Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
21.0 TRANSPORTATION
21.1 INTRODUCTION Transportation is a valued component (VC) because the Project has the potential to cause increased demand on transportation infrastructure and disruption to navigation of waterways. Road condition and traffic, airports and railways, and marine and freshwater navigability are indicators considered in this assessment. The Transportation VC is linked to two other VCs: • Land and Resource Use (Section 23) in the discussion of marine and freshwater use for fishing and recreation, and • Freshwater Aquatic Resources (Section10) in the discussion of freshwater watercourse crossings.
21.2 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS
21.2.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting The Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), administered by Transport Canada, protects the public’s right to navigate on waterways and regulates the construction of works that may infringe on this right. It requires approval from Transport Canada be obtained prior to the construction of works in these waterways; this includes construction of wharves, docks, piers, dams, booms, bridges, overhead cables or pipelines. Approval is subject to a satisfactory review of the final design and development plan. The Navigation Protection Act (NPA) will replace the NWPA and is scheduled to come into effect April 2014. While the details of the new Act are still being finalized, it is understood that only scheduled waterways will require approval from Transport Canada while the remaining non-scheduled waterways will be protected by Canada’s common law (Transport Canada 2013). It is believed that the application of the NWPA in this assessment is broader than it would be under the NPA and is therefore likely more conservative. NWPA, section TP 14593 E, outlines additional considerations for pipeline crossings. A pipeline crossing can be considered a “minor work” under the Act if it is buried beneath the bed of the navigable water, and the width of the waters at the crossing location is less than 50 m. Minor works can be exempt from the approval process on a few conditions (Transport Canada 2010): • Vessels are allowed safe access through the work site and are assisted as necessary. • Signage is put in place during construction with specific requirements. • The bed of the navigable water is restored to its natural contours after construction.
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-1 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
The Canada Shipping Act is administered by Transport Canada and deals with safety, navigation, and protecting the environment for shipping and navigational activities.
The provincial Transportation Act is administered by the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. The Act deals with public works related to transportation including planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of provincial highways.
The Canadian Railway Safety Act administered by Transport Canada deals with railway safety across Canada. The BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure also administers the Railway Safety Act, which gives the Ministry authority to govern railways that operate strictly within the province.
Airports are regulated federally under the Canada Transportation Act and related Air Transportation Regulations.
Transportation of dangerous goods is administered by Transport Canada under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and regulations.
21.2.2 Influence of Consultation on the Identification of Issues and the Assessment Process
Working Group members (including Aboriginal Groups) had an opportunity to participate in a consultation process to develop VCs for the Project, including the transportation VC. Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Ltd. (PRGT) also received feedback on transportation issues during the draft Application Information Requirements (AIR) public comment period between November and December 2013, and three Working Group comment periods between October 2013 and January 2014. Information and concerns raised by the public, community members, regulators such as the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), and Working Group members (including Aboriginal Groups) were considered. Key changes were made to the AIR as a result of this feedback: • Several Working Group members, including Aboriginal Groups and government departments, were concerned that the LAA needed to be expanded to capture the effects of the Project on transportation infrastructure and navigable waters. The LAA was adjusted to include all the main routes (major roads and highways, airports, and railways) used to transport workers, goods, and equipment to and from the Project, as well as the navigable waters that have the potential to be disrupted by pipeline construction and operation activities. The RAA was also adjusted to include the transportation network connecting to the LAA in the broader scope of British Columbia. • Concerns were also raised about the effects of the Project on road and bridge conditions, particularly with respect to heavy vehicle demands. The potential change in heavy vehicle demand was estimated and specific mitigation measures were included to address these concerns.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-2 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
• Several Working Group members asked for specific details to be included in the Application related to information on current traffic and use of transportation infrastructure and navigable waters, estimated Project traffic volumes, and details about offshore pipelaying activities pertaining to navigability. Such details are included in the Application. • Other issues raised on the draft AIR pertaining to the transportation assessment that have been addressed include potential effects on major roads and highways, marine and freshwater navigability, airports, and railways.
For more detailed information regarding the issues and concerns raised, refer to the Working Group comment tracking table (Appendix C-3) and the compiled public comments and proponent responses (Appendix C-4).
Aboriginal Groups raised specific issues about potential Project effects related to transportation during PRGT’s ongoing Aboriginal Consultation Program, Traditional Land Use (TLU) studies, and background research. These issues were used to inform the selection of indicators (Section 21.2.3), Project effects (Section 21.2.4) and measurable parameters (Section 21.2.5).
Specific issues were identified by Aboriginal Groups and addressed in the assessment: • A change in marine or freshwater navigability could affect haul outs, anchorages, travel routes, recreational and commercial vessel traffic, fishing and harvesting activities, or change access to marine protected areas. It could lead to avoidance or loss of preferred locations, a change in teachings and areas used for teaching, or affect the ability to engage in cultural practice within specific areas of cultural importance, including risk perception and alienation of Aboriginal marine users. • The Project could potentially damage freshwater travel corridors. • Increased marine traffic could affect marine harvesting (or marine safety). • Increased freshwater traffic could affect aquatic resources.
There were no specific issues raised by Aboriginal Groups related to road condition and traffic, or airports and railways.
21.2.3 Selection of Indicators
Indicators for transportation were identified to focus on the scope of assessment on Project effects associated with transportation in accordance with the EAO’s Guideline for VC Selection (EAO 2013). Indicators for the Project were revised according to Working Group and public input and EAO direction. The final list of transportation indicators was issued by EAO in the AIR dated February 13, 2014, and included marine and freshwater navigability, road condition and traffic, and airports and
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-3 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
railways. Indicators for transportation were selected because of the potential for the Project to affect navigable waterways during marine and freshwater construction activities; and the potential to increase demands on roads, airports, and railways during the movement of workers, equipment, materials, and other goods.
21.2.4 Selection of Effects
Three potential effects were identified for this assessment based on professional judgement, issues identified on similar projects, and concerns raised by stakeholders: • decreased navigability of marine waterways, rivers and lakes. During Project construction at marine or freshwater crossings, waterway users may not be able to access waterways for fishing, recreation, or transport. • increased demands on major roads and highway infrastructure. Additional Project traffic may result in congestion and longer travel times for road users, or a degradation of road surface due to heavy vehicle demands. • increased demands on railways and airports. Similar to roads and highways, increased demands on railways due to the Project may result in congestion on rail lines. A fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workforce could create congestion at airports, resulting in a decreased level of service for users.
21.2.5 Selection of Measurable Parameters
Table 21-1 lists the measurable parameters selected to describe or measure each of the three effects.
Table 21-1: Measurable Parameters for Transportation
Measurable Parameter(s) and Units Notes or Rationale for Selection of Effect of Measurement (if applicable) the Measurable Parameter Decreased navigability of Allows potential interactions of the Interruption of and change in access marine waterways, rivers Project with navigable waterways to be to navigable waterways and lakes measured
Increased demands on Traffic volumes along highways and Provides a comparison of the available major roads and highway major roads capacity of highways and the Project infrastructure Heavy or oversized vehicle demands demands
Provides a comparison of the available Increased demands on Capacity of existing rail and airport capacity of rail and air infrastructures railways and airports infrastructure and the Project demands
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-4 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
21.2.6 Boundaries
21.2.6.1 Temporal Boundaries
Based on the project schedule at the time of filing, the temporal boundaries for the assessment are: • Construction: The duration is expected to be four years following issuance of permits. • Operation: The duration starts from late 2018, with an expected operational life greater than 40 years.
