasca 166B (2,413.40 ha), Wabasca 166C (3,502.60 ha), and Wabasca 166D (5,817.40 ha) (INAC, 2018b).

As of September 2018, Bigstone Cree Nation had a registered population of 6,812 members with 2,635 members living on-reserve (INAC, 2018b). Bigstone Cree Nation’s traditional territory lies within the boreal forest regions of northcentral Alberta and includes lands near North Wabasca, South Wabasca, Sandy, and Calling lakes (TERA, 2015a).

Bigstone Cree Nation is the second largest Aboriginal group in Alberta and is located in Desmarais. Traditional lands in the subarctic boreal forests of northern Alberta sit above the rich oil sands deposits of the Athabasca region. Bigstone Cree Nation is a signatory of Treaty 8, signed in 1899. This treaty gives Treaty 8 and its signatories rights to use public Crown lands for traditional uses (CICADA, 2018).

Trout Lake and Peerless Lake used to be part of Bigstone Cree Nation until both communities formed their own group in 2010, and became Peerless Trout First Nation (TERA, 2015a). Peerless Trout First Nation and Bigstone Cree Nation have overlapping traditional territories due to marriages between members of each group. Additionally, these groups share many plant gathering, hunting, trapping, and cultural use areas (TERA, 2015a).

Bigstone Cree Nation continues to hunt and trap in their Traditional Territory. Several avian species are hunted, including American white pelican, bald eagle, crow, grouse, long-billed curlew, mallard duck, owl, sandhill crane, ptarmigan, seagull, loon, and Canada goose. The Nation hunts black bear, elk, barren ground caribou, mule, white-tailed deer, and moose. Species that are typically trapped include beaver, badger, cougar, coyote, fisher, lynx, marten, mink, muskrat, porcupine, rabbit/hare, red fox, red squirrel, river otter, skunk, weasel/ermine, wolf, and wolverine (TERA, 2015a).

There are several Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) held by Bigstone Cree Nation (TERA, 2015a). The community has expressed concerns regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat, including potential effects to water quality and quantity, and potential contamination of watercourses (TERA, 2015b).

Fishing continues to be practiced by Bigstone Cree Nation in North Wabasca, South Wabasca, Buffalo, Horsetail, and Kamistikowik lakes, as well as along the Wabasca, Buffalo, and Athabasca rivers. Fish harvested by Bigstone Cree Nation include Arctic grayling, chub, cisco (tullibee), goldeye, lake trout, ling cod, northern pike, red and longnose sucker, walleye, whitefish, and yellow perch (TERA, 2015a). Fishing locales reported on past projects by Bigstone Cree Nation are listed with each distance from the Project in Table 3-1. None of these locations are within the TLRU RSA for the Project.

3-2 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Table 3-1. Fishing Locales Currently Used by Bigstone Cree Nation Community Members Location Distance from Closest Project Component Site Description(s) Status

North Wabasca Lake < 100 km away from the Project Fishing Current

South Wabasca Lake < 100 km away from the Project Fishing Current

Buffalo Lake < 100 km away from the Project Fishing Current

Horsetail Lake < 100 km away from the Project Fishing Current

Kamistikowik Lake < 100 km away from the Project Fishing Current

Wabasca River < 100 km away from the Project Fishing Current

Buffalo River < 100 km away from the Project Fishing Current

Athabasca River < 200 km away from the Project Fishing Current

Source: TERA, 2015a. Note: < = less than

Bigstone Cree Nation recommended that a percentage of Aboriginal people be hired for monitoring and construction jobs and that priority be given to locals when hiring staff and contractors. It is also important to note that Bigstone Cree Nation is involved in business opportunities, such as camp partnerships, that could benefit pipeline companies (TERA, 2015b).

The results of the literature review indicate that Bigstone Cree Nation hunt, fish, and trap throughout their traditional territory. None of the TLRU sites identified in the literature review are within the TLRU RSA for the Project.

3.3 Cadotte Lake Métis

Cadotte Lake Métis is engaged on North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition for the Project. An independent TK study is underway for North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. To date, NGTL has not yet received the results of the TK study conducted by Cadotte Lake Métis.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Cadotte Lake Métis through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.3.1 Literature Review

The community of Cadotte Lake Métis is located within the Municipal District (MD) of Northern Sunrise County in the Peace River Region of Alberta. The Métis community continues to practice a traditional way of life that includes hunting, fishing, trapping, sustenance harvesting, and gathering medicinal plants. The community sets up camps and traverses the land and waters to maintain a traditional economy. Cadotte Lake Métis has a strong connection to the land and exercises their Treaty rights to hunt and fish in order to provide for their community (Langlois, 2018).

Cadotte Lake Métis has expressed concerns on past pipeline projects, including potential effects and cumulative effects on Aboriginal rights and interests, socio-economic effects to human health, and impacts to cultural heritage. Additionally, Cadotte Lake Métis previously expressed concerns regarding potential oil leaks and spills from construction machinery and the resulting emergency response and community notification methods. Increased traffic on roads and the effect to current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes were also identified as concerns (Langlois, 2018; NGTL, 2014; TERA, 2015b).

AX0921181128CGY 3-3 Traditional Knowledge Report

Cadotte Lake Métis expressed concerns related to vegetation, including herbicide use and reseeding with clover. Conservation of poplar, spruce, and jack pine is important, and timber should be salvaged (NGTL, 2014; TERA, 2015b). Concerns related to wildlife include disruption to Crown land that may affect wild grazing animals and areas used for hunting or other TLRU activities (NGTL, 2014; TERA, 2015b).

The results of the literature review indicate that Cadotte Lake Métis hunt, fish, trap, and gather medicinal plants throughout their traditional territory, however, no site-specific information was identified.

3.4 Dene Tha’ First Nation

Dene Tha’ First Nation is engaged on the North Star Section 2, Bear Canyon North Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition for the Project. An independent TK study is underway for North Star Section 2, Bear Canyon North Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. To date, NGTL has not yet received the results of the TK study conducted by Dene Tha’ First Nation.

Upon review of the TK Literature Review, Dene Tha’ First Nation informed NGTL that they did not grant NGTL permission to use the information shared in the community-specific TK Literature Review for the assessment of potential effects on Dene Tha’ First Nation’s rights. Dene Tha’ First Nation stated the information included in their proposed TK study would provide Project-specific information approved and supported by Dene Tha First Nation and requested that the information from the TK Literature Review not be used to inform the ESA.

NGTL informed Dene Tha’ First Nation that their community-specific TK Literature Review would be included with the publicly available literature review information in the ESA TK Report; however, NGTL confirmed to Dene Tha’ First Nation their community-specific TK Literature Review would not be relied on for the Project’s ESA and that NGTL remained committed to considering additional information brought forward concerning Dene Tha’ First Nation’s TK in the Project area.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Dene Tha’ First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.4.1 Literature Review

Dene Tha’ First Nation is located in Chateh, Alberta, approximately 75 km west of High Level. Dene Tha’ First Nation has seven reserves, including Amber River 211 (2,332.30 ha), Bistcho Lake 213 (354.10 ha), Bushe River 207 (11,167.50 ha), Hay Lake 209 (12,355.30 ha [most populated]), Jackfish Point 214 (103.60 ha), Upper Hay River 212 (1,418 ha), and Zama Lake 210 (2,307.20 ha) (INAC, 2018c).

The registered population of Dene Tha’ First Nation as of September 2018 was 3,148, with 2,105 members living on-reserve (INAC, 2018c).

Dene Tha’ First Nation is a signatory of Treaty 8 and is affiliated with the North Peace Tribal Council (INAC, 2018c). The North Peace Tribal Council provides child, health, and Tribal law enforcement services. The Council was founded in 1987 by Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha’ First Nation, Little Red River Cree, and Tallcree First Nation. In 1995, Lubicon Lake Nation was accepted into the membership.

The majority of Dene Tha’ First Nation community members speak Dene as a first language and each community member has a Dene name, as well as an English name. In the past, last names were not given; however, first names were changed to a community member’s first wildlife kill when coming of age. Dene names are also given to places within Dene Tha’ First Nation’s traditional territory (Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018a).

Dene Tha’ First Nation continues to trap in Chateh, Meander River, and Bushe River, despite the unpredictable nature of the modern fur trade market. Most of the fur comes out of Chateh, and the Northwest Company is the Nation’s main buyer. Lynx, marten, and fox are harvested in January and February, and in the spring, muskrat and beaver are trapped (Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018a).

3-4 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

On past projects, moose were identified as the most important animal hunted by Dene Tha’ First Nation. Moose can be hunted year-round and all parts of the animal are used. The meat is either dried or frozen, and the hide is tanned and used to make clothing. The moose is a main staple of Dene Tha’ First Nation diet and is vital to Elders (Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018b). Traditional use sites reported on past projects by Dene Tha’ First Nation are listed with each distance from the Project in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Traditional Land Use Sites Currently Used by Dene Tha’ First Nation Community Members Location Distance from Closest Site Description(s) Status Project Component

Chateh, Alberta 163 km from Project Trapping Current Sacred Tea Ceremony

Meander River < 200 km from the Project Trapping Current Sacred Tea Ceremony

Bushe River 212 km from the Project Trapping Current

Chinchaga River 190 km from the Project Fishing Current

Source: Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018a.

On other pipeline projects, Dene Tha’ First Nation has expressed concerns regarding the effects of pipeline projects on hunting, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. In particular, Dene Tha’ First Nation is concerned about adverse effects to woodland/boreal caribou whose survival is already threatened by habitat loss and disturbance (Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018b, 2018c). To address this, Dene Tha’ First Nation recommended on past pipeline projects that they be engaged on caribou mitigation measures, including the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan (CH2M, 2018a).

Dene Tha’ First Nation has expressed concerns regarding the effects of pipeline projects on TLRU activities, including hunting, fishing, plant gathering, trapping, and loss of lands. Specifically, Dene Tha’ First Nation is concerned about erosion of the Nation’s ability to conduct traditional activities, cumulative effects of development on use of the land for traditional purposes, loss of traditional lands due to increased development, and loss of connection to lands and associated effects to the Nation’s cultural existence (Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018a, 2018b). Dene Tha’ First Nation believe that in some instances, project mitigation and management plans are inadequate for the Nation’s traditional practices, wildlife, and environmental support systems (Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018a).

Concerns related to fishing include the use of open-cut watercourse crossing methods that may result in potential adverse impacts to fish and fish habitat (Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018a, 2018b).

The results of the literature review indicate that Dene Tha’ First Nation hunt, fish, trap, and gather traditional and medicinal plants and berries throughout their traditional territory. None of the TLRU sites identified in the literature are within the TLRU RSA for the Project.

3.5 Doig River First Nation

Doig River First Nation is engaged on the Bear Canyon North Extension and the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition for the Project. An independent TK study is underway for North Star Section 2 and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. To date, NGTL has not yet received the results of TK studies conducted by Doig River First Nation.

Upon review of the TK Literature Review, Doig River First Nation informed NGTL that they did not grant NGTL permission to use the information shared in the community-specific TK Literature Review for the assessment of potential effects on Doig River First Nation’s rights. Doig River First Nation stated the information included in their proposed TK study would provide Project-specific information approved and supported by Doig River First Nation and requested that the information from the TK Literature Review not be used to inform the ESA.

AX0921181128CGY 3-5 Traditional Knowledge Report

NGTL informed Doig River First Nation that their community-specific TK Literature Review would be included with the publicly available literature review information in the ESA TK Report; however, NGTL confirmed to Doig River First Nation their community-specific TK Literature Review would not be relied on for the Project’s ESA and that NGTL remained committed to considering additional information brought forward concerning Doig River First Nation’s TK in the Project area.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Doig River First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.5.1 Literature Review

Doig River First Nation has two reserves on the north half of Beatton River 204 (357.30 ha) and Doig River 206 (1000.80 ha), both located in the Peace River District. Doig River First Nation is a signatory of Treaty 8 and is associated with Treaty 8 Tribal Association. Additionally, Doig River First Nation was formerly known as the Fort St. John Beaver Band. As of September 2018, Doig River First Nation has a registered population of 313 members, with 132 members living on-reserve (INAC, 2018d).

The traditional language of Doig River First Nation is Dane-Zaa (First People’s Heritage Language & Culture Council, 2017). Many Doig First Nation traditional use areas have Dane-Zaa place names (NEB, 2017).

Doig River First Nation community members reported on past projects that they continue to use their traditional lands to hunt, trap, and exercise their traditional rights. Doig River First Nation reported that they used their traditional territory during seasonal rounds for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, and cultural purposes. Burial grounds and spiritual areas are located throughout their territory and have been previously identified in the Dunvegan Crossing and Beatton River regions (NEB, 2017).

Doig River First Nation reported on past projects that they harvest traditional resources following the seasonal round, which involves trapping beaver in the spring, tracking game, such as moose, deer, and bears in the fall, harvesting berries and roots in the summer, and trapping in the winter (NEB, 2017). Moose is a principal food source for community members and protection of moose licks is important to the community. Hunting and trapping sites previously identified by Doig River First Nation include Clear Hills and the Peace River (NEB, 2017). Smaller animals, including rabbit, chickens, and lynx, are also harvested and community members report less abundance of rabbits and porcupine. Some community members still trap; although, with less frequency due to the low price for furs (NEB, 2017). The ability of future generations of Doig River First Nation to use their traditional territory, be on the land, and support their culture and livelihood was reported by Doig River First Nation community members and Elders on past projects to be important to the community (NEB, 2017).

Doig River First Nation raised concerns regarding caribou on past projects, including insufficient Caribou Habitat Management Plans and habitat restoration measures for caribou, and cumulative habitat loss or alteration for caribou (Doig River First Nation, 2018). Other wildlife related concerns include effects to the predator/prey dynamics by way of improved lines-of-site along the ROW, a decrease in caribou populations, caribou calf health, loss of caribou habitat including wetlands, and loss of food for caribou including lichen species (CH2M, 2017a, 2018a, 2018b). To reduce these effects, Doig River First Nation has recommended increased monitoring prior to development and during construction, and continued monitoring after the pipeline is operational to track wildlife populations and patterns (CH2M, 2017a, 2018a, 2018b). Doig River First Nation also recommends protection of areas of high habitat and implementation of best practices to avoid animal disturbance, such as avoiding construction and undue disturbance from operation during late winter when animals may already be stressed and late spring/early summer calving season. Other measures to reduce impacts to wildlife recommended by Doig River First Nation include use of low-impact bird deterrents, such as owls, restoration of caribou and moose populations to sustain traditional diet preferences, surveying of game trails to avoid disturbance, and fencing of oil and well sites (CH2M, 2017b).

3-6 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Doig River First Nation voiced concerns on past projects about the effects of projects on their TLRU activities, including increased noise and traffic, and clearing of large areas of land creating land fragmentation leading to decreased access to land by community members (CH2M, 2017a, 2018a, 2018b). To address these concerns, Doig River First Nation has recommended that access management plans be developed collaboratively through consultation with Doig River First Nation and planning for, and conduct of, joint monitoring of development (CH2M, 2017b).

On past projects, Doig River First Nation community members reported fishing the watercourses within their traditional territory for salmon, jackfish, grayling, whitefish, pickerel, speckled trout, and rainbow trout. These watercourses were also relied upon for clean drinking water and to make tea and are important to wildlife in the region. Watercourses were also used as traditional travelways, specifically the Peace River (CH2M, 2017a). Doig River First Nation expressed concerns on past projects regarding effects to fish and fish habitat from disruption of streamflow (CH2M, 2018a).

Recommendations made by Doig River First Nation on past projects regarding fish and fish habitat and water quality include erosion control at all watercourse crossings and a request that water quality studies be conducted. Doig River First Nation also requested the restoration of river crossing areas including developing and implementing riparian zone management and strategies for responding to changing rainfall, snow melt and runoff conditions, riparian areas be revegetated and buffered, and the depth of pipeline be increased at stream crossings (127 centimeters below the stream bed). Additionally, Doig River First Nation suggests Horizontal Directional Drilling be employed to enable riparian areas to be revegetated with native species, pipeline thickness should be 50% thicker under water than the pipe used under the rest of the route, special coatings that are impact resistant be used at watercourse crossings, abrasion resistant and highly durable pipe should be used on pipelines that cross under water to prevent damage from rocks and debris in the soil and in moving water, and block valves that can shut off the line if pipeline integrity is at risk should be installed on each side of a stream crossing (CH2M, 2017b).

On past projects, Doig River First Nation reported harvesting plants, berries, and traditional medicines. Traditional medicines are used to treat ailments, including colds, chest infections, tonsillitis, and heart conditions (NEB, 2017). Doig River First Nation has expressed concern about herbicide use to maintain the ROW. On past pipeline projects, Doig River First Nation recommended the reduction or elimination of spraying herbicides to maintain the ROW and access roads, in addition to researching alternatives to pesticide and herbicide use, such as the use of Doig River First Nation-owned and operated biological controls (that is, sheep). Doig River First Nation also recommended active planting of both understory and overstory vegetation and active revegetation/recovery for all impacts to vegetation, especially wetlands and high-value caribou habitat (Doig River First Nation, 2018).

On past projects, Doig River First Nation was concerned about the potential for a leak during operations and the impacts that could have on air, water, and soil (CH2M, 2017a, 2018a, 2018b). Additionally, Doig River First Nation is concerned about potential effects to traditional use sites and potentially undiscovered archeological sites and improper waste management and the adequacy of mitigation measures to address these concerns (CH2M, 2018a).

The results of the literature review indicate that Doig River First Nation hunt, fish, trap, and gather traditional and medicinal plants and berries throughout their traditional territory.

3.6 Driftpile Cree Nation

Driftpile Cree Nation is engaged on the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition for the Project. A site visit was conducted by Driftpile Cree Nation of the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. Upon completion of the TK site visit, Driftpile Cree Nation provided NGTL with a statement of no concern regarding the Project.

NGTL continues to engage with Driftpile Cree Nation to provide Project updates and Project information. NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Driftpile First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise.

AX0921181128CGY 3-7 Traditional Knowledge Report

3.6.1 Literature Review

Driftpile Cree Nation is located on the southwest shore of Lesser Slave Lake, 257 km northwest of the City of Edmonton. As of September 2018, the registered population of Driftpile Cree Nation is 2,853, with 958 people living on the Driftpile River 150. Driftpile River 150 has a land area of 60.7 km square and is one of five reserves on the Lesser Slave Lake Regional Council. The community is remote, being approximately 50 km and 350 km away from services; however, there is a fire hall in the community (INAC, 2018e).

Currently, Driftpile Cree Nation is exploring new long-term sustainable economic growth opportunities in tourism (Driftpile Cree Nation, 2018).

Driftpile Cree Nation community members reported on pasts projects that they hunt, fish, trap, and harvest plants regularly in their traditional territory. Driftpile Cree Nation hunts and traps wildlife for food and cultural and medicinal purposes. On past projects, Driftpile Cree Nation raised concerns regarding contamination of wild meats due to industrial development and increased access to hunting by way of access roads (FMA, 2011).

Driftpile Cree Nation noted on a past projects that fishing is an important activity for the community. The community regularly fishes for grayling, jackfish, perch, pickerel, trout, and whitefish (FMA, 2011). Driftpile Cree Nation voiced concerns on past projects regarding the potential contamination of spring water for animals, plants, and humans. They have observed fish with abnormalities that they believe could be related to water contamination (FMA, 2011).

Driftpile Cree Nation reported on past projects that vegetation harvested for food and medicinal purposes include blueberries, chokeberries, multiple types of cranberries, gooseberries, huckleberries, raspberries, saskatoon berries, wild hazelnut, wild potatoes, wild onions, bulrushes, and the root of cattail. In addition, Driftpile Cree Nation reported the following traditional medicines on past projects: arrow plant, devils club, diamond willow fungus, elephant ears, fireweed, heart medicine, Indian rhubarb, mountain ash, king root, muskeg tea, rabbit root, sage, spruce gum, strawberry root, thistle, white poplar, white yarrow, and wild mint. Driftpile First Nation expressed concerns about contamination of traditionally used vegetation (FMA, 2011).

The Elders of Driftpile Cree Nation were concerned on past projects regarding the overall health of their traditional territory, the decline of quality traditional resources, and the physical, social, and cultural wellbeing of their people (FMA, 2011).

The results of the literature review indicate that Doig River First Nation hunt, fish, trap, and harvest plants regularly in their traditional territory, however, no specific sites were identified.

3.7 Duncan’s First Nation

Duncan’s First Nation is engaged on the North Star Section 2, Bear Canyon North Extension, and the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition for the Project. NGTL is working together with Duncan’s First Nation to define an independent TK study for the Project.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Duncan’s First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.7.1 Literature Review

Duncan’s First Nation has two reserves: Duncan’s 151 A, located 39 km southwest of Peace River, Alberta (2,036.80 ha) and William McKenzie 151K, located 33 km north of McLennan, Alberta (389.30 ha). As of September 2018, Duncan’s First Nation had a total registered population of 320, with 144 members living on their reserves. Duncan’s 151A is their most populated reserve. Duncan’s First Nation is a signatory of Treaty 8 and is associated with Treaty 8 Tribal Association (INAC, 2018f).

3-8 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Duncan’s First Nation reported on past projects that community members continue to practice hunting, fishing, trapping, and plant harvesting (CH2M, 2017a). On past projects, the previously noted traditional activities are commonly practiced by Duncan’s First Nation in the Grande Prairie and Economy Lake regions, as well as along the Peace River (Wood, 2018).

Duncan’s First Nation reported on past projects that the Peace River region and the Peace River Valley were where their ancestors had a well-established way of life. The economy at the time of European contact was based on fishing, hunting, and plant and earth-material gathering. Duncan’s First Nation participated in the fur trade, with other Aboriginal people and with Europeans, and traded furs, wood, and the products that came from hunting, fishing, and trapping. Historically, Duncan’s First Nation’s way of life depended on availability and access to preferred lands, waters, and natural resources to maintain the seasonal harvesting cycles, as well as the ability to pass knowledge on to future generations. This included knowledge pertaining to traditional seasonal harvesting cycles, traditional hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering practices, and spiritual and ceremonial beliefs (CH2M, 2017a).

Fishing was reported to occur in Duncan’s First Nation traditional territory on past projects. A variety of species were reported as being fished, including arctic grayling, brook trout, bull trout, dolly varden, goldeneye, jackfish, lake whitefish, lingcod (burbot), mountain whitefish, northern pike, pickerel, rainbow trout, and walleye (CH2M, 2017a). Fishing locales reported on past projects by Duncan’s First Nation are listed with each distance from the Project in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Fishing Locales Currently Used by Duncan’s First Nation Community Members Location Distance from Closest Site Description(s) Status Project Component

Confluence of the Peace 100 km from the Project Fishing Current River and the Smoky River

Confluence of the Whitemud 91 km from the Project Fishing Current River and the Peace River

Confluence of the Carmon 72 km from the Project Fishing Current River and the Peace River

Confluence of the Cadotte 73 km from the Project Fishing Current River and the Peace River

Confluence of the Notikewin 26 km from the Project Fishing Current River and the Peace River

Peace River near Manning 18 km from the Project Fishing Current

Shaftesbury Ferry Crossing 104 km from the Project Fishing Current

Elk Island Provincial Park < 200 km from the Project Fishing Current

Confluence of Boucher Creek 82 km from the Project Fishing Current and the Peace River

Upstream and downstream of 80 km from the Project Fishing Current the Dunvegan Bridge

Hamelin Creek 60 km from the Project Fishing Current

Montagnueuse Creek 54 km from the Project Fishing Current

Figure Eight Lake < 200 km from the Project Fishing Current

Sulphur Lake 56 km from the Project Fishing Current

Running Lake 70 km from the Project Fishing Current

Haig Lake 54 km from the Project Fishing Current

Snipe Lake < 200 km from the Project Fishing Current

AX0921181128CGY 3-9 Traditional Knowledge Report

Table 3-3. Fishing Locales Currently Used by Duncan’s First Nation Community Members Location Distance from Closest Site Description(s) Status Project Component

Twin Lakes < 200 km from the Project Fishing Current

Ksituan River 74 km from the Project Fishing Current

Henderson Creek 36 km from the Project Fishing Current

Source: CH2M, 2017a.

Duncan’s First Nation reported on past projects that they gather plants for traditional uses in their traditional territory, including blueberries, chokecherry, cranberries, dandelion, diamond willow, herbs (unspecified), Labrador tea, high and lowbush cranberries, mint, rat root, raspberries, red willow, rosehip, Saskatoon berries, wild rhubarb, and wild strawberries. On past projects, Duncan’s First Nation expressed concern about loss of native vegetation (CH2M, 2017a; Wood, 2018).

Duncan’s First Nation reported harvesting numerous wildlife species on past projects, including bear, beaver, birds, caribou, chicken, coyote, ducks, elk, fox, geese, grebes, grouse, lynx, moose (most harvested species), partridge, porcupine, ptarmigan, rabbit, swan, whitetail deer, and whooping crane (CH2M, 2017a; Wood, 2018).

On past projects, Duncan’s First Nation has expressed concerns regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat, including loss of ungulate cover and the viability of species-at-risk. Additionally, concerns were expressed about disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat, including effects to black-throated green warbler, cape may warbler, common nighthawk, great gray owl, grizzly bear, hooded merganser, horned grebe, least flycatcher, northern long-eared bat, olive-sided flycatcher, pileated woodpecker, rusty blackbird, sharp-tailed grouse, short-eared owl, trumpeter swan, western tanager, wolverine, and western toad (CH2M, 2017a).