21.2.6.2 Spatial Boundaries
The spatial assessment areas include the project footprint, local assessment area (LAA), and regional assessment area (RAA) (see also Figure 21-1): • Project Footprint: The project footprint is the area that will be directly disturbed by construction and operation activities, including the construction ROW, a metering station, compressor stations, and associated temporary ancillary infrastructure (e.g., new access roads, bridges, shoo-flies, temporary storage, and construction camps1). • Local Assessment Area: The LAA includes the main routes (major roads, highways, airports and railways) used to transport workers, goods and equipment to and from the Project, and the navigable waters that have the potential to be disrupted by pipeline construction and operation activities. • Regional Assessment Area: The RAA includes the transportation network connecting to the LAA within British Columbia.
Major roads and highways, airports, railways, and navigable waters in the LAA are selected because they have the greatest potential to be affected by the Project. It is recognized that the transportation routes and navigable waters in the RAA may be used by the Project, but the effects are anticipated to be concentrated (e.g. the highest change in traffic volumes) on those in the LAA. The RAA also provides a broader context for which the assessment of residual effects is made.
21.2.6.3 Administrative Boundaries
Navigable waters and construction activities therein are regulated by Transport Canada and include navigable marine and freshwater bodies within Canada.
1 Temporary ancillary infrastructure includes workspaces (as described in the AIR) and additional components as described in Section 1 Project Overview.
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-5 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is responsible for planning, building, operating, and maintaining provincial highways in BC, following the 2013/14 – 2015/16 Service Plan. Local roads are the responsibility of the municipalities in which the roads lie, and municipal regulations apply. The responsibilities for forestry and resource roads vary from road to road, though many forestry roads in the LAA are managed by The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources (MFLNRO).
Airports can be run by private companies, governments, or by a combination of the two. Railways in the LAA are operated by CN Rail under provincial and federal railway regulations.
Mitigation measures related to transportation may need to be implemented in conjunction with the authorities who have jurisdiction within these boundaries.
21.2.6.4 Technical Boundaries
The technical boundaries include limitations in data, data analyses, and limited project design information pertaining to a variety of issues: • preliminary procurement and logistics plan. Details on the movements of workers and goods have not been finalized (as of March 2014). • preliminary construction methodology details. Details on marine and freshwater construction portions of the Project have not been finalized. • traffic, use, and capacity data. Traffic, use, and capacity data were collected from available databases; data were limited temporally or spatially in some cases. Discussions with key informants provided additional information where data were not available. • marine and freshwater use data. Comprehensive marine and freshwater use data for the LAA were not available from a single source; there are likely inconsistencies and gaps or overlaps in the data. Where necessary, conservative assumptions were made during the assessment of transportation to address technical boundaries. In some cases, over-estimates were made when quantifying effects mechanisms or baseline data to address worst-case scenario effects and compensate for uncertainties. Assumptions and a conservative approach to address technical boundaries are discussed in more detail in the effects assessment Section 21.5.1.2. A discussion of prediction confidence of the assessment of residual and cumulative effects can be found under Confidence and Risk (Sections 21.5.5 and 21.6.3, respectively).
21.2.7 Residual Effects Description Criteria
The residual effects characterization criteria for transportation are listed in Table 21-2.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-6 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
Table 21-2: Characterization of Residual Effects for Transportation
Quantitative Measure or Definition of Characterization Description Qualitative Categories Low resilience—Navigable waterways are narrow Context refers primarily to the and/or heavily impeded and have high levels of current and future sensitivity and current use; road and highway infrastructure, resilience of the VC to change airports, and railways have little available capacity caused by the Project. and are sensitive to increased demands Consideration of context draws Moderate resilience—Navigable waterways are of heavily on the description of moderate width and/or have moderate level of existing conditions of the VC, Context current use; road and highway infrastructure, which reflect cumulative effects of airports, and railways have some available capacity other projects and activities that to handle increased demands have been carried out, and especially information about the High resilience—Navigable waterways are wide impact of natural and human- and/or have low levels of current use; road and caused trends on the condition of highway infrastructure, airports, and railways have the VC. considerable available capacity to handle increased demands Negligible—No measurable change in navigability Magnitude refers to the expected or demand size or severity of the residual Low—A measurable change in navigability or effect. When evaluating magnitude demand, but in a scale that will not affect travel of residual effects, consider the times or level of service provided proportion of the VC affected Magnitude within the spatial boundaries and Moderate—A measurable change in navigability or the relative effect (e.g., relative to demand such that watercourse travel times are natural annual variation in the increased, or level of service provided is decreased magnitude of the VC or other High—A measurable change in navigability or relevant characteristic). demand such that the watercourse is heavily impeded, or demand exceeds capacity Project Footprint—Residual effects are restricted to the project footprint Extent refers to the spatial scale LAA—Residual effects are restricted to the local Extent over which the residual effects are assessment area expected to occur. RAA—Residual effects are restricted to the regional assessment area Short-term—Residual effect restricted to no longer Duration refers to the length of than the project construction phase time the residual effect persists Medium-term—Residual effect extends beyond (which may be longer than the Duration the construction phase and through the operation duration of the physical work or phase activity that gave rise to the residual effect). Long-term—Residual effect extends beyond the project closure and reclamation
Reversibility pertains to whether or Reversible—Residual effect will no longer occur not the residual effect on the VC after Project closure and reclamation (or sooner) Reversibility can be reversed once the physical work or activity causing the Irreversible—Residual effect cannot be reversed disturbance ceases. and is permanent
Frequency refers to how often the Single event—Residual effect occurs only once residual effect occurs and is Multiple event—Residual effect occurs more than Frequency usually closely related to the once frequency of the physical work or activity causing the residual effect. Continuous—Residual effect occurs continuously
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-7 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
21.2.8 Likelihood of Residual Effects
The likelihood of a residual effect occurring is influenced by existing baseline conditions, activities and physical works, project effects mechanisms, and the implementation of legislated and project-specific mitigation measures. Information on these factors is used to determine qualitatively whether there is a low, moderate, or high likelihood of there being an adverse residual effect.
21.2.9 Significance Thresholds for Residual Effects
A significant adverse residual effect on transportation is one where either of two conditions are met: • There is a persistent interruption to existing activities on navigable waters, or • Project demand exceeds available capacity for roads, airports, or railways on a persistent basis.
21.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION
21.3.1 Baseline Data Sources
Information was collected from a variety of sources to describe the existing conditions for navigable waterways. Local officials provided the most comprehensive data: • Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS), a division of the Canadian Coast Guard • The Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA) • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) • The Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations • BC Parks • The Ministry of Environment.
While not a source of primary data, consultation with Transport Canada helped guide the focus of the baseline research.
Publically-available information on cruise ships, ferries, and water taxis was collected from the operators’ websites, information on recreational use came from tourism websites, and other information was available from key informant interviews.
Aboriginal Groups provided Traditional Knowledge information that helped characterize the level of current navigational use in both the marine and freshwater environments.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-8 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
Traffic data from the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure were used to characterize the existing conditions for roads for traffic volumes and heavy vehicle demands. Traffic count data are available for most road segments; for those not available, data interpolation or extrapolation was used. Information on road characteristics was obtained from Google Street View imagery.
Interviews with key informants provided information about airports, including current ridership, existing infrastructure and capacity, plans for expansion and changes to service.
Information on rail and airports was obtained from websites and publically available secondary sources. Detailed primary rail information on current use or capacity was not publically available.
21.3.2 Baseline Overview
21.3.2.1 Marine
Chatham Sound
Chatham Sound, particularly the areas around Prince Rupert, Port Edward, and the approach to Lelu Island, is an area busy with marine traffic throughout the year. MCTS tracks and assists with large (greater than 20 m) or foreign vessel movements in the LAA. Such vessels are required to call-in at designated points while navigating the area. These call-ins are recorded, and the logs are used in this assessment as a primary data source for determining the volume and nature of marine traffic in the area. Two call-in points are used: • Call-in Point 15A, B, C captures vessel movements near the Lelu Island approach portion of the pipeline route. This point has the highest volumes of large vessel traffic in the LAA, reaching nearly 6,000 movements in 2012, though nearly 60% of the traffic is tugs and pilot boats that assist the navigation of larger vessels. • Call-in Point 16 near Lucy Island captures vessel movements through Chatham Sound, often headed to or from Alaska. Vessel traffic volumes are lower than at Point 15, but fishing vessel traffic is notably higher.
Call-in point locations are shown on Figure 21-2. Table 21-3 provides a summary of the large vessel traffic data collected during 2012 for the two call-in points.
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-9 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
Table 21-3: Large Vessel Traffic in the LAA
Vessel Type Point 16 Point 15A, B, C Coast Guard Vessels 32 107 Excursion Vessels 5 8 Fishing Vessels 225 125 Merchant Vessels 15 831 Ferries 412 1,209 Pleasure Crafts 43 34 Pilot Boats 351 1,111 Special Vessels 36 116 Tankers 0 3 Tugs 665 2,419 War Vessels 1 6 Total 1785 5,969 Source: (MCTS 2013)
The Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA) not only generates much of the traffic associated with Call-in Point 15, but is responsible for managing the vessel traffic within its harbour limits (see Figure 21-3). PRPA operates a number of deep water facilities in the area including two cruise ship terminals for large and small vessels; terminals for bulk commodities such as coal and grain; and a container terminal (PRPA 2013a; Smith and Charleton 2013, pers. comm; Golder Associates Ltd. 2012).
There are a number of routes for ferries and water taxis that are near to or intersect the pipeline route through Chatham Sound (Figures 21-2, 21-3). BC Ferries runs year- round scheduled services between Prince Rupert and both Port Hardy and Skidegate (BC Ferries 2013). The Alaska Marine Highway System also runs year-round ferry service to and from Prince Rupert (State of Alaska 2013). Smaller ferries and water taxis also operate in the area, but are less likely to be affected by marine pipeline construction activities due to their location. These include the Digby Island ferry between Prince Rupert and the Prince Rupert Airport (YPR), the Metlakatla Ferry Service and North Co-Corp (Prince Rupert Airport Authority 2013a; Metlakatla Development Corp 2012a; Metlakatla Development Corp 2012b).
There are also considerable volumes of small vessel traffic in Chatham Sound, particularly for fishing and recreational use. PRPA has recently started monitoring vessel traffic in the Porpoise Harbour area (Table 21-4) near the Lelu Island approach of the pipeline route. The majority of vessels using this area are less than 20 m long, and are likely not captured in the MCTS call-ins described above.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-10 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
Table 21-4: Vessel Count by Type in Porpoise Harbour between April and November 2013
Vessel Location Size Total Type Channel Slough Flora Bank Non-reporting Reporting 3,707 452 435 4,579 15 4,594 Recreational (54%) (92%) (40%) (61%) (1%) (54%) 2,449 34 627 2,771 339 3,110 Fishing (36%) (7%) (58%) (37%) (36%) (37%) 722 6 26 164 590 754 Commercial (10%) (1%) (2%) (2%) (63%) (9%) Total 6,878 492 1,088 7,514 944 8,458 Source: Modified from (PRPA 2013b)
Recreational use in Chatham Sound is concentrated around its two main centres, Prince Rupert and Port Edward. A pattern that sees recreational vessel traffic travelling northbound towards Alaska is particularly strong during late April and May, then again southbound during August and September (Smith and Charleton 2013). Sea kayaking occurs primarily around Kaien Island, with the most popular areas on the west side of the island and towards Porcher Island. On the southeast side of Kitson Island, there is a sandy beach, which is a popular destination for day trips from Prince Rupert. Kitson Island permits backcountry camping, with marine access only; the island is a popular overnight stop for kayakers travelling between the mainland and Porcher Island because landing beaches are present. The anchorage is exposed, so overnight moorage is limited and the island lacks fresh water (BC Parks 2013).
Chatham Sound is an important area for commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fishing. The marine recreational fishery includes a wide array of fish and shellfish species. The majority of the effort has, however, traditionally focused on salmonid species, particularly coho, Chinook and steelhead, as well as fewer numbers of cutthroat and Dolly Varden. There is also a growing interest in marine recreational fisheries targeting sockeye, pink and chum salmon as well as groundfish (e.g., halibut, ling cod, rockfish, flounder, sole) and shellfish (clams, crabs, mussels, oysters, octopuses, scallops, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, shrimp and prawns) species (MFLNRO 2013).
Portland Inlet
The Portland Inlet is much less frequently used than Chatham Sound (DFO 2007), but is still recognized as an important area for fishing and recreational use. It is also access to the Nass area, as well as the communities of Stewart, BC, including the Port of Stewart, and Hyder, AK. Small vessels in the Portland Inlet tend to hug the shorelines as the waters can be rough (BC Adventure 2013).
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-11 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
Nass Bay, Iceberg Bay, Nasoga Gulf
Nass Bay, Iceberg Bay, and Nasoga Gulf are also recognized as important areas for fishing and recreational use, particularly by local Aboriginal communities. Section 34 provides details about marine use by the Nisga’a Nation, particularly with respect to harvesting marine species. These areas are also thoroughfares and access points to local freshwater watercourses (Figure 21-4).
Additional information on commercial fishing activity can be found in Section 23 (Land and Resource Use). Traditional Knowledge information can be found in Section 21.3.3 below.
21.3.2.2 Freshwater
There are many freshwater watercourses within the LAA that are used for fishing: Babine Lake and river system; Stellako and Skeena Rivers; and Williston Lake, which is the province’s largest reservoir. The Skeena River is recognized worldwide for its recreational fishing opportunities and provides drainage to the second largest watershed in BC, the Skeena watershed (BC MOE 2013). The most popular species for freshwater recreational fishing are salmonid species (primarily Coho, Chinook, sockeye, and steelhead), cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and bull trout. Recreational fishing includes guided and non-guided angling, each requiring different capture techniques within the fishery.
Freshwater systems are enjoyed by locals and visitors for recreational activities year- round. There are a variety of guiding outfitters and tour operators within the LAA that provide a range of activities including jet boating and rafting, which are popular along the Skeena River and its tributaries. Lake, lakeshore and forest recreation opportunities also include picnicking, swimming, hiking, canoeing, and wildlife viewing.
Additional information on freshwater fishing and recreation can be found in Section 23. Traditional Knowledge information can be found in Section 21.3.3 below.