The results of the literature review indicate that Duncan’s First Nation hunt, fish, trap, and harvest plants regularly in their traditional territory. None of the TLRU sites identified in the literature review are within the TLRU RSA for the Project.

3.8 East Prairie Métis Settlement

East Prairie Métis Settlement is engaged on the Bear Canyon North Extension for the Project. An independent TK study is underway for the Bear Canyon North Extension. To date, NGTL has not yet received the results of TK study conducted by East Prairie Métis Settlement.

NGTL continues to engage with East Prairie Metis Settlement to provide Project updates and Project information.

3.8.1 Literature Review

East Prairie Métis Settlement is located in the MD of Big Lakes, approximately 20 km south of Highway 2 and 168 km east of Grande Prairie. The Settlement was founded in 1939, though the Métis have traditionally inhabited the areas long before it was founded (MSGC, 2018a). The land area of the settlement is quite large at 32,635 ha and East Prairie Métis Settlement has a population of 304 people according to their 2016 profile census (Statistics Canada, 2018a).

The community of East Prairie Métis Settlement is one of the eight Métis Settlements located throughout Northern Alberta and is a part of the Métis Settlements General Council (MSGC). The MSGC is the governing authority for all eight Métis Settlement councils (MSGC, 2018a).

3-10 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

East Prairie Métis Settlement is part of the MSGC, which is an initiative set up with the federal government tasked with beginning a dialogue on Métis reconciliation. The MSGC is currently working on an important climate change leadership initiative headed by the Alberta government. The mission is a reduction in carbon emissions and a promotion of renewable energy in Métis Settlements Alberta-wide (MSGC, 2017).

East Prairie Métis Settlement expressed concerns while being engaged on a past pipeline project, including loss of habitat, loss of traditional hunting areas, and loss of cultural identity (CH2M, 2018c).

East Prairie Métis Settlement has been engaged on several energy projects; however, literature with detailed TK information, including specific TLRU sites and the extent of East Prairie Métis Settlement’s traditional territory, was not available for this literature review.

3.9 Gift Lake Métis Settlement

Gift Lake Métis Settlement is engaged on the North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3 for the Project. An independent TK study was conducted for the North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3. During the independent TK study for the Project, Gift Lake Métis Settlement focused on the community’s current use of lands to identify TLUs and environmental features (Gift Lake Métis Settlement, 2019). Results of Gift Lake Métis Settlement’s TK study are summarized in Section 3.9.2 below.

NGTL continues to engage with Gift Lake Métis Settlement to provide Project updates and information.

3.9.1 Literature Review

Gift Lake Métis Settlement is a Métis community in northern Alberta within Big Lakes County along Highway 750, located approximately 203 km northeast of Grande Prairie. The land base of Gift Lake Métis Settlement covers 81,273 ha (MSGC, 2018b). The registered population of Gift Lake Métis Settlement as of 2016 was 658 (Statistics Canada, 2018b).

Historically, Gift Lake was a special gathering place for Aboriginal groups of the area where trading of gifts and goods would take place (LSLEA, 2018).

Utikuma Lake, one of the largest lakes in the MD of Big Lakes, is near Gift Lake Métis Settlement and is used by the community for camping, fishing, and other recreational activities (LSLEA, 2018).

Gift Lake Métis Settlement has been engaged on several energy projects; however, literature with detailed TK information, including specific TLRU, was not available at the time in which this report was prepared.

The results of the literature review indicate that Gift Lake Métis Settlement hunt, fish, and trap throughout their traditional territory, however, no site-specific information was identified.

3.9.2 Traditional Knowledge

Gift Lake Métis Settlement’s TK fieldwork included the participation of four community representatives. TK knowledge gathered on the study was shared with NGTL in a letter of concern. Gift Lake Métis Settlement provided a list of concerns and legal locations for TK sites associated with those concerns. Jacobs used the legal locations to determine the locations of the TK sites relative to the Project, however, since legal locations are not specific the specific locations of these TK sites is not known.Gift Lake Métis Settlement expressed concern for the Loon River, which is fish bearing, and three other watercourses identified during the TK field studies between Kilometre Post (KP) 7.3 and KP 9.0 and KP 13.9 and KP 15.6 (fish bearing watercourses), two small intermittent creeks between KP 28.7 and KP 31.9, and muskeg between KP 7.3 and KP 9 and KP 30.9 and KP 31.9. Specific locations for these watercourses were not provided (Gift Lake Métis Settlement, 2019).

AX0921181128CGY 3-11 Traditional Knowledge Report

Community members identified trees including white and black spruce, tamarack, poplar and white birch. Labrador tea, common yarrow, fungus, raspberries, and high bush cranberries were also identified during TK field studies. Gift Lake Métis Settlement expressed general concern for vegetation species, however, did not provide any details regarding the concerns (Gift Lake Métis Settlement, 2019).

Wildlife tracks including moose, bear and deer were identified by Gift Lake Métis Settlement as well as moose beds on the ROW. Hunting grounds and campsites were identified between KP 13.9 and KP 15.6 and KP 28.7 and KP 31.9. Gift Lake Métis Settlement expressed concerns regarding wildlife, hunting grounds and hunting campsites (Gift Lake Métis Settlement, 2019).

Gift Lake Métis Settlement expressed concern regarding the trapper’s cabin identified 100 m from the PCF between KP 28.7 to KP 31.9 (trappers’ cabin) near the Loon River crossing in proximity to the Red Earth Section 3 PCF (Gift Lake Métis Settlement, 2019).

Gift Lake Métis Settlement recommends that an environmental monitor be on site for the duration of the Project and recommends a site visit to determine the extent of damages and identify if transplanting needs to occur (Gift Lake Métis Settlement, 2019).

Concerns identified by Gift Lake Métis Settlement were addressed by the measures described in the EPP to be implemented for North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3 (Appendices 1A and 1B of the ESA). All Gift Lake Métis Settlement community concerns and recommendations outlined in this subsection have been addressed in Appendix A of this report, Project-related Issues Summaries for the Project.

3.10 Horse Lake First Nation

Horse Lake First Nation is engaged on the North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, Bear Canyon North Extension and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition for the Project. An independent TK study is underway for North Star Section 2, Red Earth Section 3, Bear Canyon North Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. To date, NGTL has not yet received the results of the TK study conducted by Horse Lake First Nation.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Horse Lake First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.10.1 Literature Review

Horse Lake First Nation is located 63 km northwest of Grande Prairie, Alberta. Horse Lake First Nation has two reserves: Clear Hills 152C (1,547.10 ha), located 56 km northwest of Fairview and Horse Lakes 152B (1,552 ha), located 60 km northwest of Grande Prairie. As of September 2018, Horse Lake First Nation had a registered population of 1,224, with 494 people living on their reserves. Horse Lakes 152B is their most populated reserve (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, (INAC), 2018g).

On past projects, Horse Lake First Nation reported current use of the Upper Halfway River, the Sikanni River, and the Pink Mountain regions in British Columbia (BC) for TLRU activities (Traditions Consulting, Inc., 2013). The largest concentration of TLRU activities reported occur around the Horse Lake 152B reserve in Alberta, east of Dawson Creek and southwards on both sides of the BC/Alberta border (Traditions Consulting Services, Inc., 2013).

Multiple travel routes are used by Horse Lake First Nation community members to access hunting, plant harvesting, fishing, habitation, and gathering sites (Traditions Consulting Services, Inc., 2013).

Hunting typically occurs near Horse Lake 152B (Wood, 2018). In 2012, approximately 2,545 big and small-game and bird hunting sites were identified within Horse Lake First Nation’s traditional territory. General hunting sites used by community members include areas east and south of Dawson Creek and Clear Hills, Alberta. Horse Lake First Nation community members trapped furbearing mammals in the past; however, no current traplines or trapping locations were identified in the literature

3-12 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

(Traditions Consulting Services, Inc., 2013). Species commonly hunted by Horse Lake First Nation community members include moose, elk and deer, bear, furbearers, and birds (Traditions Consulting Services, Inc., 2013).

Horse Lake First Nation expressed concerns regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat and land use while being engaged on past pipeline projects including the ability to use the land for TLRU activities and to exercise traditional rights, effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat (fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects), potential effects on mineral licks and direct and indirect cumulative effects of industrial development on wildlife including, insects, birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians and construction noise (CH2M, 2017a, 2017b)

Northern pike and walleye are two of many species fished by Horse Lake First Nation community members (Traditions Consulting Services, Inc., 2013). Fishing occurs along the Peace River, across from the BC border and east of Many Islands, a park and camping area in Alberta (Wood, 2018). Concerns expressed by Horse Lake First Nation regarding fishing and water and water quality while being engaged on past pipeline projects include effects on water quality and quantity, access to safe potable water and potential effects to wetlands, freshwater streams, natural springs and water bodies (CH2M, 2017a, 2017b).

Horse Lake First Nation community members’ plant gathering sites are clustered east and south of Dawson Creek region in Alberta and BC (Traditions Consulting Services, Inc., 2013). Concerns expressed by Horse Lake First Nation regarding plant gathering while being engaged on past pipeline projects include effects on vegetation health and plant gathering sites and having to travel farther from their community to gather herbs and medicines (CH2M, 2017a, 2017b).

TLRU sites reported on past projects by Horse Lake First Nation are listed with each distance from the Project in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4. Traditional Land and Resource Sites Currently Used by Horse Lake First Nation Community Members Location Distance from Closest Site Description(s) Status Project Component

Peace River 15 km from the Project Fishing (northern pike, Current walleye, and pickerel)

East of Many Islands 42 km from the Project Fishing Current

Clear Hills 64 km from the Project Hunting Current

Upper Halfway River < 100 km from the Project Fishing Current

Sikanni River < 100 km from the Project Fishing Current

Pink Mountain region < 100 km from the Project Fishing Current

Horse Lakes 152 B (60 km 50 km from the Project TLRU activities Current northwest of Grande Prairie) Hunting Fishing Plant gathering

Source: CH2M, 2017a, 2017b.

Horse Lake First Nation made recommendations regarding management of cumulative effects while being engaged on past pipeline projects including a request that information on plans for assessing and managing cumulative effects of industrial development in the area be provided to the community, projects should be considered within the context of other industrial developments in the area, cumulative effects should be assessed using a pre-industrial baseline, and that a Horse Lake First Nation Environmental Monitor be onsite pre-, during, and post-construction and involved in the planning and implementation of reclamation activities (CH2M, 2017a, 2017b).

AX0921181128CGY 3-13 Traditional Knowledge Report

The results of the literature review indicate that Horse Lake First Nation hunt, fish, trap, and harvest plants regularly in their traditional territory. None of the TLRU sites identified in the literature review are within the TLRU RSA for the Project.

3.11 Loon River First Nation

Loon River First Nation is engaged on the Red Earth Section 3 for the Project. An independent TK study is underway for Red Earth 3 Section. To date, NGTL has not yet received the results of the TK study conducted by Loon River First Nation.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Loon River First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.11.1 Literature Review

Loon River First Nation is located near the Hamlet of Red Earth Creek, Alberta, approximately 175 km north of Lesser Slave Lake, Alberta. Loon River First Nation has three reserves, including Loon Lake 235 (6,902.3 ha) [most populated]), Loon Prairie 237 (259.6 ha), and Swampy Lake 236 (14,744.4 ha) (INAC, 2018h).

The registered population of Loon River First Nation as of October 2018 was 656, with 539 members living on-reserve (INAC, 2018h). Loon River First Nation was previously known as one of the “isolated communities” located within the Treaty 8 area of Alberta. Although Treaty 8 was originally signed in 1899, the Loon River First Nation did not sign the treaty until 1991, and the addendum to Treaty 8 was completed in 1999. The reason for the absence from the signing of Treaty 8 is that the commissioners traveled by major rivers and Loon River First Nation lived “in the bush” between the rivers (Schreyer, 2009).

Loon River First Nation is affiliated with the Kee Tas Kee Now Tribal Council. The Kee Tas Kee Now Tribal Council consists of Loon River First Nation, Whitefish Lake First Nation, Woodland Cree First Nation, Lubicon Lake First Nation, and Peerless Trout First Nation (INAC, 2018h).

As identified in previous studies, community members continue to trap, hunt, and fish in their traditional territory. The majority of Loon River First Nation community members actively speak Cree with some of the Elders being monolingual Cree speakers. English is increasingly being spoken in the community as communications with industry and the provincial government are conducted in English (Schreyer, 2008).

TK information, including specific TLRU sites and the extent of Loon River First Nation traditional territory, was not available during preparation of this literature review.

3.12 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 is engaged on the Red Earth Section 3 for the Project. Independent TK fieldwork of the Red Earth Section 3 was conducted by Métis Nation of Alberta. Results of Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5’s TK study are summarized in Section 3.12.2 below.

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requested revisions to the literature review and these revisions have been incorporated below.

NGTL continues to engage with Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 to provide Project updates and information.

3-14 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

3.12.1 Literature Review

The Métis Nation of Alberta was first conceived in 1928 and represents over 38,000 registered citizens across the province of Alberta. The Métis Nation of Alberta is comprised of 6 Regions, and its jurisdictional boundaries cover the entirety of the province of Alberta, less First Nations and Métis Settlement lands. Métis culture includes values of both environmental stewardship and entrepreneurship. Métis people see themselves as stewards of the land and carry TK about the land and their environments that has been passed down for generations. This knowledge and its transfer are deeply connected to the land, which gives the Métis people in this area a vested interest in its preservation, maintenance, and monitoring. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 is one of six Métis regions in Alberta and has over 2000 Metis people that they represent in the region. The Métis people have been in the Lesser Slave Lake region for a long time according to historical records of the Hudson’s Bay Company reports dating 1819- 1820. Today, the Region V office is located at 353 Main St. NW in Slave Lake Alberta (Métis Nation of Alberta, 2018).

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 has been engaged on several energy projects, however, publicly available literature with detailed TK information, including specific TLRU was not available at the time this report was prepared as TLRU information of Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 is deemed confidential. For public information and maps on Region 5, please consult http://albertametis.com/governance/mna- regions/.

3.12.2 Traditional Knowledge

Eight Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 Elders and knowledge holders participated in the TK fieldwork. Data was collected through meetings, interviews and TK fieldwork (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

Métis people have used the land to sustain their economic, social, spiritual and cultural way of life for over 200 years. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 engages in traditional activities such as guiding, trapping, hunting, fishing, and spiritual practices (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 identified two watercourses that cross the ROW at KP 20.5 (creek) and KP 30.1 (Loon River) and are concerned about potential effects to water and water quality from sediment runoff, equipment leaks, and spills. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requested a HDD crossing method for the Loon River and that best practices in terms of Project design, construction, and spill (from leaks) are used. Additionally, the Nation requested reduction of the workspace area, prevention of sediment runoff from construction activities into the river, and minimization of the size of the access roads for the HDD drilling equipment. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 would also like to ensure that any temporary bridge across the Loon River has a TK monitor from the Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 community present as the pipeline is being installed (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

The creek and the wetland at KP 20.5 have abundant wildlife signs and Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requests an environmental assessment of the region to determine what crossing method would be used to install the pipeline through the wetland and creek (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 indicated that the ability to harvest foods and medicines that are free from contaminants is of high importance to Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 members. Members are concerned chemical sprays, typically used to control vegetation growth on ROWs, may be harmful to water quality, the local and regional environment and the people that subsist on the animals and plants that populate it. Traditional medicines were identified between KP 28 and KP 28.5, however; the location is not impacted by the proposed ROW. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requests NGTL provide information on the nature and type of chemicals planned for vegetation control use, as well as information regarding effects to aquatics, animals, and human health. Métis Nation of the Alberta Region 5 requested the that effects to forests be minimized (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

AX0921181128CGY 3-15 Traditional Knowledge Report

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 members reported harvesting in the PCF for the Red Earth Section 3 including berry harvesting in the Kidney area and along the Loon River. Additional harvesting areas located outside of the PCF, identified by Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 members, include berry harvesting along Lafond Creek and fishing in Long Lake, Peerless Lake, Graham Lake, Vandersteene Lake, Sawn Lake, Haig Lake, and Wadlin Lake. Hunting was reported in the Sawn Lake and Goodfish areas. Berry gathering and hunting were reported in the North and South Senex area, although this area could not be identified in relation to the Project. No Project-related concerns were identified in relation to the harvesting areas identified (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 observed wildlife and wildlife signs including moose, moose and calf, squirrel, wolf, rabbit, spruce hen, otter, coyote, weasel, mouse and lynx tracks. Several trees were observed in the area which had evidence of woodpecker and raven signs. Several game trails were noted during the TK field study that ran parallel and perpendicular to the ROW. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 are concerned that wildlife (particularly caribou) will be affected by the disruption of predator-prey (ungulates) dynamics from long, straight clearings such as ROWs (extending line of sight). Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requested line-of-sight be minimized for predators and harvesters along the ROW, and that project design and operations minimize and mitigate impacts on wildlife species. Recommended mitigation put forward by Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 included minimizing sediment runoff, spills, and noise from the ROW construction to minimize local wildlife impacts between KP 5.0 and KP 5.5 where significant wildlife signs were noted. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 also requested mitigation to protect caribou suggesting that any disturbances be minimized during the construction and commissioning of the pipeline, and impacts to caribou and all wildlife be minimized through focusing construction activity during short periods leaving long periods of recovery in between. Additional recommendations to reduce the effects on caribou included NGTL avoiding use of helicopters and relocating TWS west of KP 18.5. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requested NGTL provide a presentation of and submit a copy of the NGTL Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan (CHROMP) when completed (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 is concerned that construction of the Project will increase access for non-Aboriginal hunters and harvesters and increase competition for harvested food. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 intends to utilize the Project area for traditional food and medicine procurement, and requests that access to non-Aboriginal harvesters be regulated. Additional support and consultation from NGTL regarding access and utilization of the region for harvesting was also requested (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 is concerned that there are not enough local jobs for Métis people on these projects. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requested inclusion in job and contracting opportunities on the Project and that the office receives early and timely information on the call for bids and prequalification process relating to the contracting services, wildlife and water monitoring, or engineering activities (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

A cabin was identified 100 m northwest of KP 30.0 by Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5. Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requested noise controls be put in place to minimize effects to the recreational user (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 requests more information on NGTL’s emergency response plan for pipeline incidents and EPP (Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5, 2019).

Concerns identified by Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 were addressed by the measures described in the EPP to be implemented for the Red Earth Section 3 (Appendix 1B of the ESA). All Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5 community concerns and recommendations outlined in this subsection have been addressed in Appendix A of this report, Project-related Issues Summaries for the Project.

3-16 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

3.13 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 is engaged on the North Star Section 2, Bear Canyon North Extension and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. An independent TK study is underway for North Star Section 2, Bear Canyon North Extension, and Hidden Lake North Unit Addition. To date, NGTL has not yet received the results of the TK study conducted by Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.13.1 Literature Review

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 is located in Northwest Alberta in the Peace River Valley (Métis Nation of Alberta, 2018). Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 is part of the Métis Association of Alberta, founded in 1928 to represent the Métis people of Alberta’s interests, with the Association’s main goal being to secure an independent land base for the Métis people (Métis Nation of Alberta, 2018). The language that is spoken by Métis people is called Michif; a mixture of French nouns and Cree verbs (Cision, 2017).

Engaging in traditional harvesting practices is important to the Métis culture and continues to be practiced today to preserve the Métis identity as Aboriginal peoples and to transmit TK to future generations. Métis harvesting rights have been protected under the constitution since 1982 (Cision, 2017).

On a past pipeline project, the Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 reported that water quality, fishing, and fish health are of great importance to their people. They emphasized that clean water is fundamental to the health, culture, and the well-being of Métis people and the natural environment and that potential effects to water quality are key concerns (CH2M, 2017a).

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 have made recommendations related to traditional use activities while being engaged on past pipeline projects, including reclamation of the project area, project design to reduce and mitigate effects to wildlife species, including leaving ungulate birthing areas intact, and some environmental features, such as select bushes and berries remaining intact (CH2M, 2017a). Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 have also requested inclusion and consultation on all aspects of Project development, including involvement in monitoring and environmental studies and employment and contracting opportunities (CH2M, 2017a).

The results of the literature review indicate that Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 engage in traditional harvesting practices throughout their traditional territory, however, no site-specific information was identified in the literature review.

3.14 Nose Creek Settlement

Nose Creek Settlement is engaged on the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition for the Project. NGTL provided Nose Creek Settlement with an initial Project notification package.

NGTL continues to engage with Nose Creek Settlement to provide Project updates and information.

3.14.1 Literature Review

Nose Creek Settlement is an affiliate of the Grande Cache-based Woodland Cree people; Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada (SemCAMS, 2008.) After the Aseniwuche Winewak people were forced from the northern Rocky Mountains in 1907 to make way for Jasper National Park, most of the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation people settled in and around Grande Cache, while what is now the community of Nose Creek Settlement, made a home in the region southwest of Grand Prairie, Alberta (AWNC, 2018). Nose Creek Settlement is a small community whose membership continues to decline due to members having to leave the community to find employment (Enbridge, 2011).

AX0921181128CGY 3-17 Traditional Knowledge Report

As outlined in previous studies, Nose Creek Settlement continues to practice a traditional way of life. Hunting and trapping occurs throughout their traditional lands and species commonly harvested include moose, elk, deer, grouse, and squirrel (Enbridge, 2010).

Nose Creek Settlement has reported in previous studies that trapping has tapered off due to a decline in furbearer populations. Bear is no longer hunted due to the animal’s diet changing to roadkill and garbage. It was reported that caribou populations have been significantly reduced, but, are still spotted migrating through Nose Creek Settlement’s traditional territory (Enbridge, 2010).

Nose Creek Settlement expressed concerns regarding potential effects to hunting, trapping, and wildlife and wildlife habitat while being engaged on past pipeline projects, including damage and disturbance to beaver dams and potential adverse effects on wildlife resulting from increased traffic and noise, declining health in migratory birds due to water contamination, and the potential removal of, or disturbance to, human and game trails along rights-of-way. Nose Creek Settlement is concerned this will result in reduced ability of Nose Creek Settlement members to hunt during the fall season (Enbridge, 2011).

Nose Creek Settlement expressed concerns on past projects regarding effects on their traditional lands, including adverse effects on Nose Creek Settlement due to increased access to Nose Creek Settlement traditional lands through new road construction and disrespectful treatment of Nose Creek Settlement traditional lands by project crews in the area. Nose Creek Settlement were also concerned about potential project contributions to air quality having an adverse effect on human health and potential adverse effects to human health through the use of chemicals to control plant growth. Nose Creek Settlement is concerned that pesticide and herbicide use on vegetation will contribute to a loss of berry picking and plant gathering areas (Enbridge, 2011).

Nose Creek Settlement Elders have previously reported adverse environmental changes, such as poor water quality and dramatic declines in animal populations due to increased development in the region. In addition, community members have reported that fish is not fished or consumed as often due to water contamination. The Kakwa River is no longer used as a water source or fished by Nose Creek Settlement, since the river was contaminated by a chemical used for fish tracking. Bull trout and dolly varden are still fished by community members in Pinto Creek, Wapiti River, Smoky River, Simonette River, and Two Lakes (Enbridge, 2010). However, Nose Creek Settlement has expressed concerns about a potential decline in water quality and fish health in watercourses including Pinto Creek, Wapiti River, Smoky River, and Simonette River related to pipeline development (Enbridge, 2011).

TLRU sites reported on past projects by Nose Creek Settlement are listed with each distance from the Project in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5. Traditional Land and Resource Sites Currently Used by Nose Creek Settlement Community Members Location Distance from Closest Site Description(s) Status Project Component

Pinto Creek < 100 km from the Project Fishing Current

Wapiti River < 100 km from the Project Fishing Current

Smoky River 100 km from the Project Fishing Current

Simonette River < 100 km from the Project Fishing Current

Source: Enbridge, 2011

Nose Creek Settlement recommended on a previous pipeline project that Nose Creek Settlement monitors be onsite during construction at watercourse crossings to catch and relocate fish and to monitor water turbidity, that horizontal direction drilling be employed at watercourse crossings, and that Nose Creek Settlement monitors be employed to locate and identify medicinal plants and any plant gathering sites near the Project ROW (Enbridge, 2010).

3-18 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

The results of the literature review indicate that Nose Creek Settlement hunt, fish, trap, and harvest plants regularly in their traditional territory. None of the TLRU sites identified in the literature review are within the TLRU RSA for the Project.

3.15 Peavine Métis Settlement

Peavine Métis Settlement is engaged on the North Star Section 2 and the Red Earth Section 3 for the Project. Facilitated TK fieldwork was conducted of the North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3. The results of Peavine Métis Settlement’s TK study are summarized in Section 3.15.2.

NGTL continues to engage with Peavine Métis Settlement to provide Project updates and information.

3.15.1 Literature Review

Peavine Métis Settlement is located approximately 56 km north of High Prairie, off Highway 749 in the MD of Big Lakes (MSGC, 2018c). The economic climate of the region is rich with tourism and oil and gas opportunities. Additionally, Peavine Métis Settlement community is a successful part of the forestry, agriculture, and construction economies in the region (LSLEA, 2018). The registered population of Peavine Métis Settlement as of 2016 was 607 (Statistics Canada, 2018c).