21.3.2.3 Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
The major roads and highways in the LAA most likely to be used by the Project are classified into segments for analysis. Traffic volume data for each segment were obtained from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Traffic Data Program. The segments for which the traffic counts are representative, as well as the approximate count locations, are presented in Figure 21-5. Table 21-5 provides an overview of the traffic volume data.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-12 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
Table 21-5: Baseline Traffic Volumes
Segment Route Name Location ID Year Type* Volume [AADT] HV* [%] 1 Route 37 NA NA NA NA NA 2 Route 37 P-47-9 2012 SADT 1,013 NA 3 Route 16 P-47-2 2012 SADT 2,010 NA 4 Route 113 48-012 2012 AADT 809 25% 5 Route 16 48-006 2001 SADT 1,614 NA 6 Route 16 48-005 2011 SADT 3,170 22% 7 Route 16 47-028 2005 SADT 11,797 15% 8 Route 16 48-018 2012 AADT 4,888 12% 9 Route 118 46-013 2005 SADT 398 26% 10 Route 16 46-011 2012 AADT 2,532 NA 11 Route 27 45-003 2011 SADT 1,243 NA 12 Route 16 45-001 2013 AADT 3,934 NA 13 Route 97 42-035 2013 AADT 2,073 NA 14 Route 97 43-009 2013 AADT 3,449 NA 15 Route 29 43-032 2011 AADT 3,956 NA 16 Route 29 43-033 2011 AADT 2,219 NA 17 Route 16 49-007 2013 SADT 15,160 NA 18 Route 39 42-023 2012 AADT 1,093 NA 19 Nisga’a Hwy 48-911 2005 SADT 1,018 NA 20 Nass Road 48-912 2012 AADT 493 NA 21 Route 37A NA NA NA NA NA *AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic; SADT = Summer Average Daily Traffic; HV = percentage of the traffic volume that are heavy vehicles Source: (MOTI, various) Road characteristics, such as number of lanes, terrain type, shoulder and lane widths were obtained using Google Street View. The majority of roads in the LAA are Class II highways: provincially operated and maintained, in rolling or mountainous terrain, rural, two-lane, and narrow shouldered. Traffic volumes are low on most road segments in the LAA because the population densities in the LAA are comparatively low. The segments generally operate well below capacity and at a high level of service. In most cases, winter weather conditions (ice, snow), terrain, and speed limits are the main limiting factors for traffic flow.
21.3.2.4 Railways CN Rail provides the only heavy freight rail service within the LAA. Many of CN’s rail corridors are in alignment with the provincial highway corridors (e.g., Routes 16, 39, 97). Prince George serves as the main hub for the LAA, connecting routes from Alberta and the southern portions of British Columbia westward towards Prince
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-13 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
Rupert, northwest through Fort St. James, and northeast through Chetwynd (Figure 21-5). The Takla-Stuart route through Fort St. James is seasonal and can only handle loads up to 263,000 lbs. Other routes are year round and are rated for a maximum gross weight of 286,000 lbs or 272,000 lbs (CN Rail 2013). While the exact capacity along each rail line is not publically available, it is expected that CN Rail has sufficient capacity along these routes to service the Project requirements; this will be confirmed with CN as detailed Project planning proceeds.
21.3.2.5 Airports
Twelve airports were identified during the baseline data collection, six of which currently provide commercial airline service (see Figure 21-5) and are described in greater detail below (along with their International Air Transportation Association code). There are also smaller, private airstrips in the LAA that are not included in the overview of existing conditions because they are less likely to be used by the Project. Baseline information was collected using a combination of desktop research and key informant interviews.
• Prince Rupert Airport (YPR): The Prince Rupert Airport is located on Digby Island, near the City of Prince Rupert. It is accessible by the Digby Island Ferry, funded and operated by the municipality. Two commercial airlines, Air Canada and Hawk Air, operate at the airport along with a number of charters. The airport has a single 1,829 m long runway, with the capacity to land a Boeing 737. The terminal operates about 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, year round, and is used by approximately 60,000 air passengers per year. It is one of the most reliable airports on the northwest coast, though occasionally there are delays due to fog, particularly in the early fall. While the runway is operating well under capacity, plans are underway to upgrade the terminal building and other infrastructure. The Digby Island Ferry runs in tandem with the flight schedules, and has been identified as a limiting factor for growth at the airport (Prince Rupert Airport Authority 2013a; Reed 2013, pers. comm.) as it acts as a bottleneck for transportation to and from the airport.
• Northwest Regional Airport (YXT): The Northwest Regional Airport is located approximately 10 km south of Terrace. Four commercial airlines, Air Canada, Hawk Air, WestJet, and Coast Mountain Air, operate at the airport along with a number of charters, couriers, helicopter companies, and other private aircraft. The airport has two runways, 1,829 m and 1,638 m long, and was used by approximately 177,000 passengers in 2013. This airport has seen major growth over the last few years, primarily due to new industry in the area. The airport’s 20 year plan focuses on accommodating long-term growth up to about 250,000 air passengers per year. The operating hours have already been increased to 21 hours per day, 7 days a week, year round (Northwest Regional Airport 2012; Hendry 2013, pers. comm.; AirBiz 2014).
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-14 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
• Smithers Regional Airport (YYD): The Smithers Regional Airport is located approximately 5 km outside of the Town of Smithers. Hawk Air, Central Mountain Air, Northern Thunderbird Air, and Air Canada operate at the airport, as do charter plane services, helicopters, and a courier company for a total of about 12,000 flight movements each year. The airport has a single runway, 2,299 m long, and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It was used by approximately 80,000 passengers in 2013 (a 7 to 8% increase over 2012). Plans are underway for a major expansion of the terminal building that would effectively double its capacity (Airport Manager 2013, pers. comm.).
• Prince George Airport (YXS): The Prince George Airport is located just outside the City of Prince George. Air Canada, WestJet, and Central Mountain Air operate at the airport with service to and from Vancouver, Calgary, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Smithers, Terrace, Kamloops and Kelowna. Northern Thunderbird Air also operates a charter service at the airport. The airport has three runways, the longest of which is 3,475 m long, facilitating landing of some of the largest commercial planes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The airport was used by approximately 420,000 passengers in 2013, which is consistent with a steady 1% to 2% per year growth in recent years. The airport is currently functioning well, and could easily double its passenger volume without concerns about exceeding capacity. There are no plans to expand in the near future, and there is plenty of spare capacity for handling future growth (Green 2013, pers. comm.).
• North Peace Regional Airport (YXJ): The North Peace Regional Airport is located near Fort St. John. Three commercial airlines (Air Canada, Central Mountain Air, and WestJet) operate at the airport with service to and from Fort Nelson, Prince George, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton, along with a number of charters. The airport has two runways, 2,106 m and 2,042 m long. The airport was used by approximately 184,000 air passengers in 2013, which is a 27% increase over 2012, due to both the addition of WestJet flights and to growth of industry in the area. The terminal building was expanded in 2005, but further expansion or upgrading is currently being discussed by the Airport Society in anticipation of further growth. The airport is also looking into optimizing its flight scheduling and operations to reduce congestion during peak times, and to allow for more air traffic (Whalley 2013, pers. comm.).
• Dawson Creek Airport (YDQ): The Dawson Creek Airport is located just outside the city limits of the City of Dawson Creek. A single commercial airline, Central Mountain Air, operates at the airport with service to and from Vancouver and Fort Nelson, along with a few small private aircraft and helicopter companies. The airport has a single runway, 1,524 m long, and operates about 18 hours per day, 7 days a week, year round. Annual passenger volumes have increased from approximately 17,000 on 2012 to an expected 20,000 in 2013, primarily due to
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-15 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
demands by other projects in the area. The growth is considered highly positive, and plans are already underway to extend the runway length an additional 450 m to 500 m to allow for more use. The terminal building has the capacity to handle up to about 60,000 passengers, but the airport authority is considering an upgrade in the future (Darling 2013, pers. comm.).
There are six other airports within the LAA: Woodcock, Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Mackenzie, Hudsons Hope, and Chetwynd. While they do not currently offer commercial flight services, there is the potential for the project workforce to use these airports by charter planes.
21.3.3 Traditional Knowledge Information
TK information relevant to the transportation assessment was obtained through background research, the Aboriginal Consultation Program, and TLU studies approved for use by the respective Aboriginal Groups. TK information on important marine and freshwater travel corridors used to connect areas of traditional land use was incorporated into the transportation assessment, as was TK related to important marine and freshwater species and habitat, harvesting locales, and commercial fisheries that could potentially be affected by the project-related activities associated with navigability.
Where available, details describing specific locations of importance are provided for each Aboriginal Group (Section 33 and Appendix W).
The TK information on important marine areas helped identify key areas of importance for navigability and characterize the level of current use (see Section 21.5.2.3). It will also be used as a starting point for development of the Marine Access/Traffic Management Plan discussed in Section 21.5.2.2 and Section 36. Information on freshwater use will be used similarly during the NWPA process (See Section 21.5.2.2).
21.4 PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH TRANSPORTATION
Table 21-6 indicates the potential level of interactions between the different Project activities and works and each of the three effects.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-16 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
Table 21-6: Potential Project Effects on Transportation
Potential Effects
and and
Project Activities and Physical Works
Roads Highway Infrastructure Railways and Airports Navigability Major
Construction Site preparation of pipeline footprint, temporary ancillary sites, a meter station, 0 * * compressor stations including survey, clearing, topsoil salvaging, and grading Land based pipe placement, including stringing and welding, trenching, tunneling if 0 * * required, lowering-in, backfilling, and hydrostatic testing Clean-up and post construction reclamation 0 * * Physical construction and installation of a meter station and compressor stations 0 * * Watercourse crossings – trench, HDD, and marine entry/exit 2 * * Marine pipe placement, including dredging, trenching, seabed preparation, and 2 * * lowering Emissions, discharges and wastes (e.g., construction emissions, noise, light, 0 0 0 materials) Employment and expenditure 0 2 2 Operation Presence of physical facilities 2 0 0 Vegetation management 0 * * Maintenance programs including aerial patrols, in-line inspection, cathodic protection, 0 * * maintenance of pipeline markers and access roads Emissions, discharges and wastes (e.g., fugitive emissions, noise, light, materials) 0 0 0 Employment and expenditure 0 1 1 Key: 0 = No interaction (i.e., no potential for activity to result in the effect). 1 = Interaction may occur; however, based on past experience and professional judgment, the resulting effect is well understood and can be managed to negligible or acceptable levels through standard operating procedures and/or through the application of best management or codified practices. No further assessment is warranted. 2 = Interaction may occur and the resulting effect may exceed negligible or acceptable levels without implementation of project-specific mitigation. Further assessment is warranted. * = Activities that require transporting workers, equipment, or materials to the site; all such activities have been included under Employment and Expenditure to avoid duplication.
Rank 0 interactions are not assessed further. Effects resulting from interactions that have Rank 1, while not assessed further in Section 21.5, are considered in the cumulative effects assessment (Section 21.6) for the project contribution to cumulative effects from other projects. Rank 2 interactions are assessed in Section 21.5. The ranking takes a precautionary approach, whereby interactions with a meaningful degree of uncertainty are assigned Rank 2 so that further more detailed effects assessment is conducted.
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-17 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
21.4.1 Justification of Rank 0
Land-based activities are not expected to interact with marine or freshwater navigability. Similarly, marine and freshwater activities are not expected to interact with roads, highways, airports, or railways.
Activities such as site preparation require mobilization of equipment, pipe placement activities require trucking of pipe, and most activities require transporting workers to and from the site. These activities are included under employment and expenditure to avoid duplication.
21.4.2 Justification of Rank 1
With the implementation of standard practices such as adherence to local and regional laws and regulations, the effects of employment and expenditure through the movement of materials, equipment, and workers during operation are well understood and can be managed to negligible or acceptable levels. Residual effects are considered not significant and no further assessment is warranted.
21.4.3 Justification of Rank 2
Project activities or physical works may result in interactions with transportation that exceed acceptable levels in the absence of project-specific mitigation measures: • watercourse crossings — trench, HDD, and marine entry/exit • marine pipeline placement, including dredging, trenching, seabed preparation, and lowering • employment and expenditure • presence of physical facilities.
Demand on roads, highways, airports, and rail infrastructure is generated by such Project activities as procurement, mobilization, and demobilization of materials and equipment; bringing a fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workforce to and from the construction sites. These activities are included under the employment (workers) and expenditure (materials, equipment) construction activity. Watercourse crossings, marine pipe placement, and the presence of physical facilities have the potential to impede navigability and are also ranked 2.
These project interactions with transportation are assessed further in Section 21.5.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-18 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
21.5 ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON TRANSPORTATION
21.5.1 Analytical Methods
21.5.1.1 Analytical Assessment Techniques
Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes
The marine portions of the pipeline are assessed for effects on navigability by comparing watercourse characteristics and the safety zone created by the construction vessels or construction areas in each location. The remaining waterway is then considered to identify whether the existing marine vessel traffic would be obstructed, and if so for how long.
Watercourse crossings are classified as either minor works or navigable waters as per the NWPA. Effects of the Project on the navigable waters are addressed individually for each crossing type by considering the watercourse characteristics and context, as well as characterizing the crossing method.
Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
The effects on major roads and highway infrastructure are assessed by comparing the baseline traffic volumes with the anticipated project demands over the baseline for each road segment.
Railways and Airports
The effects on railways are assessed by comparing the project-related estimated demand with the ability of the rail infrastructure to absorb the additional demands.
The airports in the LAA and their capacity to handle increased demands due to the Project are assessed considering current air passenger traffic, how the airports are functioning now in terms of capacity, and future plans for upgrade.
21.5.1.2 Assumptions and the Conservative Approach
Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes
Marine construction activities will require a variety of pipelaying, trenching and other construction vessels, as well as support vessels. While the specific vessels will not be determined until contractors are selected, a conservative approach has been taken in assuming the types of vessels used, and the sizes of the associated safety zones (the zones around the construction vessels which other vessel traffic must avoid). Similarly, conservative assumptions are made about the size of the safety zones for other construction methodologies such as shore pulls.
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-19 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
The crossing method for each freshwater watercourse may be adjusted in the future based on constructability, geotechnical conditions, and other considerations. This assessment characterizes the effects of crossing methods more generally by type, to allow for future changes in the methods used at any crossing.
Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
This analysis takes a highly conservative approach in the choice of baseline numbers and when estimating Project-related road traffic: • count locations. Where multiple count locations were available for a given segment, the location with the highest volume is used, representing what could be the most congested area on the segment. • years. Where data for multiple years were available, the year with the highest recorded volume is used. This is not necessarily the most recent data available because volumes were sometimes higher in the past than more recently. • AADT vs. SADT. Generally speaking, the Summer Average Daily Traffic (SADT) is higher than the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), often due to tourism or other summer-based activities. Where both were available, the higher volume is used. • Project-related road traffic. The estimated Project-related road traffic, particularly heavy vehicle traffic, was over-estimated to allow for a worst-case scenario assessment.