Peavine Métis Settlement has been engaged on several energy projects, however, literature with detailed TK information, including specific TLRU sites and the extent of Peavine Métis Settlement’s traditional territory, was not available during preparation of this literature review.

3.15.2 Traditional Knowledge

Peavine Métis Settlement’s TK fieldwork included the participation of six community members and Elders. TK was shared as well as issues, concerns, and recommendations (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement focused on the community’s current use of land for traditional activities and the identification of environmental features. The TK field studies also addressed Crown lands potentially disturbed by Project construction and cleanup activities, including associated physical works and activities (e.g., the pipeline ROW, temporary construction workspace, and access) (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement identified two major watercourses, the Notikewin River on the North Star Section 2, and the Loon River, crossed by the Red Earth Section 3. Community members shared that historically, people would follow these watercourses while travelling; therefore, the banks of the Notikewin and Loon rivers have high archeological potential. Peavine Métis Settlement noted that many animals stay close to water, including seasonal waterways, since these areas provide suitable habitat for raising their young (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement expressed a concern regarding potential effects on watercourses including sedimentation and decreased water quality particularly at the Notikewin River and the Loon River crossing locations (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2019). An Elder shared that a meandering river purifies the water as the sedimentation settles at each turn. Peavine Métis Settlement indicated jackfish and pickerel can be fished in the Notikewin River (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement identified beaver on both the North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3 and are reported as being a keystone species and important in the maintenance of water quality. Peavine Métis Settlement is concerned that removing the beaver and their dams could reduce the overall health of the water in the are (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement requested that Peavine Métis Settlement, or an Aboriginal community member, be hired to conduct long-term monitoring at all watercourse crossings, Aboriginal monitors be present during construction to ensure the protection of waterways and that Project activities are properly conducted, cleaned up, and reclaimed. In addition, Peavine Métis Settlement requested that the HDD

AX0921181128CGY 3-19 Traditional Knowledge Report

plan be followed for the Notikewin River. The community would also like to ensure HDD construction crews are aware that the east side of the Notikewin River appears deeper than the west side (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement identified cattails growing on Red Earth Section 3 at KP 0.2 and determined that the vegetation soaks up contaminates and should not be allowed to grow in these areas. Peavine Métis Settlement expressed concerns regarding potential effects on vegetation including proper maintenance of the ROW. Peavine Métis Settlement identified cattails growing and determined that cattails soak up contaminates and should not be allowed to grow in these areas. Peavine Métis Settlement reported that sections near the PCF have future potential for logging and are concerned that construction of the pipeline could prevent future economic logging possibilities for communities (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement recommended that the ROWs on both the North Star Section 2 and the Red Earth Section 3 be properly maintained and that NGTL further discuss the distribution and harvesting of resources such as, timber cleared from the ROW with Peavine Métis Settlement. For instance, wood that is not commercially valuable could be used for firewood or could provide a promising job opportunity for someone making plywood. Recommendation made by Peavine Métis Settlement also include that NGTL uses a Peavine Métis Settlement affiliated forestry company to remove trees from the ROW and Aboriginal groups be hired to make firewood out of salvageable lumber and deadfall. Additionally, Peavine Métis Settlement recommended that community members partner with NGTL to harvest peat moss ahead of the construction crew, to sell for a variety of uses and dead wood be given to people living in the region, so that it can be used as firewood (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement observed several wildlife signs and features throughout North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3 including moose scat, game trails, bear marks on a tree, wood pecker foraging, moose trails, moose beds, moose grazing areas, moose and calf tracks, bees nest, manmade moose lick (result of human disturbance), fresh elk, deer and moose tracks, gopher burrows, evidence of an animal eating and spitting out rosebuds, bear tracks, caribou tracks, raptor nest, elk bed, kill site, beaver markings, wolf tracks, beaver footprints and a beaver trail. Game trails, claw markings, beds, grazes, scat, tracks, destroyed ant hills and overturned and destroyed logs were recorded in the LSA. A large potential raptor nest was identified by Peavine Métis Settlement 193 m north of KP 19.5 on the North Star Section 2. A tree with woodpecker holes was identified close to KP 3.3 on the North Star Section 2, however no other wildlife trees were identified during the TK field study by Peavine Métis Settlement (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement identified wolf trails and scat throughout both the North Star Section 2 and the Red Earth Section 3 with a high density of trails on the Red Earth Section 3 at KP 3.8 where a community hunter hand trapper suspects there is a den. Squirrel middens were identified throughout the Red Earth Section 3 LSA. Peavine Métis Settlement indicated that red squirrels are protected and that it is difficult to distinguish middens without identifying the squirrel (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement expressed concerns regarding potential effects on wildlife including wildlife’s ability to access the Notikewin River during construction and expressed concerns about removal of beaver and beaver dams during construction causing ripple effects to aquatic species and frogs as well as overall water quality. It was reported that beaver potentially will have to travel further away for wood to build dams due to the removal of trees during construction. Additional concerns expressed by Peavine Métis Settlement include cumulative effects of all industry including a decline in moose populations, wildlife trees that may not have been identified during the TK field studies or by wildlife biologists and may be impacted during construction, as well as disturbance to a raptor nest identified 193 m north of KP 19.5 on the North Star Section 2. Peavine Métis Settlement also expressed concerns about red squirrel and red squirrel middens, possible wolf pups present at KP 3.8 on the Red Earth Section 3 in February or March, and loss of amphibian habitat on both the North Star Section 2 and the Red Earth Section 3 (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

3-20 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Recommendations put forward by Peavine Métis Settlement regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat include that appropriate wildlife monitors study the area for amphibians prior to construction and that NGTL support Peavine Métis Settlement to create a book of endangered species and important ecological features for distribution to construction crews to ensure that sensitive areas and species are protected and preserved. Additional recommendations made by Peavine Métis Settlement regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat include, that NGTL be aware of how animals access the water during construction with consideration for locations of TWS. The community requested that all beaver dams be avoided, and that extra precautions be taken during construction around beaver habitat, removal of vegetation, trees, and beaver dams in riparian habitat (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement identified that North Star Section 2 is located in a region where historic battles occurred. The Notikewen River means battle and the area is called battle region to many Aboriginal groups. A Ukrainian church was identified in the North Star Section 2 LSA and Peavine Métis Settlement indicated it could be over 100 years old. Peavine Métis Settlement identified an area on the maps that looked like a dried creek and noted there could be high archeological potential there (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

On the Red Earth Section 3, Peavine Métis Settlement identified three hunt camps that all had a plastic or metal barrel secured to a tree with wire and hole cut into the top. Beaver skulls (possibly used as bait) and evidence of tree stands, meat racks and well used trails surrounded each camp. The hunt camp close to KP 13.2 had a tree stand still intact and Peavine Métis Settlement noted it could be an active bear bait area. Peavine Métis Settlement determined the camp at KP 3.7 is 20 years or older, and that it is well-used based on the trails worn around it and the way the trees have grown around the old ropes wrapped around trees (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement expressed a concern regarding potential effects on cultural use sites including potential effects to hunting camps (specifically Hunting Camp 2, which was identified as being historical) during construction (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement recommended that hunting Camp 2 not be disturbed and requested that the pipeline avoids its location entirely, or that construction and the new pipeline stay within the ROW. Additionally, a request was made to narrow the Red Earth Section 3 ROW near Hunting Camp 2 to preserve the historic site (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Employment and training recommendations were made by Peavine Métis Settlement including Aboriginal people be hired to monitor the long-term effects of the Project and construction crews be trained to identify wildlife trees. Peavine Métis Settlement also requested that a Peavine Métis Settlement community member or an Aboriginal community member, be present during construction and post-construction activities. Additional employment recommendations included that NGTL create more frequent and better partnerships and employment opportunities for Peavine Métis Settlement community members, affiliated companies and other local people (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Peavine Métis Settlement identified potential effects to the safety of future contractors working in the Project area including hazards such as tree snags, leaning trees, dead trees boulders and large rocks. Peavine Métis Settlement requests that hazard trees be removed, to avoid potential injury (Peavine Métis Settlement, 2019).

Concerns identified by Peavine Métis Settlement were addressed by the measures described in the EPP to be implemented for North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3 (Appendices 1A and 1B of the ESA). All Peavine Métis Settlement community concerns and recommendations outlined in this subsection have been addressed in Appendix A of this report, Project-related Issues Summaries for the Project.

AX0921181128CGY 3-21 Traditional Knowledge Report

3.16 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement is engaged on the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition for the Project. On September 17, 2018, Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement submitted a Statement of Concern to NGTL. The letter was based on TK information previously gathered by Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement that could potentially interact with the Project (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018). The TK information in Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement’s Statement of Concern is summarized in Section 3.16.2.

NGTL continues to engage Paddle Prairie Metis Settlement to provide Project updates and Project information.

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement requested that additional sources be used for the literature review summary and not only those taken from publicly available ESA documents authored by CH2M, which is now Jacobs. The literature was re-written to include additional sources and appears in Section 3.0.

3.16.1 Literature Review

Historically, the Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society supported themselves by hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping throughout the region of the settlement and traditional lands outside the settlement including the Peace River Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement continue to practice a traditional way of life (Traditions Consulting Services, Inc., 2013).

The Métis continue to harvest resources following the seasonal round including hunting, trapping, plant gathering, and fishing. The Métis people are attuned to “natural signs” that manifest when a seasonal round of resource harvesting ends, and when planting, gathering, cleaning the land and harvesting wild and domesticated plants and animals. This pattern of resource harvesting is followed according to the “Métis cosmological calendar pattern” that has 12 seasons (Adese, 2014).

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society identified hunting, fishing and gathering activities along the Peace River (Traditions Consulting Services, Inc., 2013) and identified the Chinchaga River as a source of drinking water (CH2M, 2015).

To the Métis people, traditional land and resources harvested from the land are considered a gift. Concerns have arisen regarding degradation of the environment that has had adverse impacts on human health and wildlife health that the Métis depend on to sustain their families and communities. Specifically, it has been noted that there has been a steep decline in the prairie chicken population by Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (Adese, 2014), a pesticide manufactured in Canada and used in pest control products until the 1960s. Concerns have also been expressed regarding the impact of oil and gas development including clear-cutting and noise on wildlife (i.e., furbearers, birds, and large game), traplines, trails, and travelways. It has been noted that the affected communities have not been compensated for the loss of their traplines and harvesting areas and resources (Adese, 2014).

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement expressed concerns regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat while being engaged on a previous pipeline project. Concerns related to wildlife and wildlife habitat include potential effects to mineral licks and calving grounds, effects to important seasonal habitat, alteration of animal movement corridors due to clearing and noise and disturbance from project construction (CH2M, 2017a). Additionally, on past projects Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement expressed concerns regarding the potential contamination of wildlife and wildlife habitat during construction and the potential for a pipeline break, and fear or uncertainty about contamination deterring Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement members from hunting activities (CH2M, 2015).

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement expressed concerns related to fish and fish habitat and water quality while being engaged on a previous pipeline project. Concerns related to fish and fish habitat include a reduction in the quality of fish and fish habitat and potential contamination during construction or due to a pipeline break (CH2M, 2015, 2017a).

3-22 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement is concerned about the destruction of valuable plant and medicine habitat and declining spiritual power of plants due to industrial disturbance in and around sacred plant-growing areas. Herbicide spraying in the ROW is also noted to be contaminating plants (CH2M, 2017a).

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement voiced concerns about the effects of development on TLU activities and the ability of future generations to continue practicing cultural activities on past projects. Reductions in harvestable resources, increased traffic on roads associated with construction and increased access for non-Aboriginal hunters and increasing restrictions on access for community members have led to a reduced ability to conduct TLU activities. In turn this has affected the transmission of TK that is tied to places and traditional activities such as hunting, plant gathering, fishing, and trapping (CH2M, 2017a).

The destruction of spiritual sites and graves at unknown locations and decreased spiritual connection that Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement members feel towards the landscape are also concerns expressed on previous projects (CH2M, 2017a).

The results of the literature review indicate that Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement hunt, fish, trap, and gather traditional and medicinal plants and berries throughout their traditional territory, however, site-specific information was not identified in the literature review.

3.16.2 Traditional Knowledge

The Hidden Lake North Unit Addition is situated within Paddle Prairie Métis Settlements recognized consultation area (160 km radius) where community members exercise their Métis harvesting rights, such as plant gathering, trapping and hunting. It was reported that Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement practice TLUs in and around the compressor station and noted that the construction and operation of the compressor station could adversely affect traditional use activities (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement reported that members gather certain medicines and berries for subsistence purposes in the Project Area, however specific locations were not provided (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement expressed concerns regarding potential effects to berries, food plants and medicinal plants including food security and human health (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement expressed concerns regarding potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat and related effects on hunting and trapping activities from Project-related construction and operation including disruption of game movement, fragmentation of wildlife habitat that supports and sustains subsistence harvesting, disruption of fur trading activities and disturbance to RFMAs. Additionally, Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement expressed concerns about potential fragmentation of boreal forests and potential effects to the Chinchaga caribou herd and range (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

It was reported by Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement that community members hunt ungulates such as moose, deer, elk and caribou in the Project Area. Additionally, Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement members report having traplines and RFMAs in and around the Project area, however specific locations were not provided (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement expressed concerns regarding potential effects to Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement members’ TLRU and their rights and interests on Crown and private lands from industrial activities including reduction in availability of intact Crown land and traditional resources, members having to travel further to seek additional harvesting areas, and hunting, trapping, fishing and plant harvesting (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

Concerns were expressed by Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement regarding potential effects to Crown land from Project-related construction and operation including reduced access to available Crown land used for harvesting and having to travel further to conduct TLRU activities and potential effects on Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement’s socio-economic status from the Project (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

AX0921181128CGY 3-23 Traditional Knowledge Report

Additional concerns expressed by Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement regarding potential cumulative and long-term environmental effects of industrial development include air pollution, contamination and degradation of the sub-regional watersheds and cumulative effects on the Chinchaga and Meikle rivers (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

The following recommendations were put forward by Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement to NGTL regarding engagement and consultation including; funding for a TK study, proponent provision of capacity funding to engage in ongoing consultation over development plans for the Project, support for a third-party technical review of the Project application and environmental assessment and a commitment from NGTL to partner in Project development planning, constraints mapping, incorporation of TK in project design, and impact avoidance, mitigation, offset, and compensation discussions (Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, 2018).

Concerns identified by Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement were addressed by the measures described in the EPP to be implemented for the Hidden Lake Unit Addition (Appendix 1D of the ESA). All Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement community concerns and recommendations outlined in this subsection have been addressed in Appendix A of this report, Project-related Issues Summaries for the Project.

3.17 Peerless Trout First Nation

Peerless Trout First Nation is engaged on the Red Earth Section 3 of the Project. NGTL is working together with Peerless Trout First Nation to define an independent TK study for the Project.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Peerless Trout First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.17.1 Literature Review

Peerless Trout First Nation is located approximately 68 km northeast of the Hamlet of Red Earth Creek in northern Alberta (Peerless Trout First Nation, 2018). Peerless Trout First Nation has one reserve: Peerless Trout IR 238 in Peerless Lake, Alberta. The total registered population as of September 2018 was 959 with 53 living on-reserve (INAC, 2018i). Peerless Trout First Nation is a signatory of Treaty 8 and is affiliated with Kee Tas Kee Now Tribal Council (Peerless Trout First Nation, 2018) along with Loon River Cree, Lubicon Lake First Nation, Whitefish Lake First Nation, and Woodland Cree First Nation (INAC, 2018i).

Trout Lake and Peerless Lake used to be part of Bigstone Cree Nation until each community formed their own group in 2010 (TERA, 2015). Peerless Trout First Nation and Bigstone Cree Nation have overlapping traditional territories due to marriages between members of each group. Additionally, these groups share many plant gathering, hunting, trapping, and cultural use areas (TERA, 2015). Cree is spoken by Peerless Trout First Nation or the Sakhaw Nehiyawak (Woods Cree) people and is typically the first language that is learned (Peerless Trout First Nation, 2018).

As outlined in previous studies, community members of Peerless Trout First Nation continued to conduct a traditional way of life and livelihood through plant gathering, hunting, fishing, and trapping throughout their resource-rich, traditional territory. Fish, plants, and wildlife are harvested in many of the prairies, lakes, and wetlands, including Peerless and Trout lakes (approximately 20 km and 30 km from the Project, respectively). Peerless Lake was once called Kapaskwatinak (Bald Hill) and was later renamed by a Nova Scotian trapper. The northeast-shore community of Peerless Lake and the community of Trout Lake are connected by a stream or what is referred to as “Trout Lake Narrows”. Trout Lake, once coined the “Old Post” or “Kinoseesak Kayton”, is located at the south end of Graham Lake, and was the historical site of the Hudson’s Bay Company trading post (Peerless Trout First Nation, 2018).

In the mid-1950s, the first road was built to access Peerless Lake in order to explore for oil, and later in 1974, this road became the first road into the Hamlet of Red Earth Creek. The relationship between the community and industry was often marred by feelings of “disrespect and mistrust”, since these activities disturbed their lands and home, as well as their traditional way of life. It is thought that what most upset the community was the consultation needed to build trust and win respect (Peerless Trout First Nation, 2018).

3-24 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Peerless Trout First Nation has a successful traditional fishing, guiding, and hunting camp for anyone who wants a unique traditional experience in nature (PT Camp, 2018). Peerless Trout First Nation also owns and operates Peerless Trout Enterprises Inc., established in 2014, to guide economic growth, employment, and training for community members. Services offered by the Peerless Trout Enterprises Inc. include logging, “civil earth works”, consultation oilfield services, and concrete (Peerless Trout First Nation, 2018).

Peerless Trout First Nation has expressed concerns about industry and potential effects to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and vegetation, and concerns regarding salvageable timber on previous projects (NGTL, 2016).

The results of the literature review indicate that Peerless Trout First Nation hunt, fish, and trap throughout their traditional territory, however, no site-specific information was identified in the literature review.

3.18 Sucker Creek First Nation

Sucker Creek First Nation is engaged on the Red Earth Section 3 for the Project. NGTL provided Sucker Creek First Nation with an initial Project notification package. NGTL continues to engage with Sucker Creek First Nation to provide Project updates and Project information.

3.18.1 Literature Review

Sucker Creek First Nation is located near Enilda, Alberta, approximately 22 km east of High Prairie, within Big Lakes County. Sucker Creek First Nation has one reserve called Sucker Creek, which is 150 ha in size (INAC, 2018j). Sucker Creek First Nation is a signatory to Treaty 8. The registered population of Sucker Creek First Nation as of October 2018 was 2,894, with 798 members living on-reserve. Sucker Creek First Nation is affiliated with the Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council (INAC, 2018j).

Sucker Creek First Nation is part of the Woodland Cree community and speak the Woodland Cree language, which is a mixture of Cree dialects (woodland, plains, and swampy). Sucker Creek First Nation refer to themselves as Nehiuawak, meaning “the Cree People” (Dersch, 2011). As of 2011, 17 percent of the population learned their Aboriginal language first with 14 percent of the population speaking their Aboriginal language at home. The majority of Sucker Creek First Nation members speak English (INAC, 2018j).

On a past mining project, community members noted that TLRU activities are practiced within Sucker Creek First Nations Traditional Territory, which extends north towards Chetwynd, east towards Beaverlodge, south to Monkman Park, and west towards the Sukunka River (CEA Agency, 2016).

Sucker Creek First Nation community members noted on past projects that medical plants along with traditional vegetation is harvested throughout their traditional territory and the Nation may travel long distances to harvest. Plant harvesting is carried out in diverse ecosystems, including old growth forests, along watercourses, and in wetlands and meadow clearings. Traditional plant knowledge is passed down by families from generation to generation and is the property of the community (CH2M, 2017a). Community members gather a variety of plants, including balsam, balsam fir, devil’s club, little love root, and mint. On previous projects, Sucker Creek First Nation has expressed concerns about the effects to native vegetation, including chemical use and success of reclamation methods (CH2M, 2017a). Sucker Creek First Nation has requested the avoidance of Laboom tea (muskeg tea). If avoidance is not possible, the Nation has requested that Laboom tea is transplanted in greenhouses to preserve the plant. In addition, Sucker Creek First Nation has requested reduced stripping, where possible, retaining roots of plants for rollback, retaining riparian species, where possible, replacing native plant species during reclamation, and allowing for the harvesting of medicinal and culturally significant plants prior to construction (CH2M, 2017a).

Sucker Creek First Nation identified on past projects that moose, grizzly, bear, elk, and deer continue to be hunted within their traditional territory. Sucker Creek First Nation recommended on past projects to adhere to species-specific time constraints during physical and work activities to avoid mating season for wildlife and to leave breaks in the pipeline trench to allow for animal crossings (CH2M, 2017a).

AX0921181128CGY 3-25 Traditional Knowledge Report

Sucker Creek First Nation identified on past projects that pickerel, grayling, and rainbow trout are fished in waterbodies within their Traditional Territory (CEA Agency, 2016). Sucker Creek First Nation has expressed concerns about impacts tot their fishing rights and access to the land on past projects (CEA Agency, 2016).

Sucker Creek First Nation has expressed concerns on past projects regarding the overuse of the region by industrial developments, causing restricted access and limited ability to practice TLRU by Sucker Creek First Nation community members (CEA Agency, 2016). Additionally, Sucker Creek First Nation has previously recommended reducing the Project footprint and paralleling existing disturbance to the extent possible (CH2M, 2017a).

Concerns were also expressed by Sucker Creek First Nation regarding pipeline integrity and safety, and the community has recommended testing frequently for pipeline integrity (CH2M, 2017a).

The results of the literature review indicate that Sucker Creek First Nation hunt, fish, trap, and gather plants throughout their traditional territory, however, no site-specific information was identified in the literature review.

3.19 Swan River First Nation

Swan River First Nation is engaged on North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3 for the Project. Independent TK fieldwork was conducted by Swan River First Nation of the North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3. The Results of the TK study are summarized in Section 3.19.2.

Upon review of the TK Literature Review, Swan River First Nation requested revisions and these revisions have been incorporated below.

NGTL continues to engage Swan River First Nation to provide Project updates and Project information.

3.19.1 Literature Review

Swan River First Nation is located on the banks of the Swan River, near the Lesser Slave Lake in Kinuso, Alberta. The Nation is a signatory of Treaty 8 and a member of the Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council (Swan River First Nation, 2018). Swan River First Nation has two reserves: Assineau River IR 150F and Swan River IR 150E (most populated). The total registered population of Swan River First Nation, as of September 2018, was 1,397 with 420 living on-reserve (INAC, 2018k).

Nehiyawewin, a Cree language, is spoken by Swan River First Nation and resources are shared by community leaders to carry on the language and culture of this Western Wood Cree people (Swan River First Nation, 2018).

Historically, Swan River First Nation followed a seasonal round of harvesting. The community continues to hunt, trap, gather plants, and practice a traditional way of life (Swan River First Nation, 2018).

In partnership with Management and Solutions in Environmental Science and various companies working on their lands, Swan River First Nation began a project in 2015 to “improve the overall health” of the Swan River. The focus of the project began with preservation of arctic grayling, a staple for many Swan River First Nation members. Starting in June 2015 until July 2015, 218 stream crossings were studied in the Swan River Watershed. It became clear that many of the stream crossings had been damaged by improper installation of watercourse crossings and did not support the passage of fish. This partnership’s function is to engage companies to commit to better standards to protect the waterways, fish, and fish habitat in the Swan River watershed for sustainable continued traditional use (Swan River First Nation, 2018).

In the last several years, Swan River First Nation has begun the Swan River Traditional Use Preserve Project. This work of identifying, recording, and protecting Swan River First Nation’s traditional territory for continued use has spanned years and informs the accessibility and identification of wildlife and wildlife

3-26 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report habitat, water, and fish in their traditional territory. This preserve has the potential to be recognized and considered to receive “a permanent designation that speaks” to Swan River First Nation’s land uses in provincial land use plans (Swan River First Nation, 2018).

Swan River First Nation have expressed concerns on past projects regarding effects of pipeline projects on TLRU within their traditional territory. The White Court area was identified as one of the key traditional harvesting areas used by the community. Swan River First Nation is concerned that community members will have reduced access after construction, restricting their ability to access traditional harvesting sites. There are also concerns about construction in previously undisturbed areas and the waste of traditional resources, such as timber during construction of the ROW. Swan River First Nation has requested that rare medicinal plants be avoided during construction (Enbridge, 2010).

Swan River First Nation has also expressed concerns on past projects about potential effects from spills and construction. There is a concern that water quality may be adversely affected and this in turn may adversely affect Swan River First Nation’s ability to exercise their treaty rights (Enbridge, 2010).

Swan River First Nation made recommendations while being engaged on a past pipeline project, including meaningful participation in EAs and the project decision-making process, and compensation for environmental destruction associated with construction of the ROW (Enbridge, 2010).

The results of the literature review indicate that Swan River First Nation hunt, fish, trap, and gather traditional and medicinal plants and berries throughout their traditional territory, however, no site-specific information was identified in the literature review.

3.19.2 Traditional Knowledge

TK fieldwork was conducted by Swan River First Nation in November 2018 and a TK report was submitted to NGTL in February 2019.