Railways and Airports
Several assumptions were made in estimating increased demands on railways and airports: • All of the workforce will be FIFO. This will allow for a conservative approach to the assessment as the exact percentage of local or FIFO workforce is not known (as of April 2014). • The workforce will use commercial flights, rather than charters, and will therefore use the six airports identified in Section 21.3.2.5. • The airport closest by road to each construction spread will be used by the workers assigned to that spread. The number of trips at each airport will therefore be proportional to the number of workers required to construct the spreads closest to that airport. This assumption may cause an overestimate of air passenger traffic at smaller airports and an underestimate at larger airports because it does not take into account the flight destinations available from each airport. This will allow for a conservative approach because smaller airports will be more affected than larger airports by an increase in air passenger volumes.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-20 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
21.5.2 Assessment of Decreased Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes
21.5.2.1 Project Mechanisms for Decreased Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes During the construction phase, marine pipe placement, including dredging, trenching, seabed preparation, and lowering activities have the potential to affect marine navigability; the safety zones around construction vessels and construction areas may impede other vessels from safely passing through or accessing certain marine areas, or require them to take a longer route to get around. The safety zones around construction vessels are assumed to be a 500 m radius, though the final size will be refined by the marine contractor for each vessel, in agreement with local authorities. For the Nass Bay Nearshore Marine and Alternative routes, the Iceberg Bay route, and the marine portions of the Nass Bay Shoreline route, the safety zones are assumed to extend from the shore line to 500 m beyond the pipeline route (see Figure 21-4). In the operation phase, the presence of physical facilities along the Nass Bay Shoreline route has the potential to affect navigability because it requires a berm to be built along the shoreline. For all other routes, the presence of physical facilities during operations will not affect navigability. For the construction of the pipeline, there are 732 confirmed freshwater watercourse crossings, only thirteen of which are greater than 50 m wide and are, therefore, not considered a minor work under the NWPA. There is also one aerial crossing with a width of 16 m, which is not considered a minor work because it is not buried in the bed of the navigable water (Table 21-7).
Table 21-7: Freshwater Navigable Water Crossings
Mean Channel Preferred Crossing Alternate Crossing Stream Name Width [m] Method Method Williston Lake 1750 Trenchless Bottom Lay Open cut Williston Bay 1100 Trenchless Bottom Lay Open cut Peace River 180 Aerial Open cut Tributary to Grostete Creek 150 Isolated – Dam and Pump Open cut Nass River side channel 88 Isolated – Superflume Open cut Nass River side channel 84 Isolated – Superflume Open cut Middle River 84 HDD Open cut Nilkitwa Lake 80 HDD Open cut Ksi Hlingx 71 HDD Open cut Cranberry River 71 HDD Open cut Kispiox River 60 HDD Open cut Tributary to Nass Bay 50 Isolated – Dam and Pump Open cut Tributary to Nass River 50 Open cut - Natlan Creek 16 Aerial Isolated – Flume
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-21 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
Freshwater watercourse crossing construction activities have the potential to restrict or interfere with navigation by partially or fully blocking the watercourse, depending on the crossing method. In addition, the aerial and trenchless bottom lay crossings have the potential to impede navigation throughout the operation phase by reducing the clearance above or below the water surface.
The full list of freshwater watercourse crossings and recommended crossing methods for each is presented in Section 10 and Appendix K. A more detailed description of both marine and freshwater construction activities is presented in Section 1.
21.5.2.2 Mitigation for Decreased Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes
Several mitigation measures and best practices will be implemented during the marine construction activities to minimize or eliminate disruptions to navigation: • PRGT will comply with the NWPA and all related approval conditions. • Pipelaying activities and the movement of associated construction vessels will follow local regulations and procedures including, for example, those set by the Canadian Coast Guard and the PRPA. • The Marine Access / Traffic Management Plan (MATMP) will be developed and implemented. An outline of the MATMP is provided in Section 36. Key components will include, but are not limited to:
• a marine communication strategy designed to inform mariners of construction activities and maximize safety
• details on safety zones around construction vessels and construction zones such as size and management strategy
• specific mitigation measures developed as the outcome of consultation with regulatory agencies, Aboriginal groups, and stakeholders. These mitigation measures will recognize the importance of existing and traditional navigation routes, fishing and harvesting areas and activities, commercial and shipping activities, tourism, and marine-based transportation.
The following mitigation measures will be implemented during freshwater construction activities, where applicable, to reduce or eliminate disruptions to navigation: • PRGT will comply with the NWPA and all related approval conditions. • PRGT will comply with the minor works criteria under the NWPA:
• Vessels shall be allowed safe access through the work site and shall be assisted as necessary.
• Signage visible from both upstream and downstream approaches to the construction areas will inform watercourse users of the construction activities.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-22 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
Signage will state “Warning — Construction Ahead” and “Attention — Traveaux de construction”, be legible from 50 m, and will be set a minimum of 25 m, 50 m, 100 m, or 200 m upstream and downstream depending on the waterway width.
• Where open cut or isolated crossing methods are used on navigable waters, the bed of the waterway will restored to its natural contours. • PRGT will communicate with and notify specific waterway users (e.g., fishing/guiding/ recreational outfitters) regarding planned construction activities.
Section 23 (Land and Resource Use) details additional mitigation measures for the marine and freshwater environments specific to effects on commercial fishing including scheduling project activities through consultation with local fish harvesters and other interest groups to limit interference with fisheries and other activities; considering the use of Fisheries Liaison Officers to monitor construction activities and aid in communication with fishers; and protecting the pipes from fishing gear and vessel anchors. This section also details mitigation measures specific to effects on outdoor recreation use.
Section 34 (Nisga’a Nation) details additional mitigation measures for the marine and freshwater environments specific to the Nisga’a areas. These mitigation measures include the development of a Marine Access Management Plan (MAMP) to manage and maintain access to fishing and harvesting areas such as Nass Bay, Iceberg Bay, and Nasoga Gulf.
21.5.2.3 Characterization of Residual Effects on Decreased Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes
Section 1 provides a detailed overview of the various marine route options and construction methodologies. The following analysis of the residual effects on marine navigability characterizes each route option with respect to magnitude, context, geographic extent, duration, frequency, and reversibility. See also Figures 21-2, 21-3 and 21-4.
Nass Bay Nearshore Marine, Nass Bay Nearshore Alternative, and Iceberg Bay
As these routes are relatively shallow and close to shore, a combination of open-cut excavation and shore pull methods will be used for trenching and pipelay. The majority of these routes will have sediment from the open-cut excavation replaced on top once the pipes are in place. The deeper section of the Iceberg Bay route (approximately 1,500 m long) will be placed onto the seabed and covered with rock and gravel instead. A safety zone around the construction areas will be required for each of these activities, assumed to extend from the shoreline to up to 500 m beyond the pipeline route; the magnitude of effects on marine navigability is therefore characterized as moderate because the marine area within safety zone will likely not be navigable during construction. The geographic extent of the effects is limited to
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-23 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
the safety zone which is within the LAA. The context for Nass Bay Nearshore Marine and Alternative routes is moderate resilience because the area is of moderate width and moderately used. Iceberg Bay is narrower and is therefore characterized as having low resilience. It is anticipated that construction will take 8-10 weeks, and therefore the duration of effects is characterized as short-term. The frequency is characterized as continuous for these routes as the safety zones will likely remain in place until construction is complete, but the effects are reversible at the end of construction.
Nass Bay Shoreline
Construction of this route involves blasting a bench along the rocky shoreline of Nass Bay, then using the blasted material to extend the bench to a 30 m wide level surface. The pipe will then be buried within the bench. The magnitude of effects is characterized moderate because that small area of shoreline will no longer be navigable due to the presence of the bench, and the context is moderate resilience because it is of moderate width and moderately used. The geographic extent is limited to the safety zone during construction (assumed to extend 500 m from the shore), and the project footprint thereafter. The frequency is characterized as continuous, and the duration of effects is medium- or long-term, depending on whether the bench is removed at the end of the Project lifetime.
Marine Pipeline Route: Nasoga Gulf to Portland Inlet
The construction of this portion of the route will be completed by a variety of vessels for lowering in, pipe placement, and pipe protection. The magnitude is high because the Nasoga Gulf may be heavily impeded, particularly for larger vessels. The context is low resilience because the Gulf is barely wider than the safety zone in some areas, and is moderately used. Because the construction will likely require lowering in, pipe placement, and pipe protection, the frequency is characterized as multiple events. The duration of each event, however, is short-term lasting only a few days to a few weeks. The geographic extent is within the LAA, and the effects are reversible at the end of construction.
Marine Pipeline Route: Portland Inlet and Chatham Sound
Vessels navigating the deep water portions of these routes will have to navigate around the construction vessels and their safety zones during construction. The magnitude is therefore low to moderate, and the context is characterized as high resilience because this area is wide. Similar to the shallow areas, the geographic extent is within the LAA and duration of the effect is short-term. Because the construction of this route will likely require both seabed preparation and pipe placement, the frequency is characterized as multiple events. The effects are reversible at the end of construction.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-24 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
Marine Pipeline Route approaching Lelu Island
The construction of the approach to Lelu Island will be completed by a variety of vessels and equipment for trenching, lowering in, pipe placement, and pipe protection. From the deep water pipelay vessel in Chatham Sound discussed immediately above, a shallow water pipelay barge will extend the pipeline through the shallower waters to a distance of approximately 2 km offshore. This portion of the pipeline route will also require trenching and placement of rock or concrete mats similar to Nasoga Gulf. For the remaining 2 km to the Lelu Island shoreline, the final construction methodology has not yet been confirmed, but it is assumed that a safety zone will remain in place throughout the 19 week construction duration. The magnitude of effects is characterized as moderate to high because vessels may have to take a longer route to get around the construction vessels or construction areas. The context is moderate resilience because the area is wide, but has high levels of current use. The geographic extent is within the LAA and the duration is short-term, lasting up to 19 weeks. Because the construction of this route will involve lowering in, pipe placement, and pipe protection, the frequency is characterized as multiple events. The effects are reversible at the end of construction.
Section 1 provides a detailed overview of the various freshwater watercourse crossing construction methodologies. The following analysis of the residual effects on freshwater navigability characterizes these various methodologies with respect to magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, and reversibility.
Isolated Crossings
Isolated crossings will be used on four of the navigable waterways. This crossing method involves using dams and pumps or flumes to divert the flow of water temporarily during construction. The magnitude of effects is characterized as moderate to high because the diversion may impede navigability at that location. The context depends on the level of current use; if the watercourse is heavily used at the time of construction then the context is characterized as having low resilience. The geographic extent of the construction effects is restricted to the project footprint, though may result in a short disruption of downstream flows during damming activities. The duration of isolated crossings is generally proportional to the size of the watercourse as larger watercourses will have longer construction durations, but will be short-term and limited to the construction phase. The frequency of isolated crossings is a single event, and the residual effects on navigability are reversible at the end of the construction phase.
Horizontally Directionally Drilled Crossings (HDD)
HDD will be used for five of the navigable waterways. This method is often used for large or exceptionally environmentally-sensitive watercourses, where geotechnical and hydrological conditions allow. The context is low or moderate resilience as the
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-25 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
types of watercourses for which HDD is used are often the most heavily used for navigational purposes. HDD does not, however, typically interfere with navigation; the drilling happens underground and watercourse users may be unaware of it. For this method, the magnitude of residual effects is negligible, and the geographic extent, duration, frequency, and reversibility are not applicable.
Trenchless Bottom Lay Crossings
Trenchless bottom lay crossings will be used for two of the navigable waterways: Williston Lake and Williston Bay. Williston Bay is less than 1 m deep in many places, and dry or muddy in some months of the year. Very few vessel types could use such a water body for navigation, even at the times of year when the water levels are highest. In contrast, the majority of the Williston Lake crossing is greater than 20 m deep and is frequently used. In both cases, the context is moderate resilience. Construction activities could temporarily interfere with navigation in both cases, the effects will be short-term. Trenchless bottom lay crossings have a medium magnitude, though the geographic extent of the residual effects is limited to the project footprint. The duration is short-term and the frequency is a single event. Reversibility will depend on whether or not the pipe is removed at the end of the Project lifetime.
Aerial Crossings
Aerial crossings will be used for two of the navigable waterways: the Peace River (180 m wide) and Natlan Creek (16 m wide). Peace River is a candidate for an aerial crossing because the pipeline can cross at the Peace River Suspension Bridge and, therefore, not impede navigation. Natlan Creek is selected because it is a deep canyon; the pipeline will cross high above the surface of the water and will also not impede navigation. Similar to HDD, while the context may be low or moderate resilience the magnitude of residual effects on navigation are negligible. The geographic extent, duration, frequency, and reversibility are not applicable.
Open Cut Crossings
The open cut crossing method will be used on one of the navigable waterways, and on other watercourses that qualify as minor works with high resilience. This method involves digging an open trench, laying the pipe in, and backfilling. The magnitude of effects of open cut crossings is high because navigability will likely be impeded by the presence of construction equipment or activities, but the effects are limited to the project footprint because the flow is effectively uninterrupted. The duration of open cut crossings are typically the most short-term of any of the crossing methods. The frequency is a single event, and the residual effects on navigability are reversible as soon as the crossing is complete.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-26 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
21.5.2.4 Likelihood of Residual Effects on Change in Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes
The likelihood of a residual effect occurring on change in navigability of marine waterways is moderate based on the baseline conditions, project activities, project effects mechanisms and the implementation of legislated and project-specific mitigation measures.
The likelihood of a residual effect occurring on change in navigability of a freshwater lake or river varies from low to high depending on the method used to cross the watercourse and baseline conditions.
21.5.2.5 Conclusion on Significance for Residual Effects on Decreased Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes
While much of the marine pipeline route will be constructed in relatively open and easily navigable waters, there are a few points where other marine vessel traffic activity may be interrupted during construction. However, this interruption will only be short-term, and therefore not persistent. Development and implementation of the MATMP will minimize the disturbance and maximize the safety of marine construction activities through consultation, communication, and planning. The bench constructed for the Nass Bay Shoreline route option is small, and is not anticipated to impede navigability. Given the characterizations of the residual effects and the implementation of mitigation measures, the residual effects of the Project on marine navigability are expected to be not significant.
Most freshwater watercourse crossings are over small, non-navigable waterways or can be considered minor works under the NWPA. Based on the characterization above, residual effects of the Project on navigability of the remaining waterways are expected to be not significant.
21.5.3 Assessment of Increased Demands on Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
21.5.3.1 Project Mechanisms for Increased Demands on Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
Additional traffic volumes due to transporting workers, materials, and equipment to and from the Project may create congestion on roads and highways. The construction phase will have the highest associated traffic volumes and, as part of this phase; the movement of heavy or oversized loads has the potential to accelerate wear-and- tear on road surfaces and bridges.
Project-related road traffic generation for goods, equipment, and materials is described in Section 1 (Proposed Project Overview). Workers will also generate trips to and from their homes, accommodations within communities, the airports, construction camps, and the project site. The estimated traffic volumes during
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-27 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
construction are based on a combination of information available and conservative assumptions: • During the early construction phase, workers will be accommodated within a combination of neighbouring communities and construction camps, depending on the location. Up to 400 person-trips per day between communities and the project sites will be generated, and up to 80 person-trips per day between the construction camps and airports. • During the peak construction phase, workers will be primarily accommodated within construction camps. Up to 220 person-trips per day between construction camps and airports will be generated. • The movement of pipe between rail siding sites and stockpile or worksite locations will generate an estimated 13,000 to 14,000 truck trips. • An additional 30,000 to 35,000 trips will be generated by the movement of other items such as camp components and consumables, diesel fuel, compressors, heavy construction equipment, and other materials.