Swan River First Nation expressed concerns about the disruption of water flow in watercourses and drainages during construction of the North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3. The community requested that HDD be conducted for all watercourses on the Project and that community environmental technicians be present during HDD crossings. Swan River First Nation also requested that NGTL work with the consultation department to define appropriate buffers around waterbodies and watercourses and site-specific erosion control measures for creek crossings and waterbodies. Swan River First Nation requested that NGTL discuss an emergency response plan (specifically for Red Earth Section 3 since it is a very wet area) and a clean up plan with the consultation department. It is important to Swan River First Nation that the consultation department be contacted immediately in the event of an accidental release (Swan River First Nation, 2019).

Concerns about the disruption to natural wetlands successional development and connectivity were expressed by Swan River First Nation and it was requested that best practices for construction in wetlands be followed. Swan River First Nation requested that NGTL work with Swan River First Nation consultation department to define appropriate buffers around wetlands and that NGTL support growth and research on wetland vegetation post construction disturbance (Swan River First Nation, 2019).

Swan River First Nation expressed concerned about potential effects to vegetation on North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3, including invasive plants, the removal of mature conifer trees and the potential impact on squirrel activity and habitat. Swan River First Nation reported that trapping of large game may be affected by the Project. Soil compaction and rutting that may restrict vegetation from re- establishing and the removal of medicinal, edible, cultural and traditional plants that are important to the community are also of concern to Swan River First Nation (Swan River First Nation, 2019).

Swan River First Nation requested a weed management plan that includes the monitoring and inspection of all equipment on site and that inspection records be available to the community upon request. Swan River First Nation also requested best practises be followed surrounding clearing and construction in wet conditions, and soil assessments and monitoring be conducted. Swan River First Nation wants NGTL to

AX0921181128CGY 3-27 Traditional Knowledge Report

involve Swan River First Nation environmental technicians during all project phases, support research in successional development of lesser vegetation post disturbance, provide a summary table of leading vegetation cover types and ecosite communities, and to provide more information on reclamation and seed mixes used in reclamation. Additionally, Swan River First Nation requested assessment of the susceptibility of soils to compaction and rutting (Swan River First Nation, 2019).

Swan River First Nation expressed concerns about wildlife and wildlife habitat for caribou, song birds, birds of prey, squirrels, beaver, ducks, and species at risk. Swan River First Nation are concerned about the removal of snags and cavities being used by cavity nesters during construction, potential destruction to grizzly and black bear dens and habitat as well as increased human versus bear interactions. Concerns were also expressed about the potential for moose trails to be negatively affected during construction and disruption of movement of moose to critical habitat as well as the potential to impede or restrict current game trails and existing wildlife movement. The potential to disrupt migratory bird patterns during construction was also brought up as a concern by Swan River First Nation. Swan River First Nation requested NGTL implement best management practices around bear dens, mineral licks, and game trails (Swan River First Nation, 2019).

Swan River First Nation requested the use of signs and speed limits to reduce wildlife incidents with vehicles. The Nation also requests that NGTL abide by migratory bird guidelines, restrict operations to off season, prevent further loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat and identify and document all existing game trails that cross the proposed pipeline and TWS (Swan River First Nation, 2019).

It is important to Swan River First Nation that NGTL work collaboratively with Swan River First Nation’s consultation department to define appropriate buffers around wildlife features. Swan River First Nation also requested that NGTL perform assessments including a connectivity analysis to identify existing and potential for future wildlife use corridors, assess the current level of landscape disturbance in relation to management thresholds for grizzly bear, assess the current level of landscape disturbance in relation to known viability and management thresholds for moose, and conduct provincial grizzly bear analysis (Swan River First Nation, 2019).

Swan River First Nation noted that the Chinchaga River has been significantly fragmented and disturbed by industrial development such as forestry, utilities and oil & gas development. Swan River First Nation is concerned that NGTL did not look at the Project route holistically on the landscape and requests that more integration occur between all resource development proponents. Swan River First Nation also requested that the Historic Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) report and recommendations for the Project be submitted to the community (Swan River First Nation, 2019).

Concerns identified by Swan River First Nation were addressed by the measures described in the EPP to be implemented for North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3 (Appendices 1A and 1B of the ESA). All Swan River First Nation community concerns and recommendations outlined in this subsection have been addressed in Appendix A of this report, Project-related Issues Summaries for the Project.

3.20 Tallcree First Nation

Tallcree First Nation is engaged on the North Star Section 2 and the Red Earth Section 3 for the Project. An independent TK study is underway for North Star Section 2; and, Red Earth Section 3. To date, NGTL has not received the results of the TK field study conducted by Tallcree First Nation.

Upon review of the TK Literature Review, Tallcree First Nation informed NGTL that they did not grant NGTL permission to use the information shared in the community-specific TK Literature Review for the assessment of potential effects on Tallcree First Nation’s rights. Tallcree First Nation stated the information included in their proposed TK study would provide Project-specific information approved and supported by Tallcree First Nation and requested that the information from the TK Literature Review not be used to inform the ESA.

NGTL informed Tallcree First Nation that their community-specific TK Literature Review would be included with the publicly available literature review information in the ESA TK Report; however, NGTL

3-28 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report confirmed to Tallcree First Nation their community-specific TK Literature Review would not be relied on for the Project’s ESA and that NGTL remained committed to considering additional information brought forward concerning Tallcree First Nation’s TK in the Project area.

NGTL will continue to address questions and concerns from Tallcree First Nation through its ongoing engagement efforts should any arise. NGTL will also continue to review and consider additional TK information as it is made available.

3.20.1 Literature Review

Tallcree First Nation is located in Fort Vermillion, Alberta and is a signatory to Treaty 8 affiliated with the North Peace Tribal Council (INAC, 2018l). The North Peace Tribal Council provides children, health, and Tribal law enforcement services. The North Peace Tribal Council was founded in 1987 by Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha’ First Nation, Little Red River Cree, and Tallcree First Nation. In 1995, Lubicon Lake Nation was accepted into the membership (INAC, 2018l).

The total registered population of the Tallcree Nation as of September 2018 is 1,376, with 523 members living on-reserve. Tallcree First Nation has seven reserves, including Beaver Ranch 163 (841.70 ha), Beaver Ranch 163A, 82 km east of High Level, Alberta (240 ha), Beaver Ranch 163B, 78 km east of High Level, Alberta (226 ha), Fort Vermillion 173B, 1 km southwest of Fort Vermillion, Alberta (49.70 ha), Tall Cree 173 (4031.50 ha), Tall Cree 173A (most populated reserve), 40 km southeast of Fort Vermillion, Alberta (2723.40 ha), and Wadlin Lake 173C, 91 km east of Carcajou (48 ha) (INAC, 2018l).

Many Tallcree First Nation community members can trace their origins back to Montana prior to being driven into Canada after a war that stretched from 1868 to 1886. It is said that Ogima Big Bear or Sitting Bull led them into Canada (Tallcree Tribal Government, 2018). Ogima Big Bear was an Anishinabe (Ojibwa) and the central military Ogimak of the Anishinabe Nation in 1877. Ogima Big Bear was said to be the son of Ogima (Chief) Black Powder and may have even been the legendary Crazy Horse (Ancestry.com, 2011).

Tallcree First Nation is a Woodland Cree people and their language is part of the Algonquian Cree (Martineau, 2013).

Tallcree First Nation describes the Peace River as “the heart of (their) traditional use territory” (Martineau, 2013).

Tallcree First Nation expressed concerns on past projects regarding cumulative effects of development, effects on water and water quality, effects on surface water (Peace River, Slave River, McKenzie River, Salt River, and the Peace Athabasca Delta), potential effects to vegetation and plant communities, and potential effects to human health from project pollution and decreased water quality (Martineau, 2013).

The results of the literature review indicate that Tallcree First Nation practice a traditional way of life throughout their traditional territory, however, no site-specific information was identified in the literature review.

AX0921181128CGY 3-29 Traditional Knowledge Report

4. Summary

The progress of each participating community’s TK field studies at the time of application filing is described in Section 2.3.

The results of the literature/desktop review and preliminary interests identified to date indicate that Aboriginal groups have historically used and currently use their traditional territories to maintain a traditional lifestyle. Aboriginal groups use environmental resources throughout their traditional territories for a variety of purposes, including hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering, and spiritual/cultural pursuits.

To date, no TLRU sites or features have been identified within the PCF for the Project that require additional mitigation measures to those outlined in the Project EPPs. Applicable mitigation options listed in the Project-specific EPPs (Appendices 1A to 1D of the ESA) and in the Cultural Resource Discovery Contingency Plan (Appendix 1E of the EPPs) will be implemented based on the following criteria: the location of the site in relation to the proposed area of development, the importance of the site to the community, and the potential for alternate mitigation strategies to either avoid or reduce Project-related effects.

NGTL has committed to engage Aboriginal groups through all phases of the Project. Additional information gathered during ongoing TK field studies will be considered, and, where appropriate, will be incorporated into Project planning, including the final EPPs and the EAS.

AX0921181128CGY 4-1 Traditional Knowledge Report

5. References

5.1 Literature Cited

Adese, J. 2014. Spirit gifting: Ecological knowledge in Métis life narratives. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. Vol. 3. No. 3. Pp.28-66.

Ancestry.com. 2011. Chief Big Bear son of Chief Black Powder– Ojibwa. Accessed October 2018. https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread.aspx?m=228&mv=flat&p=topics.ethnic.natam.nations.metis.meti sgen.

Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada (AWNC). 2018. Accessed October 2018. https://www.aseniwuche.ca/our-story.

Beaver First Nation. 2018. Accessed October 2018. https://www.beaverfirstnation.com/language.

Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Agency. 2016. Murray River Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report. October 2016.

Centre for Indigenous Conservation and Development Alternatives (CICADA). 2018. Bigstone Cree Nation. Accessed October 2018. http://cicada.world/partners/indigenous-groups/bigstone-cree/.

CH2M HILL Energy Canada, Ltd. 2015. Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Project-Related Issues Summary for the Northwest Mainline Loop (Boundary Lake Section) and the Northwest Mainline Loop No. 2 (Bear Canyon Section). August.

CH2M HILL Energy Canada Ltd. 2017a. Traditional Knowledge Report for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Saddle West Expansion Project. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. October.

CH2M HILL Energy Canada Ltd. 2017b. Traditional Knowledge Report for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Smoky River Lateral Loop. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. October

CH2M HILL Energy Canada Ltd. 2018a. Traditional Knowledge Report for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Path Delivery Project. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. March.

CH2M HILL Energy Canada Ltd. 2018b. Traditional Knowledge Report for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Northwest Mainline Loop (Boundary Lake North Section) Project. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. October.

CH2M HILL Energy Canada Ltd. 2018c. Traditional Knowledge Report for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd., GPML Loop No. 2 – McLeod River North Project. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. June.

Cision. 2017. Alberta Government’s Recent Changes to Subsistence Harvesting Licenses Misses the Mark in Addressing Métis Harvesting Rights. Accessed August 2018.

Dene Tha’ First Nation. 2018a. Accessed October 2018. https://denetha.ca.

Dene Tha’ First Nation. 2018b. Letter to the Secretary of the Board; National Energy Board. Re: Dene Tha’ First Nation Outstanding Project Concerns with NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.’s (NGTL) proposed Northwest Mainline Loop (Boundary Lake North Section) Project – NEB File No. [OF-Fac-Gas-N081-2017-31 01]. January.

AX0921181128CGY 5-1 Traditional Knowledge Report

Dene Tha’ First Nation. 2018c. Information Requests to NGTL.

Dersch, A.T. 2011. Past, Present, and Future Land Use of Swan River First Nation. Doctoral Thesis, University of Calgary.

Doig River First Nation. 2018. DRFN Responses to interactions table and mitigation table for NGTL Northwest Mainline Loop – Boundary Lake North Section. Calgary, Alberta. January. 6 pp.

Driftpile Cree Nation. 2018. Accessed September 2018. http://www.dpcn.ca/Business/Investment- Opportunities.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines (Enbridge). 2010. Section 52, Volume 5B: ATK; Northern Gateway Section 5: Key Findings. Calgary, Alberta.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines (Enbridge). 2011. Volume 5A: Aboriginal Engagement; update to Section 52 Application for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

First Peoples’ Heritage Language & Culture Council. 2017. Language Needs Assessment: Doig River First Nation. http://maps.fphlcc.ca/node/2413.

FMA Heritage Inc. (FMA). 2011. Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Community Report: Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. Prepared for Enbridge Northern Gateway. Calgary, Alberta.

Gift Lake Métis Settlement. 2019. North Corridor Expansions (North Star Section 2 & Red Earth Section 3). Site Visit Letter of Concerns. February.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018a. Beaver First Nation. Accessed October 2018. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1357840941626/1360158391357.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018b. Bigstone Cree Nation. Accessed October 2018. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1357840941628/1360158403450.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018c. Dene Tha’ First Nation. Accessed September 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=548&lang=eng.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018d. Doig River First Nation. Accessed October 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=548&lang=eng.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018e. Driftpile Cree Nation. Accessed September 2018. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1357840941634/1360158438684.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018f. Duncan’s First Nation. First Nation Detail. Accessed September 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=451&lang=eng.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018g. Horse Lake First Nation Detail. Accessed October 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=449&lang=eng.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018h. Loon River Cree. Accessed October 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=476&lang=eng.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018i. Peerless Trout First Nation. 2018. Accessed October 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=478&lang=eng.

5-2 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018j. Sucker Cree First Nation. Accessed October 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=456&lang=eng.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018k. Swan River First Nation. Accessed October 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNGeography.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=457&lang=eng.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2018l. Tallcree First Nation. Accessed October 2018. http://fnp-ppn.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=446&lang=eng.

Langlois, J. 2018. JFK Law Corporation. Re: Hearing Order GH-003-2018 – NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL or the Applicant) 2021 System Expansion Project. Letter to Ms. Sheri Young; Secretary of the National Energy Board. October.

Lesser Slave Lake Economic Alliance (LSLEA). 2018. Gift Lake Métis Settlement. Accessed October 2018. http://www.lslea.ca/gift-lake.

Martineau, F. 2013. Site C Clean Energy Project: Volume 5 Appendix A02 Part 4 Final Report; Community Summary: Beaver First Nation. Prepared for BC Hydro and Authority. Vancouver, British Columbia. January.

Métis Nation of Alberta. 2018. Accessed October 2018. http://albertametis.com/governance/mna-regions/.

Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5. 2019. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. North Central Corridor Loop Red Earth 3 Pipeline Project. Métis Nation of Alberta Region V Métis Traditional Land Use Assessment. Interim and Final reports.

Métis Settlements General Council (MSGC). 2017. Métis Settlements General Council Indigenous Climate Leadership Initiative; Our Plan. Alberta.

Métis Settlements General Council (MSGC). 2018a. East Prairie Métis Settlement. Accessed October 2018. http://msgcweb.ca/settlements/east-prairie/.

Métis Settlements General Council. 2018b. Gift Lake Métis Settlement. Accessed October 2018. http://msgcweb.ca/settlements/gift-lake/.

Métis Settlements General Council. 2018c. Peavine Métis Settlement. Accessed October 2018. http://msgcweb.ca/settlements/peavine/.

National Energy Board (NEB). 2017.15-10-30 International Reporting Inc. - GH-002-2015 Hearing Transcript Vol. 2 - see Doig River First Nation Corrections (A73602). Accessed September 2018. https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/2855635.

North Peace Tribal Council. 2018. Accessed October 2018. http://www.nptc.ca/.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2014. Aboriginal Engagement Update for the Wolverine River Lateral Loop (Carmon Creek Section). Calgary, Alberta. 32 pp.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2016. Attachment 17: Aboriginal Engagement Matters Summary for the Woodenhouse Compressor Station. Calgary, Alberta. 4 pp.

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement. 2018. Letter to TransCanada. Re: Statement of Concern- North Central Corridor #2 Hidden Lake Compressor Station. September.

AX0921181128CGY 5-3 Traditional Knowledge Report

Peavine Métis Settlement. 2019. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. North Central Corridor Loop North Star 2 and Red Earth 3 Pipeline Project. Peavine Métis Settlement Traditional Knowledge Report. January.

Peerless Trout First Nation. 2018. Accessed October 2018. http://www.ptfn.net/.

PT Camp. 2018. Accessed October. https://www.ptfncamp.com/our-history-index-maple/.

Schreyer, C. 2008. ‘Nehiyawewin Askihk’: Cree Language on the Land: Language Planning Through Consultation in the Loon River Cree First Nation. Current Issues in Language Planning 9: 440-463.

Schreyer, C. 2009. Reserves and Resources: Local rhetoric on land, language, and identity amongst the Taku River Tlingit and the Loon River Cree First Nation. Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, University of Alberta.

SemCAMS. 2008. Consultation Program Outcomes Report for the proposed Redwillow Project. Calgary, Alberta.

Site C First Nations Engagement Team. 2013. Site C Clean Energy Project; Volume 3 Appendix F; Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes Summary. Prepared for BC Hydro Power and Authority. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Statistics Canada. 2018a. East Prairie Métis Settlement. Accessed October 2018. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp- pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DPL&Code1=480258&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Count&Sea rchText=East%20Prairie&SearchType=Contains&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1.

Statistics Canada. 2018b. Gift Lake Métis Settlement. Accessed: October 2018. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp- pd/prof/details/page.cfm?B1=All&Code1=480087&Code2=48&Data=Count&Geo1=DPL&Geo2=PR&Lang =E&SearchPR=01&SearchText=Gift+Lake+part+A&SearchType=Begins&TABID=1.

Statistics Canada. 2018c. Peavine Métis Settlement. Accessed October 2018. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp- pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DPL&Code1=480259&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Count&Sea rchText=Peavine&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1.

Swan River First Nation. 2018. Accessed October 2018. https://swanriverfirstnation.com.

Swan River First Nation. 2019. Site Assessment Summary; TransCanada North Star 2. February. Kinuso, Alberta.

Tallcree Tribal Government. 2018. Accessed October 2018. https://www.tallcreefirstnation.ca/.

TERA, a CH2M HILL Company. 2015a. Appendix 10; Aboriginal Field Study Participation and Traditional Land Use Report of the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. 2017 NGTL System Expansion. Prepared for TransCanada. March. Calgary, Alberta.

TERA, a CH2M HILL Company. 2015b. Appendix 11: Socio-Economic Technical Report for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. 2017 NGTL System Expansion. March. Calgary, Alberta.

Traditions Consulting Services, Inc. 2013. Site C Clean Energy Project Volume 5 Appendix A11 Part Aboriginal Land and Resource Use Summary: Horse Lake First Nation Final Report. Prepared for: BC Hydro Power and Authority. January.

Wood. 2018. Appendix K Traditional Knowledge Report for the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. June.

5-4 AX0921181128CGY Traditional Knowledge Report

5.2 GIS Data and Mapping References

This subsection includes references cited on the figures accompanying this report.

AltaLIS. 2016. Railway Arcs [digital file]. Calgary, Alberta. Available: http://www.altalis.com/products/base/20k_base_features.html. Acquired: June 2017. Last Update Check: June 5, 2017.

AltaLIS. 2018. Alberta Municipal Boundaries [digital file]. Calgary, Alberta. Available: http://www.altalis.com. Acquired: April 2018. Last Update Check: April 26, 2018.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation (ATPR). 2012. Protected Areas (pashape_ocsites_10tm) [digital file]. Edmonton, Alberta. Available: http://albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/library/downloadable-data- sets.aspx. Acquired: May 2017. Last Update Check: May 10, 2018.

BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (BC MFLNRO). 2018. Railway Track Line (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/old-growth-management-areas-legal-current. Data Currency: March 2018. Acquired: September 27, 2018.

ESRI. 2005. Canada Provincial Boundaries (digital data). Redlands, California. Received: via DVD with ArcGIS software, visit http://www.esri.com/data/data-maps for more info. Acquired: September 2006. Last update check: N/A.

Government of Canada. 2018. Aboriginal Lands, Canada [digital file]. Edmonton, Alberta. Available: http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/522b07b9-78e2-4819-b736-ad9208eb1067. Acquired: January 2018. Last Update Check: January 17, 2018.

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. 2018. BC Parks, Ecological Reserves, and Protected Areas (digital file). Victoria, British Columbia. Available: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bc-parks-ecological-reserves-and-protected-areas. Data Currency: April 2018. Last Update Check: September 27, 2018.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Governance and Structure. 2018. Municipalities - Legally Defined Administrative Areas of BC (digital file). Victoria, British Columbia. Available: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc. Data Currency: July 2018. Acquired: September 27, 2018.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2018. Proposed Routing (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Acquired on: November 21, 2018.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). 2007-2011. National Hydro Network [digital files]. Sherbrooke, Quebec. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nhn/index.html. Acquired: April 2012. Last Update Check: May 2012.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008. Hillshade. Derived from Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Centre for Topographic Information. 2000-2008. Canadian Digital Elevation Data 250k [digital files]. Sherbrooke, Quebec. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cded/index.html. Acquired: 2008. Last Update Check: December 2010.

USNIMA. 2000. Vector Map Level 0, Digital Chart of the World, Water Courses [digital file]. Bethesda, Maryland. Available: http://geoengine.nima.mil/ftpdir/archive/vpf_data/v0noa.tar.gz. Acquired: September 2009. Last Update Check: March 21, 2014.

AX0921181128CGY 5-5

Appendix A Project-related Issues Summaries

Peavine Métis Settlement

Peavine Métis Settlement (PMS) Project-related Issues Summary for the North Corridor Expansion Project – North Central Corridor Loop (North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3) (the Project) Where Addressed in the Environmental and Approximate Location Socio-economic Community Interests, Issue/Concern Identified Relative to the Project NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) Response/Proposed Mitigation Measures Assessment (ESA)

Potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, Sites identified relative to North Star During the North Star Section 2 site visit, PMS made 45 wildlife observations including, but not limited to: 16 game trails with evidence of use by moose, elk or potentially • Sections 5.10, and including: Section 2: caribou, bedding areas, scat and evidence of grazing, bedding areas, a raptor nest and a beaver dam. 5.11 • Removal of beaver dams causing effects to • KP 19.9 (beaver dam) During the Red Earth Section 3 site visit, PMS made over 100 wildlife observations were made including, but not limited to: beaver dams, nest, bedding areas and dens, trees • Sections 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, aquatic species and frogs and overall water with grizzly bear markings, over 40 game trails with evidence of use by ungulates and furbearers, and squirrel middens. 8.4, and 8.8 and • KP 19.9 (Notikewin River) quality The North Star Section 2 has been designed to parallel 100% of existing disturbances and the Red Earth Section 3 has been designed to parallel 98% of existing Appendix 1E and 1F in • KP 0.19 kilometers north from the the EPPs • Effects on amphibians disturbances. Clearing of vegetation for Project construction will result in an increase in the combined width (i.e., expansion) of existing linear disturbances. Following existing centerline at 19.5 (raptor nest) or proposed linear disturbances allows the Project Footprint to be reduced by utilizing temporary workspace on the adjacent disposition, as well as minimizing the • Beavers potentially having to travel further away Sites identified relative to Red Earth fragmentation of the landscape. Reclamation and cleanup will be completed to maintain equivalent land capability, ensuring the ability of the land to support various land uses for wood to build dams due to the removal of Section 3: similar to the uses that existed before construction. trees during construction • In the vicinity of KP 0.2 (bear den in NGTL will develop an environmental orientation that will be delivered to ensure that all personnel working on Project construction are informed of Project-specific • Wildlife trees that may not have been identified the area) environmental requirements and sensitivities, before being allowed access to the Project site. during the site visit or by wildlife biologists and that may be impacted during construction • In the vicinity of KP 3.8 (possible • Prior to the start of construction activities, clearly mark all sensitive resources as identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets, Environmental Figures and/or other wolf den in area) Project-specific environmental documents and in the project-specific mitigation tables in the EPP. Following clearing, re-mark all sensitive resources as necessary and • Disturbance to a raptor nest on North Star supplement markings with signage. Section 2. • 0.60 kilometers southwest of the centerline at KP 1.9 (squirrel • The Environmental Inspector(s) will confirm the accuracy of all environmentally sensitive resource locations and will ensure marking is maintained during construction. • Effects to red squirrel and red squirrel middens midden) • In the event Project activities are scheduled to occur within the Primary Nesting Period for the Bird Conservation Region for migratory birds, refer to the Breeding Bird and • Effects to wolf pups from construction • 0.54 kilometers southwest of the Nest Management Plan. • Moose, elk, and deer browse and use beds on centerline at KP 3.8 (squirrel • If previously unidentified listed or sensitive wildlife species or their site-specific habitat (e.g., dens and/or nests) are identified during construction of the Project, report to the rights-of-way as the line-of sight allows the midden) Environmental Inspector(s) and implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan. animals to see predators approaching • 0.2 kilometer south of the centerline In the event that construction activity (i.e., clearing/grubbing) is scheduled to coincide with the period when bears are denning, conduct pre construction den sweeps in areas • Wildlife’s ability to access the Notikewin River at KP 7.9 (squirrel midden) of suitable habitat. In the event that an active bear den is discovered, NGTL will consult with the appropriate regulatory agency to discuss practical options and mitigation during construction of the North Star Section 2 • 0.14 kilometers southwest of the measures. PMS requests: centreline at KP 14.7 (squirrel NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat: midden) • Beaver dams to be avoided and extra • Where feasible, minimize extra temporary workspace. precautions to be taken during construction • 0.3 kilometers south of the around beaver habitat and removal of centerline at KP 17.2 (squirrel • Locate deck sites in previously-disturbed areas, wherever practical. vegetation, trees, and beaver dams in riparian midden) • Share existing access with other industrial users, where feasible. habitat • Schedule clearing and construction activities to avoid sensitive wildlife timing windows to the extent feasible. • Construction crews to be trained to identify wildlife trees and everyone to be encouraged to • In the event there is a timing conflict, consult with the appropriate regulatory agency to discuss practical options and mitigation measures. speak up when wildlife trees are found so they • Leave gaps in windrows (e.g., topsoil/strippings, grade spoil, rollback, snow) and strung pipe at obvious drainages and wildlife trails, and to allow for livestock and can be protected, if significant enough vehicle/machinery passage across the construction footprint. Locations where wildlife gaps are appropriate will be determined in the field by the Environmental Inspector(s). • A biologist to assess the raptor nest on North These gaps should align. Star Section 2 to see if it is active. If active, • In the event that beaver dams or lodges will be disturbed or removed, provide notification to or obtain the necessary permits from the responsible regulatory agency prior to PMS would like a buffer around the nest commencing activities, if required. Engage the registered trapper(s). • NGTL to identify the species of squirrel which • Breach the beaver dam slowly to avoid the rapid release of water that could cause flooding, fish entrapments and/or erosion of the bed and banks resulting in subsequent squirrel middens identified along the right-of- siltation of downstream waters. way belong, prior to construction NGTL recognizes the interests of PMS in all aspects of Project activities and, in particular, environmental protection. Information gathered through ongoing engagement will be • NGTL and construction crews on the Red Earth considered for incorporation into all phases of the Project, as appropriate. Section 3 to be aware of wolf pups in February and March NGTL is committed to continue discussions regarding the community’s concern about potential environmental impacts during construction, as well as the mitigation measures to minimize any such impacts. When the site has been determined safe for the public and after the first complete growing season following completion of final clean-up, NGTL • NGTL to be aware that a bear is denning near will facilitate a post-construction site visit at the request of the community. Red Earth Section 3 The Project will follow NGTL’s Post-construction Monitoring (PCM) methodology as outlined in the ESA and/or other Project-specific environmental documents, which ensures • PMS, or an Indigenous community member, to compliance with specific reclamation performance expectations and applicable regulatory requirements. Mitigation methods will be based on the principle that success of land be present during construction and reclamation is measured against adjacent representative site conditions while taking into consideration the status of reclamation of the time of assessment. Planning for the post-construction activities NGTL will remain available to discuss and, where possible, address any concerns PMS may have during operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Project. • Appropriate wildlife monitors to study the area for amphibians prior to construction • NGTL to be aware of how animals access the water during construction, with particular consideration for locations of temporary workspace (TWS)

AX0921181128CGY 1 Peavine Métis Settlement

Potential effects on water quality and quantity Site identified relative to the North Star Watercourse crossing methods considered include both trenched (i.e., open cut or isolated) and trenchless (e.g., horizontal directional drill) options. Watercourse crossing • Sections 6.5 during construction, including: Section 2: methods at each location were assessed considering watercourse sensitivity, presence of fish and fish habitat, feasibility, and past experience with reclamation and restoration • Section 8.4 of the success. Trenchless crossings are conducted in accordance with the applicable sections of the Trenchless Crossing Management Plan. For pipeline crossings conducted • Sedimentation and decreased water quality, • KP 19.9 (Notikewin River) EPPs using a trenched crossing method, applicable DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat will be applied. particularly at the Notikewin River and the Loon Site identified relative to the Red Earth River crossings The watercourse crossing method for the Notikewin River on the North Star Section 2 will be trenched and the watercourse crossing method for the Loon River on the Red Section 3: Earth Section 3 will be a trenchless option. • Damage to a watercourse can cause long-term • Loon River is intersected by the PCF NGTL determines the appropriate crossing method by considering and balancing a variety of technical, environmental, stakeholder and economic considerations, along with sedimentation issues to animal habitats and for from KP 30.1 to KP 30.3 local people site-specific conditions. In most cases, a conventional trenched crossing is the preferred crossing method because it involves the least footprint, duration of installation and cost. NGTL can construct these crossings effectively and has a proven suite of mitigation measures and industry best practices to address conventional construction across • Reduction in the overall health of the water in most watercourses. Where minimal disturbance construction can be employed at these crossings, natural revegetation has been more successful and cost effective than the the area as a result of removing beavers which active reclamation measures needed at locations where stripping and grading occurs. Where warranted, a water quality monitoring plan will be developed that includes are a keystone species in the maintenance of monitoring for total suspended solids and/or turbidity if trenchless methods are used. water quality • The Environmental Inspector’s or designate’s main responsibility is to ensure that all environmental commitments, undertakings and approval conditions are met and that PMS requests: work is completed in compliance with applicable environmental legislation and Company policies, procedures and specifications in the most efficient and effective way • A horizontal directional drill (HDD) plan to be possible. used for the Notikewin River NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on water quality and quantity during construction: • HDD construction crews to be aware that the • The Contractor shall develop a detailed site-specific watercourse crossing plan and submit the plan to NGTL for approval prior to initiating watercourse crossing activities. east side of the Notikewin River appears deeper than the west side • Preserve water quality, including preventing the introduction of foreign material (debris, sediment, etc.) into the receiving waterbody/watercourse. • An Indigenous community member, to be hired NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for sediment to enter watercourses and/or waterbodies: to monitor all water crossings and Indigenous • Install erosion and sediment control at all watercourses and/or waterbodies as directed by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). monitors to be present during construction to ensure the protection of waterways and that • Where water erosion is evident, and there is potential for runoff from the construction footprint to flow into a watercourse, refer to the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan. Project activities are properly conducted, • Prohibit clearing of extra temporary workspace within a 10m (minimum) riparian buffer from top of bank of the watercourse. This area shall be clearly marked prior to cleaned up, and reclaimed clearing operations. The right-of-way will be narrowed through the riparian area, if feasible. • PMS to be hired to conduct long-term water • Limit clearing of trees and shrubs at watercourse crossings to the trench line and work side areas required for vehicle crossings. quality monitoring (WQM), to ensure that water quality is being maintained during and after • If the working surface is unstable, do not permit clearing equipment within the 10 m riparian buffer, unless approved by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). construction • Following clearing, the 10 m riparian buffer will remain intact (i.e., consisting of low-lying understory vegetation). • Conduct trenchless crossings in accordance with the applicable sections of the Trenchless Crossing Management Plan (Appendix 1F of the EPP). • For pipeline crossings conducted using a trenchless crossing method, apply applicable DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat. • Excavate entry and exit sites back from the ordinary high watermark and far enough from the watercourse to provide for containment of sediments and other deleterious substances above the high watermark. Vegetation removal for the entry and exit sites is only to occur within the approved construction footprint. • Ensure that water from dewatering entry and exit sites with a high sediment load is not discharged or allowed to flow into any waterbody. Remove the sediment load (e.g., filter or discharge into a vegetated area) before discharge water is allowed to enter any watercourse. • Where warranted, develop a water quality monitoring plan with input from an Aquatic Resource Specialist that includes monitoring for TSS and/or turbidity if trenchless methods are used. • In the event of sediment or deleterious substance releases during the construction of the trenchless crossings implement the Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan (Appendix 1E of the EPP). • Dispose of all waste drilling fluid and drilling solids according to and in conformance with Project plans and pertinent regulatory requirements. Refer to potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat above for response regarding monitoring.

2 AX0921181128CGY Peavine Métis Settlement

PMS is concerned about the safety of future 16 site specific hazards within the North PMS identified potential hazards including tree snags, leaning trees, dead trees boulders, and large rocks that were placed on the side of the right-of-way from a previous • TransCanada’s Health, contractors who will be working in the Project area Star Section 2 Local Study Area (LSA) project. Safety and due to the presence of hazards such as tree snags, and 13 site specific hazards within the NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce tree hazards: Environment (HSE) leaning trees, dead trees, boulders, and large Red Earth Section 3 LSA Commitment and the rocks particularly during the winter when • Clear timber, stumps, brush and other vegetation within the marked construction footprint boundaries. Clearing methods will take into account land use and HSE Management equipment operators may not be able to see the landowner/leaseholder requirements. System hazards. • Remove trees that are a safety hazard during construction activity off of the construction footprint, following consultation with the Environmental Inspector(s) or PMS requests: designate(s). • Hazard trees be removed, to avoid potential • Fell all trees damaged during clearing and construction immediately. A damaged tree is defined as one that has fractures or bark loss for 50% of its circumference. injury • During clearing, fell trees towards the construction footprint wherever feasible. Recover trees that inadvertently fall into adjacent undisturbed vegetation. • NGTL to hire a PMS-affiliated company address NGTL aims to increase the participation of Aboriginal groups potentially affected by TransCanada’s/NGTL’s activities by providing business opportunities arising from these these hazards and allow for community activities to qualified Aboriginal contractors and suppliers. This objective is met by implementing the following activities: employment and engagement • Assess local Aboriginal group and business capacity and capabilities for contracting and employment opportunities and, as appropriate, align work packages to allow Aboriginal businesses to compete successfully. • Where opportunities exist, the Project will work with the Indigenous groups and businesses to help enhance capacity, including Project-related training and employment, if applicable. • Maximize contracting and employment opportunities for Aboriginal groups and businesses through the Project’s contractors and subcontractors or contracts directly with the Project. Through its ongoing engagement activities, NGTL encourages community contractors and vendors to register their businesses for Project consideration and operational requirements in the region. NGTL strives to create employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal groups and individuals in accordance with TransCanada’s Aboriginal Relations Policy and TransCanada’s Education and Training Program. While the majority of employment opportunities will occur during the construction phase of the Project, investments in education and training are made during all phases of the Project. NGTL will collaborate with local Aboriginal groups to identify their education and training needs and priorities. NGTL will then work with the community human resource coordinators and local economic development and education officers, education and training institutions and organizations, and prime contractors, to support the education and training requirements that have been identified through this collaborative effort, where feasible.

Potential effects on hunting camps during Sites identified relative to Red Earth PMS members identified a cabin and three hunting camps, one of which was identified as a historic hunting camp within the Red Earth Section 3 LSA. PMS was unable to • Sections 5.14 construction. Section 3: access the east side of the Notikewin River due to private land. • Section 8.0 of Red PMS requests: • 0.2 kilometers southwest KP 13.3 The hunting camp located 0.2km SW of KP 13.3 will be avoided by construction. Earth 3 Section EPP (hunting camp 1) • That an historical hunting camp not be disturbed The following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on the use of habitation sites including cabins and hunting camps: and requests that the pipeline avoids its location • 0.96 kilometers northeast of KP 30.2 • Provide potentially affected Aboriginal groups with the proposed Project construction schedule and maps. entirely, or that construction and the new (cabin) pipeline stay within the existing right-of-way • To prevent inadvertent trespass, stake the approved construction footprint to clearly delineate all boundaries. • 0.03 kilometers from KP 8.2 (hunting PMS recommends that: camp 2, historic camp) • Restrict all construction activities to the approved construction footprint. All construction traffic will adhere to safety and road closure regulations. • All recommendations and concerns be applied • 0.2 kilometers southwest of KP 3.8 • Take reasonable measures to control construction-related noise near residential areas. 1 to the Crown land on the east side of the river. (hunting camp 3) • Reduce idling of equipment, where possible. Where practical and applicable, use multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites. NGTL will implement the Traffic Control Management Plan which includes access control measures (e.g., signage, road closures, restrictions, access control) to manage and control Project-related construction traffic and to reduce unauthorized motorized access. If traditional land use (TLU) sites not previously identified are found on the construction footprint during construction, implement the Cultural Resource Discovery Contingency Plan.

1 North Star Section 2 PCF, LSA and RSA from KP 19.9 to KP 23.8.

AX0921181128CGY 3 Peavine Métis Settlement

Potential effects on heritage resources, including: Sites identified relative to North Star In all jurisdictions where TransCanada builds and operates, adherence to heritage legislation and guidance is a fundamental environmental requirement. TransCanada • Section 5.13 Section 2: engages qualified heritage consultants who undertake the necessary pre-construction desktop and field investigations as required by the provincial Ministry that has • Ukrainian church, possibly 100 years or older • Appendix 1E of the jurisdiction for the Project area. In order to determine any heritage resource requirements for each Project component, NGTL has had Historical Resource Act (HRA) identified while travelling east to the west end of • KP 19.9 (Notikewin River) EPPs applications prepared and submitted to Alberta Culture and Tourism (ACT). NGTL is committed to completing any requirements issued by ACT in order to obtain HRA the Project • 0.01 kilometers southwest from KP clearance for all Project components prior to construction. • A dried creek at North Star Section 2 with high 1.8 (area of high archaeological In the event of unanticipated discovery during construction, NGTL will implement the Cultural Resource Discovery Contingency Plan, as appropriate, to ensure that any sites archeological potential potential) not previously identified are properly recorded and mapped, and the potential disturbance of those sites from construction activities is addressed before continuing with • The area around the Loon River and tributaries • 2 kilometers from KP 13.8 construction. have high archeological potential (Ukrainian church) PMS requests: • The church be preserved due to its age and history in the area

Potential long-term environmental effects of the North Star Section 2 and Red NGTL is committed to managing its pipeline assets throughout their full life cycle. Decommissioning and abandonment activities will require prior approval by the NEB and • Section 8 pipeline in the ground a hundred years from now Earth Section 3 Regional Study Area other applicable agencies. It is difficult at this time to predict when or how the pipelines and facilities will be decommissioned or abandoned at the end of the Project's useful as Indigenous people will still be in the area, and (RSA) life. Prior to abandonment, NGTL will prepare an abandonment plan, and potentially affected communities will have the opportunity to participate in and provide comment on effects of the pipeline after the life of the pipe has the proposed decommissioning and abandonment plan at that time. Consideration of community feedback, as well as future land use plans, will help to determine the

expired. appropriate approach for the facilities that minimizes the impact to landowners, communities and the environment. Based on the project-specific evaluation, NGTL may remove the pipeline and associated infrastructure; leave the pipeline in place or a combination of the two on a site-specific basis, in consultation with affected parties and in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements in place at the time of decommissioning or abandonment.

Potential cumulative effects, including: North Star Section 2 and Red The ESA included a cumulative effects assessment which included the potential effects, and Project contributions to those effects, including the effects on the species and • Section 6.0 Earth Section 3 RSA concerns identified by PMS. • Fewer moose in the area The ESA assumes that other companies and other NGTL projects and activities considered (i.e., not the Project itself) will employ similar mitigation measures as those PMS requests: described in Section 7.0 to control effects on the environment from the specific project. Potential Project-related cumulative effects are minimized with the implementation of • Indigenous people to be hired to monitor the the following design and construction measures: long-term effects of the North Star Section 2 • Maximizing the use of adjacent existing right-of-way and reducing the width of additional clearing as much as possible (The North Star Section 2 has been designed to parallel 100% of existing disturbances and the Red Earth Section 3 has been designed to parallel 98% of existing disturbances). • Avoiding construction during critical wildlife timing windows when feasible. • Adhering to the approved construction footprint and access. • Refer to potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat above for response regarding monitoring.

Potential effects of construction garbage left Site identified relative to the North Star PMS identified construction garbage (large pieces of debris) on the existing right-of-way and noted that having an Indigenous monitor would assist in identifying post- • Section 2.5 behind. Section 2: construction clean up requirements. • Appendix F1 of the PMS requests: • 0.13 kilometers north of KP 19.4 and Environmental compliance for Project construction will be achieved through adherence to the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP). The EPP includes the Chemical and EPPs KP 19.6 (construction garbage) Waste Management Plan which has been prepared to provide guidelines for dealing with the generation of project waste, and to provide guidelines for dealing with the • Better cleanup of the work area to occur when procurement, storing and handling of hazardous materials and chemicals required for the Project. The Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s) are responsible for ensuring construction is completed compliance with TransCanada’s Environmental Guidelines and all applicable codes, regulations and industry standards for waste management and handling chemicals. • An Indigenous or PMS post-construction Where a discrepancy occurs, the most stringent requirements apply. Specific mitigation measures in the EPP to ensure appropriate waste management include: monitor to be employed to ensure proper • The Contractor will collect all construction debris and other waste materials and dispose at an approved facility and in accordance with the Chemical and Waste cleanup after construction Management Plan (Appendix 1F) and the Release Contingency Plan (Appendix 1E) unless otherwise authorized by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). • Collect shavings continuously as beveling proceeds. Collect all welding refuse generated by each welding rig and dispose of at an approved waste facility. • Where spray or paint-on coatings are applied, use a tarp or alternative device of sufficient size to block coating from contacting the ground. Clean-up coating that comes in contact with the ground. • Remove all flagging and signage from the Project area and dispose of it appropriately following the completion of construction. • Remove all matting and geotextile and other materials from all locations on the construction footprint following clean-up, once site conditions are deemed stable. • Remove all mats and ramps used so that they do not impede the restoration of natural drainage patterns. • Remove unnecessary silt fence or other temporary erosion control measures not required, as specified by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). • Biodegradable materials shall be utilized for installation of permanent sedimentation and erosion control measures, unless otherwise specified by the Company. Refer to potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat above for response regarding monitoring.

4 AX0921181128CGY Peavine Métis Settlement

Potential employment opportunities, including: Sites identified relative to the North Star PMS members identified merchantable timber and non-merchantable timber which can be used as firewood for local communities within the LSA of the North Star Section 2 • Sections 6.9 and 6.19 Section 2: and Red Earth Section 3. • Timber near the Project footprint to be used for • Section 8.2 of the EPP making plywood, which could be a promising • Area around the Notikewin River Timber and brush disposal options are subject to agreements with the appropriate regulatory agency pursuant to provincial acts and legislation. NGTL will outline the timber job opportunity for someone. KP 19.9. salvage requirements for Public Lands where the Crown dispositions are under designated Forest Management Areas and Coniferous Timber Licenses. The Timber Salvage Plan includes the identification of potential options for use of the salvageable timber such as rollback, transport to conversion facilities or other viable end users, including • Indigenous communities to be hired to make • 2 kilometers southwest of KP 2.5 Aboriginal groups, pending availability, proximity, and sale agreements. firewood out of salvageable lumber and deadfall (suitable timber for plywood) NGTL will implement mitigation measures relevant to merchantable timber, including the following: • A wide variety of trees in this area that can be Site identified relative to Red used for logging or community firewood. Earth Section 3: • Merchantable timber shall be cut and salvaged as outlined within the Timber Salvage Plan, and to the Forest Management Agreement (FMA) holder’s specifications, or in accordance with landowner requests. • Community members to partner with NGTL to • 0.2 kilometers south from KP 12.3 harvest peat moss ahead of the construction (potential firewood) • Do not bulldoze salvageable timber. crew, to sell for a variety of uses, including • Suspend timber skidding operations or implement alternative measures, if the potential exists for merchantable timber to be damaged through contact with wet or muddy gardening soils. • Employment of environmental monitors and NGTL is willing to discuss potential options for the use of non-merchantable timber with PMS. post-construction monitors, particularly at watercourse crossings NGTL aims to increase the participation of Aboriginal groups potentially affected by TransCanada’s/NGTL’s activities by providing business opportunities arising from these activities to qualified Aboriginal contractors and suppliers. This objective is met by implementing the following activities: PMS identified negative effects on employment, including: • Assess local Aboriginal group and business capacity and capabilities for contracting and employment opportunities and, as appropriate, align work packages to allow Aboriginal businesses to compete successfully. • Construction of the pipeline could prevent future economic logging possibilities for communities. • Where opportunities exist, the Project will work with the Indigenous groups and businesses to help enhance capacity, including Project-related training and employment, if applicable. PMS requests: • Maximize contracting and employment opportunities for Aboriginal groups and businesses through the Project’s contractors and subcontractors or contracts directly with • NGTL to create more and better partnerships the Project. with local Indigenous communities. Through its ongoing engagement activities, NGTL encourages community contractors and vendors to register their businesses for Project consideration and operational • That partnerships and employment requirements in the region. opportunities for PMS and other local people should be included in the Project scope. NGTL strives to create employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal groups and individuals in accordance with TransCanada’s Aboriginal Relations Policy and TransCanada’s Education and Training Program. While the majority of employment opportunities will occur during the construction phase of the Project, investments in • PMS and NGTL to further discuss the education and training are made during all phases of the Project. distribution and harvesting of resources. PMS would like to ensure that the timber cleared from NGTL will collaborate with local Aboriginal groups to identify their education and training needs and priorities. NGTL will then work with the community human resource the right-of-way is used, including wood that is coordinators and local economic development and education officers, education and training institutions and organizations, and prime contractors, to support the education not commercially valuable, but that may be used and training requirements that have been identified through this collaborative effort, where feasible. as firewood. The Company will develop an environmental orientation that will be delivered to ensure that all personnel working on Project construction are informed of Project-specific • NGTL to use a PMS-affiliated forestry company environmental requirements and sensitivities, before being allowed access to the Project site. to remove trees from the right-of-way. Refer to potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat above for response regarding monitoring. • NGTL to support PMS to create a book of endangered species and important ecological features for distribution to construction crews, to ensure that sensitive areas and species are protected and preserved

Source: Peavine Métis Settlement. 2019. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. North Central Corridor Loop North Star 2 and Red Earth 3 Pipeline Project. Peavine Métis Settlement PMS Traditional Knowledge Report. January. a Detailed mitigation measures are provided in the Project-specific EPP.

AX0921181128CGY 5 Swan River First Nation

Swan River First Nation (SRFN) Project-related Issues Summary for the North Corridor Expansion Project – North Central Corridor Loop (North Star Section 2 and Red Earth Section 3) (the Project) Approximate Where Addressed in Location the Environmental Community Interests, Relative to the and Socio-economic Issue/Concern Identified Project NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Response/Proposed Mitigation Measures Assessment (ESA)

Potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, North Star SRFN reported abundant signs of squirrel and bear activity. SRFN reported concerns regarding potential effects on species at risk, grizzly and black bears, moose, caribou, song birds, birds of prey,  Sections 6.10 and including: Section 2 and squirrels, beaver and ducks. 6.11 Red Earth  Nests, cavities and perching trees To reduce Project footprint, the North Star Section 2 has been designed to parallel existing disturbances for 100% of its length, while the Red Earth Section 3 has been designed to parallel existing  Sections 6.0, 7.0, Section 3 Project disturbances for 98% of its length. Clearing of vegetation for Project construction will result in an increase in the combined width (i.e., expansion) of existing linear disturbances. Following existing or and 8.0 of North  Removal of snags and cavities being used Construction proposed linear disturbances allows the Project Footprint to be reduced by utilizing temporary workspace on the adjacent disposition, as well as minimizing the fragmentation of the landscape. Star Section 2 by cavity nesters during construction Footprint (PCF), Reclamation and cleanup will be completed to maintain equivalent land capability, ensuring the ability of the land to support various land uses similar to the uses that existed before construction. It should Environmental Local Study Area  Removal of mature conifer trees that be noted that no suitable grizzly bear habitat in proximity to the PCF for all project components was identified. Protection Plan (LSA) and provide habitat for squirrel (EPP) Regional Study NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat:  Destruction of bear dens and habitat Area (RSA)  Prior to the start of construction activities, clearly mark all sensitive resources as identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets, Environmental Figures and/or other Project-specific environmental  Increased human-bear interactions documents and in the project-specific mitigation tables in the EPP.  Moose trails and disruptions of movement to  Following clearing, re-mark all sensitive resources as necessary and supplement markings with signage. critical habitat  The Environmental Inspector(s) will confirm the accuracy of all environmentally sensitive resource locations and will ensure marking is maintained during construction.  Disruption of migratory bird patterns during  Where feasible, minimize extra temporary workspace. construction  Locate deck sites in previously-disturbed areas, wherever practical.  Construction may impede/restrict current game trails and existing wildlife movement  Share existing access with other industrial users, where feasible. SRFN requests:  Schedule clearing and construction activities to avoid sensitive wildlife timing windows to the extent feasible. In the event there is a timing conflict, consult with the appropriate regulatory agency to discuss practical options and mitigation measures.  Maintain existing structure retention  Leave gaps in windrows (e.g., topsoil/strippings, grade spoil, rollback, snow) and strung pipe at obvious drainages and wildlife trails, and to allow for livestock and vehicle/machinery passage across  Recruit new structure retention the construction footprint. Locations where wildlife gaps are appropriate will be determined in the field by the Environmental Inspector(s). These gaps should align.  Implement Best Management Practices  To facilitate free movement of livestock and wildlife, follow trenching operations as closely as feasible with lowering-in and backfill operations, unless for construction purposes there is a need to have (BMPs) around bear dens, mineral licks and the trench open for an extended period of time. known game trails If previously unidentified listed or sensitive wildlife species or their site-specific habitat (e.g. dens, nests) are identified during construction of the Project, report to the Environmental Inspector(s) and  Line of sight buffers implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan.  Fund research In the event Project activities are scheduled to occur within the Primary Nesting Period for the Bird Conservation Region for migratory birds, refer to the Breeding Bird and Nest Management Plan.  Abide by migratory bird guidelines In the event that construction activity (i.e., clearing/grubbing) is scheduled to coincide with the period when bears are denning, conduct pre construction den sweeps in areas of suitable habitat. Locations  Restrict operations to off season of den sweeps will be discussed and selected based on discussions with the appropriate regulatory agency. In the event that an active bear den is discovered, NGTL will consult with the appropriate regulatory agency to discuss practical options and mitigation measures.  Connectivity analysis to identify existing and potential for future wildlife use corridors  Prevent further loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat  Protect wildlife movement corridors  Assess current level of landscape disturbance in relation to management thresholds for grizzly bear  Assess current level of landscape disturbance in relation to known viability and management thresholds for moose  Identify and document all existing game trails that cross the proposed pipeline and temporary work spaces  Conduct provincial grizzly bear analysis

AX0921181128CGY 1 Swan River First Nation

Potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat North Star NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on mature conifer trees during clearing: See above (cont’d) Section 2 and  Clear timber, stumps, brush and other vegetation within the marked construction footprint boundaries. Clearing methods will take into account landowner/leaseholder requirements. Red Earth SRFN requests: Section 3 Project  Remove trees that are a safety hazard during construction activity off the construction footprint, following consultation with the Environmental Inspector(s).  Maintain existing structure of snags and Construction  Fell all trees damaged during clearing and construction immediately. A damaged tree is defined as one that has fractures or bark loss for 50% of its circumference. assess for further recruitment opportunities Footprint (PCF),  Avoid disturbance to environmentally sensitive features during clearing as identified by the appropriate signage and/or fencing. The Environmental Inspector(s) and appropriate Resource Specialist will  Maintain large conifer trees Local Study Area (LSA) and determine the size of avoidance buffer surrounding these features, if appropriate.  Involve SRFN environmental technicians Regional Study  Stumps that are removed will be used as rollback or will be disposed of by burning or chipping, where approved. during all project phases (especially clearing Area (RSA) and construction) NGTL recognizes the interests of Aboriginal groups in all aspects of Project activities and, in particular, environmental protection. Information gathered through ongoing engagement will be considered for incorporation into all phases of the Project, as appropriate.  Work collaboratively with SRFN consultation department to define appropriate buffers NGTL is committed to continuing discussions regarding the community’s concerns about potential environmental impacts during construction, as well as the discussion of mitigation measures to minimize around snags, bear dens, mineral licks and any such impacts. When the site has been determined safe for the public and after the first complete growing season following completion of final clean-up, NGTL can facilitate a post-construction site migratory bird habitat visit at the request of the community.  Signage NGTL will implement the Traffic Control Management Plan which includes access control measures (e.g., signage, road closures, restrictions, access control) to manage and control Project-related construction traffic and to reduce unauthorized motorized access.  Speed limits NGTL strives to create employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal groups and individuals in accordance with TransCanada’s Aboriginal Relations Policy and TransCanada’s Education and  Employee education Training Program. While the majority of employment opportunities will occur during the construction phase of the Project, investments in education and training are made during all phases of the Project. NGTL will collaborate with local Aboriginal groups to identify their education and training needs and priorities. NGTL will then work with the community human resource coordinators and local economic development and education officers, education and training institutions and organizations, and prime contractors, to support the education and training requirements that have been identified through this collaborative effort, where feasible. The objective of these education and training investments is to build long-term community capacity, and support the development of high-demand and transferable skills. The intention is to promote greater access to employment opportunities not only on the Project, but also in the broader regional economy.

Potential effects on vegetation and wetlands, North Star SRFN observed invasive plants on existing right-of-way and expressed concern that Project construction activities will add to current problem. Swan River stated that wetland complexes are very slow in  Section 6.9 and including: Section 2 and development and planned pipeline will impede/disrupt natural process. Section 7.0 of the Red Earth  Removal of medicinal, cultural and The assessment of potential effects to vegetation is found in Section 5.9 of the Project ESA. EPP Section 3 PCF, traditional plants  Section 8 of the LSA and RSA Refer to the response provided for wildlife and wildlife habitat above for information regarding Project design considerations intended to reduce the potential effects of the Project. EPP  Disruption to natural wetland successional NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on vegetation resources: development  During clearing, fell trees towards the construction footprint wherever possible. Recover trees that inadvertently fall into adjacent undisturbed vegetation.  Wetland complex connectivity  Where practical, leave stumps in place, particularly on streambanks, to provide surface stability. Stumps that are removed will be used as rollback or will be disposed of by burning or chipping, where  Introduction of invasive plants approved. SRFN requests:  On Crown land allow for natural regeneration or seed as directed by the responsible Land Administrator. Natural recovery is the preferred method of reclamation in non-agricultural areas on level  Implement BMPs around wetlands terrain where erosion is not expected.  Weed management plan NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on wetlands:  Inspect and monitor all equipment operating  NGTL will obtain regulatory approval for construction activities occurring within wetlands, as required. Construct the wetland crossings in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. on site. Inspection records be made  Minimize the removal of vegetation in wetlands to the extent possible. available upon request  Conduct ground level cutting/mowing/mulching of wetland vegetation instead of grubbing. The method of removal of wetland vegetation is subject to approval by NGTL.  Support research regarding successional development of lesser vegetation post  Minimize grading within wetland boundary. Do not use temporary workspace within the boundaries of wetlands, unless required for site specific purposes. Temporary workspace within the boundary of disturbance a wetland must be approved by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s).  Support growth and yield research on  The Contractor will use berms, cross ditches, sediment fencing and/or other appropriate measures to prevent erosion and siltation into adjacent wetland areas, unless otherwise directed by NGTL. wetland vegetation response post Refer to the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan for additional measures. disturbance  If ground conditions are encountered that create potential for rutting, admixing or compaction on the worksite, minimize ground disturbance by using a protective layer such as frost packing, snow, ice,  TransCanada to provide summary table of geotextile and fill, rig mats, swamp mats or access mats between wetland root/seed bed and construction equipment. leading vegetation cover types and ecosite  Replace trench material as soon as feasible, and re-establish pre-construction contours within wetland boundary to facilitate cross right-of-way drainage. communities  Natural recovery is the preferred method of reclamation. Do not seed wetland areas unless otherwise directed by NGTL.  TransCanada to provide more information on reclamation and seed mix  All equipment, including mats, must arrive at the Project site clean and free of soil or vegetative debris. Equipment will be inspected by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s), and if deemed to be in appropriate condition will be approved for use and identified with a suitable marker or tag. Any equipment, including mats, which does not arrive in appropriate condition shall not be allowed on the construction footprint until it has been cleaned, re-inspected by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate, and deemed suitable for use.  The Environmental Inspector’s or designate’s main responsibility is to ensure that all environmental commitments, undertakings and approval conditions are met and that work is completed in compliance with applicable environmental legislation and Company policies, procedures and specifications in the most efficient and effective way possible.

2 AX0921181128CGY Swan River First Nation

Potential effects on vegetation and wetlands See above NGTL will work with landowners, Aboriginal groups and regulators to identify and to record locations of concern identified during construction and operations related to weeds. The following mitigation See above (cont’d) measures will reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on plant gathering:  Provide potentially affected Aboriginal groups with the proposed Project construction schedule and maps The Project will follow NGTL’s Post-Construction Monitoring (PCM) methodology as outlined in the ESA and/or other Project-specific environmental documents, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation performance expectations and applicable regulatory requirements. Mitigation methods will be based on the principle that success of land reclamation is measured against adjacent representative site conditions while taking into consideration the status of reclamation of the time of assessment. NGTL will remain available to discuss and, where possible, address any concerns SRFN may have during operation and maintenance of the Project.

Potential effects on water quality and quantity, Site identified The Hotchkiss River is upstream of the Notikewin River and is not crossed by the Project. The Notikewin River will be crossed using trenched crossing method.  Section 6.3 including: relative to the Watercourse crossing methods considered include both trenched (i.e., open cut or isolated) and trenchless (e.g.., horizontal directional drill) options. Watercourse crossing methods at each location were  Sections 7.0, 7.1, North Star  Construction may divert or impede flow or assessed considering watercourse sensitivity, presence of fish and fish habitat, feasibility, and past experience with reclamation and restoration success. Trenchless crossings are conducted in and 8.4 of the EPP Section 2: drainage accordance with the applicable sections of the Trenchless Crossing Management Plan. For pipeline crossings conducted using a trenched crossing method, apply applicable Department of Fisheries and  Oceans (DFO) Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat. SRFN requests: 7.5 kilometres south of KP NGTL determines the appropriate crossing method by considering and balancing a variety of technical, environmental, stakeholder and economic considerations, along with site-specific conditions. In  Involve SRFN environmental technicians 14.9 most cases, a conventional trenched crossing is the preferred crossing method because it involves the least footprint, duration of installation and cost. NGTL can construct these crossings effectively and during all project phases (especially clearing (Hotchkiss has a proven suite of mitigation measures and industry best practices to address conventional construction across most watercourses. Where minimal disturbance construction can be employed at these and construction) River, a crossings, natural revegetation has been more successful and cost effective than the active reclamation measures needed at locations where stripping and grading occurs. Where warranted, a water  Directional drill under watercourses tributary of the quality monitoring plan will be developed that includes monitoring for total suspended solids and/or turbidity if trenchless methods are used. Notikewin  Work with SRFN consultation department to River) NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on water quality and quantity during construction: define appropriate buffers around  The Contractor shall develop a detailed site-specific watercourse crossing plan and submit the plan to NGTL for approval prior to initiating watercourse crossing activities. waterbodies and watercourses  Preserve water quality, including preventing the introduction of foreign material (debris, sediment, etc.) into the receiving waterbody/watercourse.  Implement site-specific erosion control measures for creek crossing and NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for sediment to enter watercourses and/or waterbodies: waterbodies  Install erosion and sediment control at all watercourses and/or waterbodies as directed by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s).  Trans Canada to provide method used to  Where water erosion is evident, and there is potential for runoff from the construction footprint to flow into a watercourse, refer to the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan. cross the Hotchkiss River; If directional drill is used SRFN requests a monitor at the time  Prohibit clearing of extra temporary workspace within a 10 m (minimum) riparian buffer from top of bank of the watercourse. This area shall be clearly marked prior to clearing operations. The right-of- of drilling way will be narrowed through the riparian area, if feasible.  Limit clearing of trees and shrubs at watercourse crossings to the trench line and work side areas required for vehicle crossings.  If the working surface is unstable, do not permit clearing equipment within the 10 m riparian buffer, unless approved by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). Following clearing, the 10 m riparian buffer will remain intact (i.e., consisting of low-lying understory vegetation). Refer to potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat regarding response to request for environmental technicians.

Potential effects on soil and soil productivity, North Star SRFN stated that areas with fine textured soils are susceptible to compaction and rutting.  Section 6.9, Section including: Section 2 and The assessment of potential effects to soils and soil productivity is in Section 5.2 of the ESA. Post-construction monitoring is summarized in Section 8 of the ESA. 7.0, and Appendix Red Earth Section 1E of the EPP  Soil compaction and rutting that may restrict 3 PCF, LSA and Minimal disturbance procedures are the preferred means of right-of-way preparation in forested conditions where suitable, and only apply where grading is not required. Where stripping and grading is not vegetation from re-establishing RSA required during frozen ground conditions and or in Crown non-agricultural land use, implement minimal surface disturbance techniques as indicated on the Environmental Alignment Sheets and/or other SRFN requests: Project-specific environment documents.  Implement BMPs around clearing and NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to facilitate reclamation: construction during wet ground condition  In the event of adverse weather that could result in rutting, sedimentation and erosion, and/or compaction, the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s), in consultation with the Construction  Conduct soil assessments and monitoring Manager, may implement contingency measures as outlined in the Adverse Weather Contingency Plan (Appendix 1E). A soils specialist and/or the responsible regulatory agency may be consulted, if warranted.  Assess susceptibility of soils compaction and rutting  Smooth and level the ripped subsoil surface to prevent admixing of subsoil and topsoil when the topsoil is replaced.  Involve SRFN environmental technicians  Replace topsoil/strippings to a uniform depth, on all portions of the construction footprint that were stripped. Match topsoil/strippings depth to the unstripped edges of the construction footprint. during all project phases (especially clearing  On Crown land allow for natural regeneration, or seed as directed by the responsible Land Administrator. Natural recovery is the preferred method of reclamation in non-agricultural areas on level and construction) terrain where erosion is not expected. Where natural recovery is not preferred, seed disturbed areas as per site requirements and as specified by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s).  The Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s) will determine the location of sedimentation and erosion control measures.  Implement Post-Construction Monitoring and treat listed weed infestation on the construction footprint as needed. Soil compaction and rutting will be mitigated through implementation of the Wet Soils Contingency Plan, Soil Handling Contingency Plan and the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan. Refer to potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat regarding response to request for environmental technicians.

AX0921181128CGY 3 Swan River First Nation

Potential cumulative effects, including: Watershed SRFN stated that individual project developments do not typically address a holistic view of development on the landscape. The Chinchaga watershed has been significantly fragmented and disturbed by  Section 7.0 relative to the industrial development such as forestry, utilities and oil and gas development.  Grizzly bear North Star The ESA included a cumulative effects assessment (Section 6) which included the potential effects, and Project contributions to those effects, including the effects on the species and concerns identified  Moose Section 2 RSA: by SRFN, including potential cumulative effects on grizzly bear. The integration of regional cumulative effects is not within the responsibility of NGTL  Species at Risk  Chinchaga The ESA assumes that other companies and other NGTL projects and activities considered (i.e., not the Project itself) will employ similar mitigation measures as those described in Section 7.0 to control River  Water effects on the environment from the specific project. Potential Project-related cumulative effects are minimized with the implementation of the following design and construction measures:  Maximizing the use of adjacent existing right-of-way and reducing the width of additional clearing as much as possible (the Project parallels existing or proposed linear disturbances for 100% of its  Soil conservation length).  Forest seral stage  Avoiding construction during critical wildlife timing windows when feasible.  Plant distribution and abundance  Adhering to the approved construction footprint and access. SRFN requests:  More integration between all resource development proponents  Run Government of Alberta grizzly bear analysis to examine the cumulative impact

Potential effects to heritage resources. North Star NGTL has not received HRA requirements for the Project components from ACT at this time, however, NGTL will continue to engage SRFN regarding any requirements received and if an HRIA is  Section 6.13 Section 2 and required. NGTL notes that HRIA reports are available once filed with ACT and members of the public can request a copy. Upon receipt of a request, ACT reviews the reason for the request and grants SRFN requests: Red Earth Section permission to release. Once permission to release is granted, the report is emailed to the requestor at no cost. NGTL encourages SRFN to follow this request procedure. In the alternative, NGTL would  Provide Historic Resource Impact 3 PCF be pleased to meet with SRFN to review the summary results of the archaeology studies as well as the effects assessment and mitigation measures relevant to heritage resources.In the event of Assessment (HRIA) report and unanticipated discovery during construction, NGTL will implement the Cultural Resources Discovery Contingency Plan, as appropriate, to ensure that any sites not previously identified are properly recommendations (if any) recorded and mapped, and the potential disturbance of those sites from construction activities is addressed before continuing with construction.

Potential accidents and malfunctions. North Star The product to be transported by this Project is sweet natural gas. The Project will not transport oil, liquids, or condensates. In the event of a pipeline leak or rupture, natural gas will disperse into the  Section 8.0 of the atmosphere. SRFN requests: Section 2 and EPP Red Earth Section NGTL notes the existing spill prevention programs detailed in the EPP have been successful in preventing spills during construction and ensuring appropriate action and reporting if spills do occur. The  Contact SRFN consultation department 3 PCF, LSA and EPP applies to all employees, contractors and consultants who conduct work on behalf of NGTL during construction of the Project. All employees, contractors and consultants will abide by all federal, immediately in the event of an accidental RSA provincial and local requirements for the storage, handling, transport, disposal and spill reporting requirements of all products and waste materials that are potentially hazardous to human health and the release and in all clean up efforts environment.  Discuss Emergency Response Plan The following measures will be adhered to during construction in order to prevent spills:  Provide operational safety and spill  Implement the Chemical and Waste Management Plan. prevention/contingency plan  The Contractor will ensure equipment is monitored regularly and free of fluid leaks.  Ensure no vehicles or equipment, which contain petroleum, oil, or lubricants are parked or stationed in a watercourse at any time except for equipment that is required for that immediate phase of construction.  Bulk fuel trucks, service vehicles, and pick-up trucks equipped with box mounted fuel tanks shall carry release prevention, containment, and clean up materials that are suitable for the volume of fuels or oils carried.  Release contingency material carried on bulk fuel and service vehicles, stationed near watercourses or waterbodies, or in environmental response units shall be suitable for use on land and water.  Conduct refuelling at least 100 m away from any watercourse or waterbody, when feasible.  In the event of a spill during construction, the Release Contingency Plan will be implemented.  The Environmental Inspector’s or designate’s main responsibility is to ensure that all environmental commitments, undertakings and approval conditions are met and that work is completed in compliance with applicable environmental legislation and Company policies, procedures and specifications in the most efficient and effective way possible.  The Project has been designed, and will be constructed and operated following applicable standards, industry best management practices and Project-specific mitigation identified in the ESA and the EPP. These measures are expected to avoid or reduce the potential of an accident or malfunction related to the Project. During operation and maintenance, NGTL will implement a combination of incident prevention measures, safety devices and procedures under TransCanada’s corporate Emergency Management System to ensure public safety and including the following:  Availability of emergency response personnel on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. NGTL’s first responders consist of employees and contract personnel who specialize in emergency response. The local police and fire departments may be called on for community protection so that our personnel are able to work safely and the public is protected.  The Emergency Response Plan includes notification of Aboriginal groups in proximity to the location.  The appropriate regulators and emergency responders will be notified in the event of an emergency. The Project will be monitored and controlled by the TransCanada Operational Control Centre (OCC). Located in Calgary, the OCC remotely monitors and controls the operation of the NGTL System and other TransCanada-owned and operated pipelines. The OCC is staffed 24 hours per day and uses a computer-based Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System, which controls gas compression, metering and remote valve facilities to ensure the required gas volumes, line pack and contract pressures are achieved daily. The SCADA system alerts the OCC operator of significant operational changes in the pipeline system. In the unlikely event of a pressure drop, pipeline block valves, which are equipped with actuators with low-pressure detection, will automatically close on sensing low pressure, to isolate the pipe segment.

4 AX0921181128CGY Swan River First Nation

Potential effects on access, including: North Star NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential effects of the Project on traffic: See above Section 2 and  Traffic  Post signage to discourage unauthorized public access onto the construction footprint during construction. Red Earth Section SRFN requests: 3 PCF and LSA  Project traffic will be expected to adhere to local traffic laws and the NGTL Traffic Control Management Plan in the EPP and safety orientations will be provided to all Project personnel.  Joint access management plans  To reduce the number of vehicles on local roads during construction, where practical and applicable, NGTL will use multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites.  Explore options for resource planning NGTL will implement the Traffic Control Management Plan which includes access control measures (e.g., signage, road closures, restrictions, access control) to manage and control Project-related integration construction traffic and to reduce unauthorized motorized access. No [new permanent access is anticipated for the Project. Existing infrastructure will be used, where practical. Access to the Project will be from existing public and private access points and roads (respecting traffic safety and concern for other users) and controlled existing access and rights-of-way of others. NGTL will implement mitigation measures relevant to access management, including the following:  Clearly delineate areas that have access restrictions.  Restrict access to construction personnel only.  Remove bar ditch ramps and reclaim all temporary access trails and shoo-flies to stable conditions. Re-contour to preconstruction conditions and seed accordingly.  Remove all temporary vehicle crossing structures NGTL recognizes the interests of Aboriginal groups in all aspects of Project activities and, in particular, environmental protection. Information gathered through ongoing engagement will be considered for incorporation into all phases of the Project, as appropriate. NGTL is committed to continue discussions regarding the community’s concern about potential environmental impacts during construction, as well as the mitigation measures to minimize any such impacts. When the site has been determined safe for the public and after the first complete growing season following completion of final clean-up, NGTL can facilitate a post-construction site visit at the request of the community.

Potential effects on acoustic environment, North Star NGTL will implement mitigation measures relevant to reduce sensory disturbance, including the following: including: Section 2 and  Ensure that noise abatement equipment on machinery is in good working order; Red Earth Section  Noise 3 PCF, LSA and  Take reasonable measures to control construction-related noise near residential areas; RSA  Reduce idling of equipment, where possible; and  Where practical and applicable, use multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites

Source: Swan River First Nation. 2019. Site Assessment Summary; Trans Canada North Star 2. February. Kinuso, Alberta. a Detailed mitigation measures are provided in the Project-specific EPP.

AX0921181128CGY 5 Gift Lake Métis Settlement

Gift Lake Métis Settlement (GLMS) Project-related Issues Summary for the North Corridor Expansion Project – North Central Corridor Loop (Red Earth Section 3) (the Project) Where Addressed in the Environmental Approximate Location Community Interests, 1 and Socio-economic Issue/Concern Identified Relative to the Project NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) Response/Proposed Mitigation Measures Assessment (ESA)

Potential effects on Sites identified relative to Red Earth Section 3: Gift Lake Métis Settlement (GLMS) observed wildlife signs including moose, bear and deer tracks, as well as identified moose beds along the proposed right-of-way. • Sections 6.11 wildlife and wildlife habitat • Between 2 km and 3 km from KP 31.9 (moose, The Project has been designed to parallel 98% of existing disturbances. Clearing of vegetation for Project construction will result in an increase in the combined width (i.e., expansion) of • Section 8.1 of the including: bear, and deer tracks) existing linear disturbances. Following existing or proposed linear disturbances allows the Project Footprint to be reduced by utilizing temporary workspace on the adjacent disposition, as well Environmental • Moose, bear, and deer as minimizing the fragmentation of the landscape. Reclamation and cleanup will be completed to maintain equivalent land capability, ensuring the ability of the land to support various land Protection Plan • Up to 1.7 km from the centerline between KP 5 uses similar to the uses that existed before construction. (EPP) • Moose beds to KP 6 (moose, bear, and deer tracks) NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat: • Up to 1 km from the centerline between KP 7.3 to KP 9 (moose, bear, and deer tracks) • Where feasible minimize extra temporary workspace. • Up to 1.2 km from the centerline between • Locate deck sites in previously-disturbed areas, wherever practical. KP 13.9 to KP 15.6 (moose, bear, and deer • Share existing access with other industrial users, where feasible. tracks, and hunting grounds) • Schedule clearing and construction activities to avoid sensitive wildlife timing windows to the extent feasible. • Up to 1.3 km from the centerline between KP 30.9 to KP 31.9 (moose, bear, and deer • In the event there is a timing conflict, consult with the appropriate regulatory agency to discuss practical options and mitigation measures. tracks) • Leave gaps in windrows (e.g., topsoil/strippings, grade spoil, rollback, snow) and strung pipe at obvious drainages and wildlife trails, and to allow for livestock and vehicle/machinery • Up to 1.3 km from the centerline between passage across the construction footprint. Locations where wildlife gaps are appropriate will be determined in the field by the Environmental Inspector(s). These gaps should align. KP 30.9 to KP 31.9 (moose beds) If previously unidentified listed or sensitive wildlife species or their site-specific habitat e.g. dens, nests are identified during construction of the Project, report to the Environmental • Between 0.6 km and 1.4 km from the centre line Inspector(s) and implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan. between KP 15 and KP 14 (moose, bear, and deer tracks)

Potential effects on Sites identified relative to Red Earth Section 3: GLMS identified hunting grounds within the PDA and a trapper’s cabin and campsites within the LSA. The trapper’s cabin is located approximately 1.5 kilometers from the proposed pipeline • Section 5.14 traditional land and right-of-way and is not anticipated to interact with the Project. Locations of GLMS campsites were not identified. • Up to 1.5 km from the centerline between • Appendix 1E of the resource use, including: KP 28.7 to KP 31.9 (trappers’ cabin) The following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on the use of habitation sites, which include cabins and campsites: EPP • Trapper’s cabin and • Up to 1.2 km from the centerline between • Provide Aboriginal groups with the proposed Project construction schedule and maps. hunting campsites KP 13.9 to KP 15.6 (hunters’ campsite and • Take reasonable measures to control construction-related noise near residential areas. • Hunting grounds hunting grounds) • Reduce idling of equipment, where possible. • Up to 1.5 km from the centerline between KP 28.7 to KP 30.2 (hunters’ campsite and • Where practical and applicable, use multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites. hunting grounds) In addition to the resource-specific measures described above in Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on trapping and hunting. • Notify registered trappers at least 10 days prior to construction • Project personnel are not permitted to hunt on the construction footprint. TransCanada’s Trapper Compensation Plan reimburses senior trap line holders based on the three elements of Project notification, pre-construction consultation/notification and post-construction fur loss negotiation/compensation. NGTL will implement the Traffic Control Management Plan which includes access control measures (e.g., signage, road closures, restrictions, access control) to manage and control Project-related construction traffic and to reduce unauthorized motorized access. If traditional land use (TLU) sites not previously identified are found on the construction footprint during construction, implement the Cultural Resource Discovery Contingency Plan.

1 Note that the distances to KPs and centerline in this table are approximate and based on the legal locations listed in the GLMS letter of concern.

AX0921181128CGY 1 Gift Lake Métis Settlement

Potential effects on Sites identified relative to Red Earth Section 3: Refer to the response provided for wildlife and wildlife habitat above for information regarding Project design considerations intended to reduce the potential effects of the Project. • Sections 6.9 and vegetation, including: 6.10 • Up to 1 km from the centerline between KP 7.3 NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on vegetation resources: • Labrador tea, common to KP 9 (white/black spruce, tamarack, poplar • • During clearing, fell trees towards the construction footprint wherever possible. Recover trees that inadvertently fall into adjacent undisturbed vegetation. Section 8.2 and 8.4 yarrow, raspberry and white birch trees and muskeg) of the EPP high bush cranberries, • Where practical, leave stumps in place, particularly on streambanks, to provide surface stability. Stumps that are removed will be used as rollback or will be disposed of by burning or • Up to 1.2 km from the centerline between chipping, where approved. • White and black KP 13.9 to KP 15.6 (white/black spruce, spruce, tamarack, tamarack, poplar white birch trees and muskeg) • On Crown land allow for natural regeneration or seed as directed by the responsible Land Administrator. Natural recovery is the preferred method of reclamation in non-agricultural areas poplar and white birch on level terrain where erosion is not expected. • Up to 1.9 km from the centerline between • Muskeg KP 28.7 to KP 31.9 (fungus) NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on wetlands: GLMS requests: • Up to 1.9 km from the centerline between • NGTL will obtain regulatory approval for construction activities occurring within wetlands, as required. Construct the wetland crossings in accordance with the applicable regulatory KP 28.7 to KP 31.9 (raspberry and highbush requirements. • Another site visit to cranberries) determine the extent of • Minimize the removal of vegetation in wetlands to the extent possible. damages, • Up to 1.3 km from the centerline between • Conduct ground level cutting/mowing/mulching of wetland vegetation instead of grubbing. The method of removal of wetland vegetation is subject to approval by NGTL. transplanting, and KP 30.9 to KP 31.9 (Labrador tea and common harvesting, if needed yarrow) • Minimize grading within wetland boundary. Do not use temporary workspace within the boundaries of wetlands, unless required for site specific purposes. Temporary workspace within the boundary of a wetland must be approved by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). • The Contractor will use berms, cross ditches, sediment fencing and/or other appropriate measures to prevent erosion and siltation into adjacent wetland areas, unless otherwise directed by NGTL. Refer to the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan for additional measures. • If ground conditions are encountered that create potential for rutting, admixing or compaction, minimize ground disturbance by using a protective layer such as frost packing, snow, ice, geotextile and fill, rig mats, swamp mats or access mats between wetland root/seed bed and construction equipment. • Replace trench material as soon as feasible, and re-establish pre-construction contours within wetland boundary to facilitate cross right-of-way drainage. • Natural recovery is the preferred method of reclamation. Do not seed wetland areas unless otherwise directed by NGTL The Project will follow NGTL’s Post-Construction Monitoring (PCM) program as outlined in the ESA and/or other Project-specific environmental documents, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation performance expectations and applicable regulatory requirements. Mitigation methods will be based on the principle that success of land reclamation is measured against adjacent representative site conditions while taking into consideration the status of reclamation of the time of assessment. NGTL recognizes the interests of Aboriginal groups in all aspects of Project activities including harvesting. NGTL will remain available to discuss and, where possible, address any concerns GLMS may have during operation and maintenance of the Project. Information gathered through ongoing engagement will be considered for incorporation into all phases of the Project, as appropriate. When the site has been determined safe for the public and after the first complete growing season following completion of final clean-up, NGTL will facilitate a post-construction site visit, if requested by GLMS.

2 AX0921181128CGY Gift Lake Métis Settlement

Potential effects on fish Sites identified relative to Red Earth Section 3: GLMS identified the Loon River which is intersected by the PDA as a fish bearing river. • Section 6.8 and fish habitat and • Loon River is intersected by the PCF from NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat: • Section 8.4 of the watercourses. KP 30.1 to KP 30.3 • The Contractor shall develop a detailed site-specific watercourse crossing plan and submit the plan to NGTL for approval prior to initiating watercourse crossing activities. EPP • Up to 1 km from the centerline between KP 7.3 • Conduct all hydrostatic testing activities in accordance with all applicable federal and/or provincial legislation and approval conditions, including the handling, containment and disposal of to KP 9.0 (watercourse – fish-bearing) all test and drying mediums used. • Up to 1.2 km from the centerline between • Complete watercourse crossings in a timely manner. Before the installation of the watercourse crossing and the commencement of instream activity, the Contractor will ensure that all KP 13.9 to KP 15.6 (watercourse) necessary equipment and materials are available and are onsite. • Up to 1.9 km from the centerline between • Develop water quality monitoring plans to monitor for sediment events during instream construction activities, where required by the applicable regulatory approvals or as identified by an KP 28.7 to KP 31.9 (two small intermittent Aquatic Resource Specialist. If monitoring reveals sediment values are approaching threshold values, the water quality monitors will alert the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s) creeks) and work with them to develop corrective actions. If corrective actions are not successful, construction activities will be temporarily suspended until effective solutions are identified. • Install erosion and sediment control at all watercourses and/or waterbodies as directed by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). • Where water erosion is evident, and there is potential for runoff from the construction footprint to flow into a watercourse, refer to the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan. • Conduct trenchless crossings in accordance with the applicable sections of the Trenchless Crossing Management Plan (Appendix 1F of the EPP). • For pipeline crossings conducted using a trenchless crossing method, apply applicable DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat. • Excavate entry and exit sites back from the ordinary high watermark and far enough from the watercourse to provide for containment of sediments and other deleterious substances above the high watermark. Vegetation removal for the entry and exit sites is only to occur within the approved construction footprint. • Ensure that water from dewatering entry and exit sites with a high sediment load is not discharged or allowed to flow into any waterbody. Remove the sediment load (e.g., filter or discharge into a vegetated area) before discharge water is allowed to enter any watercourse. • Where warranted, develop a water quality monitoring plan with input from an Aquatic Resource Specialist that includes monitoring for TSS and/or turbidity if trenchless methods are used. • In the event of sediment or deleterious substance releases during the construction of the trenchless crossings implement the Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan (Appendix 1E of the EPP). • Dispose of all waste drilling fluid and drilling solids according to and in conformance with Project plans and pertinent regulatory requirements.

GLMS recommends an Red Earth Section 3 Project Construction Footprint NGTL recognizes the interests of Aboriginal groups in all aspects of Project activities and, in particular, environmental protection. Information gathered through ongoing engagement will be • Section 8.1 environmental monitor be (PCF) considered for incorporation into all phases of the Project, as appropriate. NGTL funded a TK study with GLMS for the Project. • Section 4 of the EPP onsite for the duration of NGTL is committed to continue discussions regarding the community’s concern about potential environmental impacts during construction, as well as the mitigation measures to minimize any the Project. such impacts. When the site has been determined safe for the public and after the first complete growing season following completion of final clean-up, NGTL can facilitate a post- construction site visit at the request of the community. The Project will follow NGTL’s Post-construction Monitoring (PCM) methodology as outlined in the ESA and/or other Project-specific environmental documents, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation performance expectations and applicable regulatory requirements. Mitigation methods will be based on the principle that success of land reclamation is measured against adjacent representative site conditions while taking into consideration the status of reclamation of the time of assessment. NGTL will remain available to discuss and, where possible, address any concerns GLMS may have during operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Project.

Source: Gift Lake Métis Settlement. 2019. North Corridor Expansions (North Star Section 2 & Red Earth Section 3). Site Visit Letter of Concerns. February. 1 Detailed mitigation measures are provided in the Project-specific EPP.

AX0921181128CGY 3 Métis Nation of Alberta Region V

Métis Nation of Alberta Region V (MNAR5) Project-related Issues Summary for the North Corridor Expansion Project – North Central Corridor Loop (Red Earth Section 3) (the Project) Approximate Where Addressed in the Location Environmental and Community Interests, Relative to the Socio-economic Issue/Concern Identified Project NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) Response/Proposed Mitigation Measures Assessment (ESA)

Potential accidents and Red Earth Section 3 NGTL will use TransCanada’s existing emergency management system (EMS) and will develop specific Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) for the Project in accordance with TransCanada’s EMS. The ERP will be • Section 2.3 malfunctions. Project Construction developed in consultation with emergency service agencies. The ERPs will be finalized, submitted to the NEB and distributed to applicable emergency service agencies, as necessary, before the start of operations. • Section 8.1 of the Footprint (PCF), These ERPs will meet or exceed applicable regulations. MNAR5 requests: Environmental Local Study Area The Project has been designed, and will be constructed and operated following applicable standards, industry best management practices and Project-specific mitigation identified in the ESA and the EPP. These Protection Plan (EPP) • Additional information (LSA) and Regional measures are expected to avoid or reduce the potential of an accident or malfunction related to the Project. During operation and maintenance, NGTL will implement a combination of incident prevention measures, regarding NGTL’s Study Area (RSA) safety devices and procedures under TransCanada’s corporate Emergency Management System to ensure public safety and including the following: emergency response and environmental protection • Availability of emergency response personnel on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. NGTL’s first responders consist of employees and contract personnel who specialize in emergency response. The local police for pipeline incidents and fire departments may be called on for community protection so that our personnel are able to work safely and the public is protected. • The Emergency Response Plan includes notification of Aboriginal groups in proximity to the location. • The appropriate regulators and emergency responders will be notified in the event of an emergency. The Project will be monitored and controlled by the TransCanada Operational Control Centre (OCC). Located in Calgary, the OCC remotely monitors and controls the operation of the NGTL System and other TransCanada-owned and operated pipelines. The OCC is staffed 24 hours per day and uses a computer-based Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System, which controls gas compression, metering and remote valve facilities to ensure the required gas volumes, line pack and contract pressures are achieved daily. The SCADA system alerts the OCC operator of significant operational changes in the pipeline system. In the unlikely event of a pressure drop, pipeline block valves, which are equipped with actuators with low-pressure detection, will automatically close on sensing low pressure, to isolate the pipe segment.

Potential monitoring and Red Earth Section 3 NGTL aims to increase the participation of Aboriginal groups potentially affected by NGTL’s activities by providing business opportunities arising from these activities to qualified Aboriginal contractors and suppliers. • Section 5.19 employment opportunities. PCF, LSA and RSA The objective is met by implementing the following activities: • Appendix 1E of the MNAR5 requests: • Assess local Aboriginal group and business capacity and capabilities for contracting and employment opportunities and, as appropriate, align work packages to allow Aboriginal businesses to compete EPP successfully. • Knowledge Holders and Métis members be • Where opportunities exist, the Project will work with the Indigenous groups and businesses to help enhance capacity, including Project-related training and employment, if applicable. provided the opportunity to • Maximize contracting and employment opportunities for Aboriginal groups and businesses through the Project’s contractors and subcontractors or contracts directly with the Project. participate in Project monitoring Through its ongoing engagement activities, NGTL encourages community contractors and vendors to register their businesses for Project consideration and operational requirements in the region. • To be included in job NGTL strives to create employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal groups and individuals in accordance with TransCanada’s Aboriginal Relations Policy and TransCanada’s Education and Training opportunities and Program. While the majority of employment opportunities will occur during the construction phase of the Project, investments in education and training are made during all phases of the Project. contracting opportunities NGTL will collaborate with local Aboriginal groups to identify their education and training needs and priorities. NGTL will then work with the community human resource coordinators and local economic development on the pipeline project and education officers, education and training institutions and organizations, and prime contractors, to support the education and training requirements that have been identified through this collaborative effort, • That the MNAR5 office where feasible. receives early and timely NGTL recognizes the interests of Aboriginal groups in all aspects of Project activities and, in particular, environmental protection. Information gathered through ongoing engagement will be considered for information on the call for incorporation into all phases of the Project, as appropriate. bids and prequalification process relating to the NGTL is committed to continue discussions regarding the community’s concern about potential environmental impacts during construction, as well as the mitigation measures to minimize any such impacts. When contracting services, the site has been determined safe for the public and after the first complete growing season following completion of final clean-up, NGTL can facilitate a post-construction site visit at the request of the community. wildlife and water The Project will follow NGTL’s Post-Construction Monitoring (PCM) methodology as outlined in the ESA and/or other Project-specific environmental documents, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation monitoring, or engineering performance expectations and applicable regulatory requirements. Mitigation methods will be based on the principle that success of land reclamation is measured against adjacent representative site conditions activities while taking into consideration the status of reclamation of the time of assessment. NGTL will remain available to discuss and, where possible, address any concerns MNAR5 may have during operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Project.

AX0921181128CGY 1 Métis Nation of Alberta Region V

Potential effects on water Sites identified NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on water quality and quantity during construction: • Section 5.3 quality and quantity, relative to Red Earth • The Contractor shall develop a detailed site-specific watercourse crossing plan and submit the plan to NGTL for approval prior to initiating watercourse crossing activities. • Sections 7.0, 7.1, and including: Section 3: 8.4 of the EPP • Preserve water quality, including preventing the introduction of foreign material (debris, sediment, etc.) into the receiving waterbody/watercourse. • Sediment runoff • At KP 20.5 (creek and wetland) • All equipment shall arrive on the Project free of leaks and in good working condition. Any equipment which does not arrive free of leaks and in good working condition shall not be allowed on the construction • Equipment leaks and spills • footprint until it has been repaired, re-inspected by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s), and deemed suitable for use. MNAR5 requests: Loon River is intersected by the • Equipment to be used in or adjacent to a watercourse or waterbody will be clean or otherwise free of external grease, oil or other fluids, mud, soil and vegetation, prior to entering the waterbody. • The use of best practices PCF from KP 30.1 • Ensure no vehicles or equipment containing petroleum, oil, or lubricants are parked or stationed in a watercourse at any time except for equipment that is required for that immediate phase of construction. in terms of Project design, to KP 30.3 construction, and leaks, in • Conduct refuelling at least 100 metres (m) away from any watercourse or waterbody, when feasible. order to reduce the risk of • Do not wash equipment or machinery within 30 m of watercourses or waterbodies. Project impacts • Conduct trenchless crossings in accordance with the applicable sections of the Trenchless Crossing Management Plan (Appendix 1F of the EPP). • Utilization of a horizontal directional drill (HDD) • For pipeline crossings conducted using a trenchless crossing method, apply applicable DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat. crossing method for the • Excavate entry and exit sites back from the ordinary high watermark and far enough from the watercourse to provide for containment of sediments and other deleterious substances above the high watermark. Loon River Vegetation removal for the entry and exit sites is only to occur within the approved construction footprint. • Minimization of forest • Ensure that water from dewatering entry and exit sites with a high sediment load is not discharged or allowed to flow into any waterbody. Remove the sediment load (e.g., filter or discharge into a vegetated area) impacts, reduction of the before discharge water is allowed to enter any watercourse. workspace area, and prevention of sediment • Where warranted, develop a water quality monitoring plan with input from an Aquatic Resource Specialist that includes monitoring for TSS and/or turbidity if trenchless methods are used. runoff from construction • In the event of sediment or deleterious substance releases during the construction of the trenchless crossings implement the Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan (Appendix 1E of the EPP). activities into the river • Dispose of all waste drilling fluid and drilling solids according to and in conformance with Project plans and pertinent regulatory requirements. • Minimization of the size of the access roads for the • Construct or install temporary vehicle access across waterbodies, shorelines, and riverbanks in a manner that protects the banks from erosion, maintains the flows in the waterway, and is completed in HDD drilling equipment. accordance with applicable guidelines, environmental protection measures, approval conditions or legislation, including applicable DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat (DFO 2013). MNAR5 would like to • Construct all bridges (single-span or ice and snowfill) beyond the ends of the banks and with a minimum depth of 0.5m of snowfill or fill material at each bank. Do not place fill within primary banks for bridge ensure that any temporary abutment construction, unless approved by the responsible regulatory agency. bridge across the Loon River has a Traditional • Install and remove temporary vehicle crossings in a manner that protects the banks from erosion and maintains flow. Temporary vehicle crossings will be returned to their preconstruction condition. Land Use (TLU) monitor • Under frozen conditions, and where conditions permit, employ ice and snowfill bridges as temporary crossing structures. Install ice and snowfill bridges using water drawn from an approved source and/or clean from our MNAR5 snow ploughed in from surrounding areas or produced through snowmaking. community present as the pipeline is being installed • Use only clean ice/snow for construction of an ice/snowfill or ice bridge. Approaches to the bridge will be constructed with compacted snow and ice of sufficient thickness to protect the stream channel and banks. Sand, gravel and soils are not to be used for ice bridge approaches. • Environmental assessment of that area to • Ensure that ice bridges or snowfills do not interfere with or impede winter flows. determine what crossing • Snowfills and ice bridges shall be regularly maintained to remove soil, mud and other debris prior to affecting water quality, as directed by the Environmental Inspector or designate(s). method would be used to install the pipeline through Employ the following measures to reduce the risk of fuel releases into water. Where equipment refuelling is required within 100 m of a watercourse or waterbody, ensure that: the wetland and creek. • All containers, hoses, nozzles are free of leaks: Please share when complete – All fuel nozzles are equipped with automatic shut offs. – Always have operators stationed at both ends of the hose during fuelling. – The proposed crossing method for the Loon River is trenchless method (i.e., HDD or direct pipe installation [DPI]. Watercourse crossing methods considered include both trenched (i.e., open cut or isolated) and trenchless (e.g., HDD) options. Watercourse crossing methods at each location were assessed considering watercourse sensitivity, presence of fish and fish habitat, feasibility, and past experience with reclamation and restoration success. Trenchless crossings are conducted in accordance with the applicable sections of the Trenchless Crossing Management Plan. For pipeline crossings conducted using a trenched crossing method, apply applicable DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat will be applied. The proposed crossing method for the Loon River at KP 1.8 is the trenchless method and the proposed contingency crossing at the Loon River is an isolated open cut outside of the restricted activity period (RAP). NGTL determines the appropriate crossing method by considering and balancing a variety of technical, environmental, stakeholder and economic considerations, along with site-specific conditions. In most cases, a conventional trenched crossing is the preferred crossing method because it involves the least footprint, duration of installation and cost. NGTL can construct these crossings effectively and has a proven suite of mitigation measures and industry best practices to address conventional construction across most watercourses. Where minimal disturbance construction can be employed at these crossings, natural revegetation has been more successful and cost effective than the active reclamation measures needed at locations where stripping and grading occurs. Where warranted, a water quality monitoring plan will be developed that includes monitoring for total suspended solids and/or turbidity if trenchless methods are used. • The Environmental Inspector’s or designate’s main responsibility is to ensure that all environmental commitments, undertakings and approval conditions are met and that work is completed in compliance with applicable environmental legislation and Company policies, procedures and specifications in the most efficient and effective way possible. See the monitoring and employment section above for a response to the request for participation of a MNAR5 TLU monitor.

2 AX0921181128CGY Métis Nation of Alberta Region V

Potential effects on wildlife Sites identified MNAR5 observed moose, moose and calf, squirrel, wolf, rabbit, spruce hen, otter, coyote, weasel, mouse and lynx tracks were identified during the TLU survey on or near the right-of-way at KP 1.5, 16, 22.5, 25, • Sections 5.6, 5.10, and wildlife habitat, including: relative to Red Earth 28.5. MNAR5 reported important wildlife signs between KP 5-5.5 and at KP 20.5. In addition, trees in the area had evidence of woodpecker, raven signs, wildlife signs and several game trails were observed that ran 5.11 and Appendix 10 Section 3: parallel and perpendicular to the right-of-way. • Disruption of • Section 7.0 of the EPP predator-prey (ungulates) • At KP 1.5, 16, The Red Earth Section 3 has been designed to parallel existing disturbances for 98% of its length which minimize effects to disruption of predator prey dynamics. Clearing of vegetation for Project construction will dynamics from long, 22.5, 25, 28.5 result in an increase in the combined width (i.e., expansion) of existing linear disturbances. Following existing or proposed linear disturbances allows the Project Footprint to be reduced by utilizing temporary straight clearings such as (signs of wildlife) workspace on the adjacent disposition, as well as minimizing the fragmentation of the landscape. rights-of-way (extending • Up to 1 kilometer NGTL will continue to refine the TWS needs in relation to construction needs and identified environmentally sensitive features. Areas of concern to MNAR5 relative to TWS will be reviewed to determine what the line-of-sight south west of the final TWS needs will be and ensure the rationale for inclusion or reduction of TWS is shared with MNAR5. • Project-related noise centerline between NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat: MNAR5 requests: KP 5 and KP 5.5 (important wildlife • Where feasible, minimize extra temporary workspace. • That considerations for signs) • Locate deck sites in previously-disturbed areas, wherever practical. project design and • operations minimize and At KP 18.5 • Share existing access with other industrial users, where feasible. (Relocation of the mitigate impacts on • Schedule clearing and construction activities to avoid sensitive wildlife timing windows to the extent feasible. wildlife species proposed temporary • In the event there is a timing conflict, consult with the appropriate regulatory agency to discuss practical options and mitigation measures. • Any sediment runoff, workspace) 1 spills, and noise from the • Leave gaps in windrows (e.g., topsoil/strippings, grade spoil, rollback, snow) and strung pipe at obvious drainages and wildlife trails, and to allow for livestock and vehicle/machinery passage across the • right-of-way construction Between construction footprint. Locations where wildlife gaps are appropriate will be determined in the field by the Environmental Inspector(s). Gaps should align. location is to be controlled, 0.2 kilometers northeast and NGTL will implement the CHROMP, which was developed for the Project in consultation with the appropriate provincial agencies and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) (ESA Appendix 10). The to minimize local wildlife CHROMP will be available for review on the NEB website as part of the Project Application. As part of the regulatory process for NEB filings, NGTL will provide all potentially affected stakeholders, landowners and impacts 0.4 kilometers southwest of Aboriginal groups, including MNAR5, with notification of the filing and the NEB website to access the documents. • Relocation of a proposed KP 20.5 (important NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures relevant to reduce sensory disturbance, including the following: temporary work space to wildlife sign) 2 protect caribou • Ensure that noise abatement equipment on machinery is in good working order.

• Line-of-sight to be • Take reasonable measures to control construction-related noise near residential areas. minimized for predators • Reduce idling of equipment, where possible. and harvesters along the right-of-way • Where practical and applicable, use multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites. • Disturbance to caribou to NGTL notes the existing spill prevention programs detailed in the EPP have been successful in preventing spills during construction and ensuring appropriate action and reporting if spills do occur. The EPP applies be minimized during the to all employees, contractors and consultants who conduct work on behalf of NGTL during construction of the Project. All employees, contractors and consultants will abide by all federal, provincial and local construction and requirements for the storage, handling, transport, disposal and spill reporting requirements of all products and waste materials that are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. commissioning of the The following measures will be adhered to during construction in order to prevent spills: pipeline • Implement the Chemical and Waste Management Plan. • Impacts to caribou and all • wildlife to be minimized The Contractor will ensure equipment is monitored regularly and free of fluid leaks. through focusing • Ensure no vehicles or equipment, which contain petroleum, oil, or lubricants are parked or stationed in a watercourse at any time except for equipment that is required for that immediate phase of construction. construction activity during • short periods and leaving Bulk fuel trucks, service vehicles, and pick-up trucks equipped with box mounted fuel tanks shall carry release prevention, containment, and clean up materials that are suitable for the volume of fuels or oils long periods of recovery in carried. between • Release contingency material carried on bulk fuel and service vehicles, stationed near watercourses or waterbodies, or in environmental response units shall be suitable for use on land and water. • NGTL avoid disturbing • Conduct refuelling at least 100 m away from any watercourse or waterbody, when feasible. caribou with helicopters, In the event of a spill during construction, the Release Contingency Plan will be implemented. when visualized, through flying at higher altitudes or "going around them." • NGTL send a copy of the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan (CHROMP) to MNAR5 when completed. MNAR5 request a presentation on the plan

AX0921181128CGY 3 Métis Nation of Alberta Region V

Potential effects on plant Site identified relative During the site visit, traditional medicinal plants were identified between KP 28 and KP 28.5. • Sections 5.8 and 5.9 harvesting including: to Red Earth NGTL employs the following measures to responsibly manage the use of chemical applications: • Sections 7.0, 8.1 of the Section 3: • Contamination of foods, • Limit the use of chemical applications. EPP medicines and water by • KP 28 to KP 28.5 chemical sprays, typically (medicines) 1 • Use of herbicides on the construction footprint is prohibited unless otherwise approved by NGTL. used to control vegetation • Prohibit the general application of herbicide near rare plants or rare ecological communities. Spot spraying, wicking, mowing, or handpicking are acceptable measures for weed control in these areas. growth on the right-of-way • Prohibit the use of herbicides within 30 m of an open body of water, unless the herbicide application is conducted by ground application equipment, or otherwise approved by the relevant regulatory agency. MNAR5 requests: Herbicides might be used on an as-needed basis along the pipeline right-of-way to control invasive species, however, herbicide application is site-specific and completed by licensed contractors in accordance with • NGTL provide information applicable provincial permits. Depending on the type of vegetation to be controlled, a suite of options is considered including, cultural, biological, manual/mechanical and chemical control. Along the pipeline right-of- on the nature and type of way, vegetation control is typically limited to mechanical methods. Herbicides are used on graveled surfaces for safety purposes to reduce fire hazards. chemicals planned for vegetation control use, as In areas supporting natural vegetation (e.g., forest, grassland), TransCanada promotes the regeneration and establishment of native vegetation and minimize invasive plant species. Due to obligations under the well as information Alberta Weed Control Act, TransCanada must comply with legislated requirements in the event thresholds for listed species are exceeded. regarding effects to NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on vegetation resources: aquatics, animals, and human health • During clearing, fell trees towards the construction footprint wherever possible. Recover trees that inadvertently fall into adjacent undisturbed vegetation. • Where practical, leave stumps in place, particularly on streambanks, to provide surface stability. Stumps that are removed will be used as rollback or will be disposed of by burning or chipping, where approved. On Crown land allow for natural regeneration or seed as directed by the responsible Land Administrator. Natural recovery is the preferred method of reclamation in non-agricultural areas on level terrain where erosion is not expected.

Potential effects on fish and Site identified relative MNAR5 identified a potential fish bearing stream which is intersected by the PCF. • Section 5.7, 5.8 fish habitat, including: to Red Earth NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat: Section 3: • The right-of-way • The Contractor shall develop a detailed site-specific watercourse crossing plan and submit the plan to NGTL for approval prior to initiating watercourse crossing activities. workspaces may have to • At KP 20.5 (creek be re-located or eliminated and wetland)2 • Conduct all hydrostatic testing activities in accordance with all applicable federal and/or provincial legislation and approval conditions, including the handling, containment and disposal of all test and drying off the wetland to minimize mediums used. disturbance of a potential • Complete watercourse crossings in a timely manner. Before the installation of the watercourse crossing and the commencement of instream activity, the Contractor will ensure that all necessary equipment and fish bearing creek materials are available and are onsite • Develop water quality monitoring plans to monitor for sediment events during instream construction activities, where required by the applicable regulatory approvals or as identified by an Aquatic Resource Specialist. If monitoring reveals sediment values are approaching threshold values, the water quality monitors will alert the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s) and work with them to develop corrective actions. If corrective actions are not successful, construction activities will be temporarily suspended until effective solutions are identified. • Install erosion and sediment control at all watercourses and/or waterbodies as directed by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). • Where water erosion is evident, and there is potential for runoff from the construction footprint to flow into a watercourse, refer to the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan. NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects of the Project on wetlands: • NGTL will obtain regulatory approval for construction activities occurring within wetlands, as required. Construct the wetland crossings in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. • Minimize the removal of vegetation in wetlands to the extent possible. • Conduct ground level cutting/mowing/mulching of wetland vegetation instead of grubbing. The method of removal of wetland vegetation is subject to approval by NGTL. • Minimize grading within wetland boundary. Do not use temporary workspace within the boundaries of wetlands, unless required for site specific purposes. Temporary workspace within the boundary of a wetland must be approved by the Environmental Inspector(s) or designate(s). • The Contractor will use berms, cross ditches, sediment fencing and/or other appropriate measures to prevent erosion and siltation into adjacent wetland areas, unless otherwise directed by NGTL. Refer to the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan for additional measures. • If ground conditions are encountered that create potential for rutting, admixing or compaction, minimize ground disturbance by using a protective layer such as frost packing, snow, ice, geotextile and fill, rig mats, swamp mats or access mats between wetland root/seed bed and construction equipment. • Replace trench material as soon as feasible, and re-establish pre-construction contours within wetland boundary to facilitate cross right-of-way drainage. • Natural recovery is the preferred method of reclamation. Do not seed wetland areas unless otherwise directed by NGTL.

4 AX0921181128CGY Métis Nation of Alberta Region V

Potential effects on fish and Site identified relative NGTL will continue to refine the TWS needs in relation to construction needs and identified environmentally sensitive features. Areas of concern to MNAR5 relative to TWS will be reviewed to determine what the • Section 5.14 fish habitat (cont’d) to Red Earth final TWS needs will be and ensure the rationale for inclusion or reduction of TWS is shared with MNAR5. • Section 8.1 of the EPP • Potential effects on a Section 3: • MNAR5 identified a cabin 0.10 kilometers northeast from KP 30 • habitation site. 0.10 kilometers • NGTL has engaged the owner of the cabin and no Project-specific concerns have been identified to date. NGTL will continue to engage with the owner and any issues or concerns that arise will be addressed MNAR5 requests: northeast from prior to construction. KP 30 (cabin) • Noise controls to be put in NGTL will implement mitigation measures relevant to reduce sensory disturbance, including the following: place to minimize effects • Ensure that noise abatement equipment on machinery is in good working order. to recreational use near the cabin at KP 30 • Take reasonable measures to control construction-related noise near residential areas. • Reduce idling of equipment, where possible. • Where practical and applicable, use multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites. The following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on the use of habitation sites: • Notify registered trappers at least 10 days prior to construction. • Provide Aboriginal groups with the proposed Project construction schedule and maps a minimum of two weeks prior to the start of construction. • Take reasonable measures to control construction-related noise near residential areas. • Reduce idling of equipment, where possible. • Where practical and applicable, use multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites. NGTL will implement the Traffic Control Management Plan which includes access control measures (e.g., signage, road closures, restrictions, access control) to manage and control Project-related construction traffic and to reduce unauthorized motorized access.

Potential effects on hunting, Sites identified MNAR5 use lands within the region for traditional use and occupancy activities including guiding, trapping and hunting. Although specific harvesting locations were not identified in the report it was noted that • Section 5.14 including: relative to Red Earth MNAR5 will utilize the Project area for traditional food and medicine procurement. MNAR5 members also observed a hunting ladder and chair and a plastic barrel that may have been used as a wildlife trap with the • Section 8.1 of the EPP • Increased access for Section 3: PCF. non-Indigenous hunters • At KP 13 (barrel The following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on hunting and trapping: and harvesters trap) • Provide potentially affected Aboriginal groups with the proposed Project construction schedule and maps. • Increased competition for • At KP 29 (hunting • Project personnel are not permitted to hunt on the construction footprint. harvested food ladder and chair) • Notify registered trappers at least 10 days prior to construction. MNAR5 requests: Red Earth Section 3 LSA TransCanada’s Trapper Compensation Plan reimburses senior trap line holders based on the three elements of Project notification, pre-construction consultation/notification and post-construction fur loss • Limited access to negotiation/compensation. non-Aboriginal harvesters NGTL will implement the Traffic Control Management Plan which includes access control measures (e.g., signage, road closures, restrictions, access control) to manage and control Project related construction • Support for further traffic and to reduce unauthorized motorized access. consultation regarding MNAR5 access and No new permanent access is anticipated for the Project. Existing infrastructure will be used, where practical. Access to the Project will be from existing public and private access points and roads (respecting traffic utilization of the Project safety and concern for other users) and controlled existing access and rights-of-way of others. area for harvesting NGTL will implement mitigation measures relevant to access management, including the following: • Clearly delineate areas that have access restrictions. • Restrict access to construction personnel only. • Remove bar ditch ramps and reclaim all temporary access trails and shoo-flies to stable conditions. Re-contour to preconstruction conditions and seed accordingly. • Remove all temporary vehicle crossing structures. NGTL will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on vegetation resources: • During clearing, fell trees towards the construction footprint wherever possible. Recover trees that inadvertently fall into adjacent undisturbed vegetation. • Where practical, leave stumps in place, particularly on streambanks, to provide surface stability. Stumps that are removed will be used as rollback or will be disposed of by burning or chipping, where approved. On Crown land allow for natural regeneration or seed as directed by the responsible Land Administrator. Natural recovery is the preferred method of reclamation in non-agricultural areas on level terrain where erosion is not expected. If TLU sites not previously identified are found on the construction footprint during construction, implement the Cultural Resource Discovery Contingency Plan. The Project will follow NGTL’s Post-Construction Monitoring (PCM) program as outlined in the ESA and/or other Project-specific environmental documents, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation performance expectations and applicable regulatory requirements. Mitigation methods will be based on the principle that success of land reclamation is measured against adjacent representative site conditions while taking into consideration the status of reclamation of the time of assessment. NGTL recognizes the interests of Aboriginal groups in all aspects of Project activities including harvesting. NGTL will remain available to discuss and, where possible, address any concerns MNAR5 may have during operation and maintenance of the Project. Information gathered through ongoing engagement will be considered for incorporation into all phases of the Project, as appropriate. Source: Métis Nation of Alberta. 2018. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. North Central Corridor Loop Red Earth 3 Pipeline Project. Métis Nation of Alberta MNA RV Métis Traditional Land Use Assessment. Interim and Final reports. December. a Detailed mitigation measures are provided in the Project-specific EPP.

AX0921181128CGY 5 Appendix 12 Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment Appendix 12. Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment

Appendix 12. Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment

Decommissioning and Abandonment Regulatory Framework

In accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Act, 2012 (CEA Agency, 2014), a project’s environmental and socio-economic effects are expected to be assessed over the entire life cycle, including the decommissioning and abandonment of the North Corridor Expansion Project (the Project) once it is no longer required.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) is participating in, and will comply with, the process established by Stream 3 of the National Energy Board (NEB) Land Matters Consultation Initiative and Reasons for Decision RH-2-2008. At this time, any decommissioning or abandonment activities are reasonably assumed to require prior approval by the NEB, its successors, and other applicable agencies. Prior to decommissioning or abandonment of the Project, NGTL will apply to the NEB or its successors to decommission or abandon the Project’s components, as applicable, according to the regulations in force.

As specified in Section A.2.6.1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB, 2017), a separate Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA), specific to decommissioning or abandonment activities, will be conducted when the Project is ready to be decommissioned or abandoned. Appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid or reduce effects on biophysical and social-economic elements that may be affected while carrying out decommissioning or abandonment activities. Affected or potentially affected landowners, Aboriginal groups, and stakeholders will also be consulted as part of the application preparation.

The NEB defines decommissioning as the permanent cessation of the operation of a pipeline without discontinuance of service and abandonment as the permanent cessation of the operation of a pipeline which results in the discontinuance of service. Decommissioning of a facility requires an application to the NEB pursuant to Section 45.1 of the NEB OPR as described in Guide K of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB, 2017), while abandonment requires an application under Section 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act as described in Guide B of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB, 2017). As appropriate, either type of application will be assessed in detail in accordance with applicable legislative and regulatory requirements in place at that time.

The following Preliminary Decommissioning and Abandonment Assessment was prepared in accordance with the NEB Filing Manual (NEB, 2017), as applicants are required to provide a preliminary abandonment plan as part of an ESA. In keeping with the guidance provided in the NEB Filing Manual (NEB, 2017), in support of a new facility application, abandonment and decommissioning are examined here in a broad context.

Decommissioning and Abandonment Effects Assessment Given that the Project is designed to have a long operational life, it is difficult at this time to fully predict when or how the pipelines and facilities will be decommissioned or abandoned at the end of the Project's useful life. Future service needs as well as current and future land use for the Project will be important factors in the determination of pipeline and facility decommissioning and abandonment methods. However, it can be anticipated that any of the following three scenarios could occur during pipeline and facility decommissioning or abandonment: • pipeline and facility removal • leaving pipelines or other deeply buried infrastructure in place • a combination of pipeline and facility removal and leaving some components in place

AX0917181256CGY A12-1 Appendix 12. Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment

Decommissioning and Abandonment Project Activities

Physical works and activities associated with pipeline decommissioning and abandonment are expected to include the removal and/or demolition of aboveground facilities such as valve assemblies, pig launchers and receivers, and compressor stations, and the segmentation and abandonment in place of the majority of the pipeline. All land disturbed by decommissioning activities will be reclaimed to be comparable with the surrounding land use. The physical activities for decommissioning and abandonment would be expected to occur within the existing Project Construction Footprint (PCF), defined in Section 4.2.1 of the ESA.

Facilities

Decommissioning and abandonment activities for aboveground facilities may include the following standard works, which have the potential to interact with biophysical and socio-economic elements, including: • isolation and equipment shut-down • segmentation of pipelines to separate the facility from the pipeline system • draining of fluids • disconnection of power and utilities • disconnection and removal of cathodic protection facilities • demolition or salvage and removal of all buildings, foundations, equipment, and materials such as gravel of the site • removal and reclamation of access roads • remediation of contaminated soils, if required

All permanent aboveground facilities will be removed, except for those continuing to service adjacent facilities.

Pipelines

NGTL anticipates a large proportion of any decommissioned or abandoned pipelines would be abandoned in place, however, land use considerations and other factors may lead to selected pipeline segments being removed. It is unlikely that any one decommissioning or abandonment technique will be appropriate for all land uses. The decision to leave the pipelines in place or remove the pipelines and any associated infrastructure, including facilities and access roads, will be made on a site-specific basis, in consultation with affected parties and in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements in place at the time of decommissioning or abandonment.

For sections of pipeline that are not removed, it is anticipated the pipeline will be purged, cleaned, and abandoned in place, with portions potentially segmented at select locations including certain roadways, railways, and select watercourse crossings. Selection of roads, railways, and watercourse crossings will be based on site-specific assessments conducted prior to the decommissioning and abandonment process. Segmentation would typically consist of a bell hole excavation on either side of the crossing, with short sections of pipe removed from either side of the crossing, creating a segmentation of the pipeline at these locations. The segmented pipe ends would be plated and the section beneath the crossing filled with concrete or other structural material to prevent subsidence.

Decommissioning and abandonment activities for pipelines may include the following standard works, which could potentially interact with biophysical and socio-economic elements: • vegetation clearing • topsoil stripping and stockpiling

A12-2 AX0917181256CGY Appendix 12. Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment

• excavation • pipe segment cut-out and installation of concrete or other inert structural material and/or endplate at selected road and railway crossings • removal of aboveground facilities • backfilling • cleanup/reclamation, including recontouring, topsoil replacement, and appropriate reclamation (e.g., natural recovery and seeding)

Potential Interactions During Decommissioning and Abandonment Activities

For a summary of potential interactions for each biophysical and socio-economic element that may interact with decommissioning and abandonment activities, refer to Table A12-1.

Table A12-1. Potential Element Interactions with the North Corridor Expansion Project Interaction (Yes / No)

Pipeline (North Star Section 2, Facilities Red Earth (including Biophysical and Section 3, and Hidden Lake Socio-Economic Bear Canyon North Unit Description of Potential Interactions During Element North Extension) Addition) Decommissioning and Abandonment Activities

Physical and Yes No Decommissioning and abandonment activities could result in Meteorological changes in topography. Environment

Soil and Soil Yes Yes Surface disturbances could affect soil quality and quantity. Productivity

Water Quality and Yes No Decommissioning and abandonment activities at watercourse Quantity crossings could affect water quality and quantity.

Air Emissions Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities could result in changes in ambient concentrations of Criteria Air Contaminants.

GHG Emissions Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities could result in changes in GHG emissions.

Acoustic Environment Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities could result in changes in increased comprehensive sound levels.

Fish and Fish Habitat Yes No Decommissioning and abandonment activities at watercourse crossings could affect fish and fish habitat.

Wetlands Yes No Clearing and excavation could result in the alteration of wetland habitat, hydrological, and/or biogeochemical function.

Vegetation Yes No Clearing and excavation could result in the loss or alteration of vegetation cover types. These activities may also contribute to the introduction and spread of weeds and forest pests.

Wildlife and Wildlife Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities could result in a Habitat temporary change in wildlife movement and increased wildlife mortality risks due to traffic.

Species at Risk Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities could result in a temporary change in wildlife movement and increased wildlife mortality risks due to traffic of wildlife species at risk.

Human Occupancy and Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities could Resource Use temporarily disrupt use of lands used for hunting, fishing, trapping, guide outfitting, recreational activities, and agricultural activities.

AX0917181256CGY A12-3 Appendix 12. Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment

Table A12-1. Potential Element Interactions with the North Corridor Expansion Project Interaction (Yes / No)

Heritage Resources No No No heritage resources are anticipated on the previously disturbed PCF.

Traditional Land and Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities could alter or Resource Use temporarily disrupt use of trails and travelways, and subsistence activities.

Social and Cultural Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities could Well-being temporarily affect the local population due to the influx of temporary workforce.

Human Health Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities may affect human health due to reduced air quality, increased ambient noise levels, or reduced water quality.

Infrastructure and Yes Yes The workforce required for decommissioning and Services abandonment activities may result in increased traffic and temporary demand on regional services.

Navigation and No No No decommissioning and abandonment in-place activities will Navigation Safety be carried out within navigable waterways.

Employment and Yes Yes Decommissioning and abandonment activities will create Economy temporary economic benefits. Tax revenue will no longer be generated for municipal, provincial, and federal governments.

Note: GHG = greenhouse gas

Physical activities that entail ground disturbance are only necessary at selected locations and are expected to be much smaller in scope than during the construction phase and similar in scope to site-specific maintenance activities that occur during the pipeline operations phase (e.g., pipeline integrity digs). As noted in Table A12-1, effects associated with ground disturbance of previously reclaimed portions of the pipelines or facilities could potentially interact with several biophysical elements. There are fewer interactions with biophysical elements for the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition because of the smaller facility footprint and no new interactions with surface water features.

For all physical decommissioning and abandonment activities associated with the Project’s pipeline components and the Hidden Lake North Unit Addition, interactions with atmospheric elements (i.e., air, GHGs, and noise) are primarily related to the operation of construction equipment. These interactions with the atmospheric environment will cease when the activities are concluded. Similarly, interactions with socio-economic elements relate primarily to physical decommissioning and abandonment activities.

Potential Effects of Decommissioning and Abandonment Activities

The discussion in this section will focus on the assessment of leaving a pipeline in-place during decommissioning and abandonment. The development of mitigation measures and assessment of residual effects associated with leaving the pipes in-place have drawn on experiences with abandonment as well as decommissioning. There have only been a few examples of major pipeline decommissioning and abandonment projects. However, there has been substantial effort, dating back to 1996, by several industry associations together with federal and provincial regulators on pipeline abandonment, which can inform the assessment of potential environmental effects associated with decommissioning and abandonment in-place. For this reason, consideration of the effects of pipeline decommissioning and

A12-4 AX0917181256CGY Appendix 12. Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment

abandonment is largely based on professional experience and industry and regulatory position papers (e.g., CAPP, 2002; CAPP et al., 1996; Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, 2007; DNV and TERA, 2010; DNV, 2015; H.R. Heffler Consulting Ltd. and TERA Environmental Consultants [Alta.] Ltd., 1995). In the context of this ESA, these references on abandonment are equally applicable to decommissioning.

Based on available literature, potential effects related to leaving pipelines in-place, in a broad context, are ground subsidence, creation of water conduits, and exposed pipe, which are further described in this section. As part of abandonment, the pipelines left in-place will be cleaned in accordance with the legislated standards of the day.

Ground Subsidence: The long-term deterioration of a pipeline decommissioned in-place poses a risk for ground subsidence should the pipeline become corroded over time and eventually perforate and fill with soil material. The rate of corrosion will vary depending upon surrounding soil conditions and will not uniformly occur over the length of the pipeline (CAPP et al., 1996). This would be a gradual process, with reports that under “average” soil conditions, it could take up to 9,000 years for a medium diameter pipeline (such as, 610-millimetre outside diameter) to collapse and resulting subsidence would be expected to be less than 10 centimetres (DNV, 2015). Where safety is a concern (e.g., at road crossings), the pipeline is likely to be filled with concrete (NGTL, 2011). Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers et al. (1996) suggests that, for larger pipe sizes, depending upon the depth of burial, soil types, and land uses, the limited amount of surface settlement that could occur would be within a tolerable range.

Water Conduits: A buried pipeline may function as a conduit to transport water, soil, or residual contaminants in a downslope direction due to pipeline corrosion or if the pipeline is perforated over time due to pipeline corrosion. If the pipe wall is perforated, water and soil may infiltrate and travel downslope, unimpeded, and then may exit the pipe at another location. The magnitude of the potential residual effects associated with the transport of contaminants will be primarily determined by the cleanliness of the pipeline and the soil conditions at the inflow and outflow points. This effect is generally mitigated by segmenting the pipelines left in-place. To this end, NGTL anticipates that their mitigation of filling selected crossings with concrete and removing selected pipeline segments will be adequate to prevent substantial adverse effects due to water conduits (NGTL, 2011). Additionally, segmentation matching natural topographic features will help to prevent the water conduit effect.

Exposed Pipe: The potential effects related to natural processes within a watercourse are the same for a decommissioned pipeline left in-place as for an operational pipeline. These include lateral channel migration or scour of the streambed, frost heave, and/or pipe buoyancy that could expose the pipe and threaten the integrity of the pipe. Pipeline exposure could also have potential effects on fish by creating a barrier to passage or by altering natural flow patterns and navigation on navigable water bodies. Should pipeline integrity be compromised, the potential for contamination is substantially reduced as a result of cleaning the pipeline.

Mitigation and Reclamation

The development of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential effects associated with decommissioning or abandonment will be developed in accordance with the most current body of scientific knowledge and industry-accepted best practices available at the time of decommissioning or abandonment. It is difficult at this time to meaningfully assess potential residual effects given uncertainties, such as which methods will be used and how the biophysical and socio-economic conditions in the various Project Regional Study Areas (RSAs) will change over the useful life of the Project. As a result, the potential residual effects of leaving pipe in-place are anticipated to be low in magnitude, reversible, and not significant.

Mitigation measures comparable to those applied for the various elements during Project construction are expected to be applied during any decommissioning and/or abandonment construction activities, with similar resultant residual effects. The development of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential effects, such as the water conduit effect or pipeline exposure, associated with decommissioning or

AX0917181256CGY A12-5 Appendix 12. Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment

abandonment will be in accordance with the most current body of scientific knowledge and NGTL’s established and proven mitigation measures and construction practices available at the time of decommissioning or abandonment.

Land disturbance activities related to the removal of pipeline or associated facilities would be reclaimed to the equivalent land use at that time. The methods for evaluating the success of reclamation would be based on the principle that the success of land reclamation is measured against the adjacent site conditions, while taking into consideration the status of reclamation at the time of the assessment.

The reclamation objectives or principles to be applied to abandonment of the Project will also be in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements in place at that time. The primary goal of reclamation following abandonment is to stabilize and revegetate affected lands such that they will, in time, achieve capability equivalent to the adjacent land use, thereby ensuring the ability of the land to support various land uses.

Applicable landscape parameters would be used as criteria to measure the degree of reclamation success to ensure land capability is equivalent to the adjacent site conditions. Where no known or visible limitations to normal management, access, soil productivity, and ecosystem function are evident during the evaluation, land reclamation would be determined to be successful.

Summary of Significance Conclusions for Potential Residual and Cumulative Effects of Decommissioning and Abandonment

Residual Effects

Significance conclusions regarding the potential residual environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the physical activities of decommissioning and abandonment are predicted to be similar, but smaller in magnitude and geographic extent compared to construction of the Project and will be similar in magnitude to potential residual effects associated with site-specific maintenance activities. Assessment of these similar physical activities are provided in Section 5 for construction and operations of the Project and are not significant. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation, the potential residual effects of decommissioning and abandonment in-place are anticipated to be low in magnitude and reversible. It is anticipated that the potential residual environmental and socio-economic effects of decommissioning and abandonment in-place will be not significant.

Confidence in the assessment of potential residual effects is moderate due to the lack of certainty regarding specific methods to be used, areas to be directly affected, and regulatory requirements that may apply, which may vary by the time decommissioning or abandonment of any Project component is considered. However, based on the body of knowledge and experience of NGTL and the options available to address multiple scenarios, there is a high level of confidence that residual effects will be reasonably consistent with those for Project construction and, therefore, likely to be not significant.

Cumulative Effects

A meaningful assessment of the cumulative effects associated with the decommissioning and abandonment of the Project is not feasible at this time given the uncertainties on how the biophysical and socio-economic conditions in the various Project RSAs will change over the long operational life expected for the Project. Another limitation to assessing the resulting residual or cumulative effects associated with decommissioning and abandonment is that it is currently unknown if any infrastructure, equipment, or material will be reused or left in place. Additionally, given the current limitations to gather information for reasonably foreseeable future developments for an environmental assessment, it would be highly unfeasible to attempt to obtain information on what the reasonably foreseeable future developments could be as much as 50 years in advance.

A12-6 AX0917181256CGY Appendix 12. Preliminary Decommissioning or Abandonment Assessment

References

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, Alberta Energy Utilities Board, and the National Energy Board (NEB). 1996. Pipeline Abandonment – A Discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues. Accessed March 5, 2019. https://www.neb- one.gc.ca/prtcptn/pplnbndnmnt/pplnbndnmnttchnclnvrnmntl-eng.html.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2002. Draft Guidelines for Pipeline Abandonment Applications in Alberta.

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. 2007. Pipeline Abandonment Assumptions: Technical and Environmental Considerations for Development of Pipeline Abandonment Strategies. Prepared for the Terminal Negative Salvage Task Force of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. Draft.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency). 2014. Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, December 2014. Draft.

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA). 2010. Pipeline Abandonment Scoping Study. Report for the National Energy Board. Report No. EP028844. Reg: No. ENACA855.

Det Norske Veritas (DNV). 2015. Understanding the Mechanisms of Corrosion and their Effects on Abandoned Pipelines. Prepared for the Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada, Calgary, Alberta. Report No. TAOU813COSC (PP079627, Rev. 1).

H.R. Heffler Consulting Ltd. and TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. 1995. Environmental Issues Concerning Pipeline Abandonment. A Report for: Pipeline Abandonment Environmental Working Group. 22 pp.

National Energy Board (NEB). 2017. Filing Manual. Inclusive of Release 2017-01 (July 2017). Calgary, Alberta.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2011. Land Matters Consultation Initiative Stream 3 Pipeline Abandonment – Financial Issues (RH-2008) Application for Approval of Cost Estimates. TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. Calgary, AB. 50 pp. + Appendices. Oberg, P.R. 2001. Responses of Mountain Caribou to Linear Features in a West-Central Alberta Landscape. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. 126 pp.

AX0917181256CGY A12-7