21.5.3.2 Mitigation for Increased Demands on Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
Several mitigation measures will be implemented during construction for transportation on major roads and highways: • Workers will be housed in construction camps near the project site, which will eliminate a large percentage of trips on major roads and highways. This will be implemented as early in the early construction and construction phases as possible. • Buses or crew vans will be used to transport workers, which will reduce the number of vehicle trips generated. • A Traffic Management Plan (see Section 36, Summary of Proposed Environmental and Operational Management Plans) will be implemented. • PRGT will work with road/highway authorities and communities to optimize timing (e.g. avoid after school hours) and routing (e.g. use appropriate trucking routes) of Project vehicle movements. • PRGT will comply with the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure permit approval conditions for transporting oversize or overweight items on provincial highways to avoid unnecessary wear on road surfaces and bridges. • PRGT will negotiate road agreements for forestry or resource roads, where applicable, such that maintenance costs directly resulting from construction will be shared by PRGT. • PRGT will comply with the Transportation Of Dangerous Goods Act. Depending on the mode of transport and nature of the goods, goods need to be specially classified, packaged or contained, labelled or marked, accompanied by adequate documentation, and handled or carried by qualified personnel.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-28 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
21.5.3.3 Characterization of Residual Effects on Increased Demands on Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
Projected peak project conditions for each of the segments are presented in Table 21-8.
Table 21-8: Road Segment Analysis, Peak Project Conditions
Baseline Baseline + Change in Change in HV Segment Route Name Volume Project Volume Volume [Δ%]** [AADT] [AADT] [Δ%] 1 Route 37 NA 1,040* 10.0% 6.7%* 2 Route 37 1,013 1,114 10.0% 4.9%* 3 Route 16 2,010 2,107 4.8% 2.5%* 4 Route 113 809 913 12.9% 3.2% 5 Route 16 1,614 1,624 0.6% 0.4%* 6 Route 16 3,170 3,449 8.8% 0.3% 7 Route 16 11,797 11,967 1.4% 0.4% 8 Route 16 4,888 4,927 0.8% 0.5% 9 Route 118 398 455 14.3% 7.6% 10 Route 16 2,532 2,550 0.7% 0.5%* 11 Route 27 1,243 1,571 26.4% 3.9%* 12 Route 16 3,934 3,956 0.6% -0.1%* 13 Route 97 2,073 2,122 2.4% 0.3%* 14 Route 97 3,449 3,737 8.4% 0%* 15 Route 29 3,956 4,036 2.0% 0.5%* 16 Route 29 2,219 2,350 5.9% -1.2%* 17 Route 16 15,160 15,187 0.2% 0%* 18 Route 39 1,093 1,333 21.9% -0.9%* 19 Nisga’a Hwy 1,018 1,109 8.9% 9.8%* 20 Nass Road 493 607 23.2% 7.4%* 21 Route 37A NA 1,040* 10.0% 6.7%* AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic HV = percentage of the traffic volume that are heavy vehicles *extrapolated data used based on adjacent segments **some segments show a decrease in HV traffic due to the high baseline (or assumed baseline) HV%
The magnitude of the increased demands on major roads and highways is low to moderate, and occur in a high resilience context. The geographic extent of the demand is concentrated in the LAA, though some additional smaller-scale demand may be generated in the broader scope of the RAA. The effects occur during multiple events, though are short-term in duration and reversible.
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-29 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
21.5.3.4 Likelihood of Residual Effects on Change in Demands on Roads and Highway Infrastructure
The likelihood of a residual effect occurring is high based on the baseline conditions, project activities, and project effects mechanisms.
21.5.3.5 Conclusion on Significance for Residual Effects on Increased Demands on Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
The baseline plus project volume estimates in Table 21-8 reflect the peak traffic volumes. Segments 4, 9, 11, 18, and 20 show higher percentage increases, but this is more reflective of the low baseline volumes rather than high Project volumes. The Project demands are not expected to exceed the available capacity of the roads. The residual effects of increased demands on major roads and highway infrastructures from traffic volumes are, therefore, not significant.
Heavy vehicle demands increase by less than 10% on all segments. Compliance with oversize and overweight regulations for provincial highways and the implementation of road agreements will reduce or avoid damages on road surfaces by heavy vehicles. The residual effects of increased demands on major roads and highway infrastructures from heavy vehicle demands are, therefore, not significant.
21.5.4 Assessment of Increased Demands on Railways and Airports
21.5.4.1 Project Mechanisms for Increased Demands on Railways and Airports
Heavy rail will primarily be used to transport pipe. Two possible transportation scenarios for rail transport are described in Section 1; both scenarios are considered in this assessment. An estimated 40,000 lengths of pipe will be transported by rail to the various rail siding locations. Each rail car can carry four to five pipe lengths, for a total of 5,000 to 9,000 rail cars. This increased demand may result in congestion, especially if the demand nears or exceeds the available capacity of the railways.
A FIFO workforce, particularly during construction, will create increased demands on local airports and commercial airlines. As a conservative estimate, each worker will use the airport twice per month, though it is expected that use will be less frequent.
21.5.4.2 Mitigation for Increased Demands on Railways and Airports
Several mitigation measures will be implemented during construction for transportation effects on rail and airports: • PRGT will comply with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Depending on the mode of transport and nature of the goods, goods need to be specially classified, packaged or contained, labelled or marked, accompanied by adequate documentation, and handled or carried by qualified personnel.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-30 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
• The scheduling of worker rotations may be staggered to help alleviate peak demands on airports. • Charter flights may be used, making use of a wider variety of airports and decreasing the demand on any single airport. This also decreases the demand for commercial flights and airport infrastructure.
21.5.4.3 Characterization of Residual Effects on Increased Demands on Railways and Airports
The railways are characterized as having high resilience in that they can easily adapt to increased demands since it is expected that CN Rail has ample capacity to handle project demands. The demands on rail occur in multiple event frequency, and are also short-term and reversible. The extent of the demand is concentrated in the LAA, though some additional smaller-scale demand may be generated in the broader scope of the RAA.
The effects of the additional FIFO workforce are characterized for each of the six airports considered in the LAA: • Prince Rupert Airport (YPR). The Prince Rupert Airport will experience up to a 46% increase in air passenger traffic for a short peak period in Q1 and Q2 2017. The airport is in a position to handle this additional traffic, given that the runway is currently operating well under capacity, and plans are underway to upgrade the terminal building and other infrastructure. If necessary, demands on the Digby Island Ferry could be accommodated by increasing the frequency of the ferry to run additional trips each day. • Northwest Regional Airport (YXT). The Northwest Regional Airport will experience a 5% to 15% increase in air passenger traffic throughout the construction period, with a peak increase of 23% for a short period in Q3 and Q4 2016. The airport has the room to handle this growth, particularly with the implementation of its 20 year plan. • Smithers Regional Airport (YYD). The Smithers Regional Airport will experience a 15 to 25% increase in air passenger traffic during Q1 2015 to Q2 2016, and a 50 to 70% increase during Q3 2016 to Q4 of 2017. The airport is functioning well now, and plans are underway to expand the terminal building which would effectively double its capacity, allowing it to handle this increase. • Prince George Airport (YXS). The Prince George Airport will experience a 2% to 7% increase in air passenger traffic throughout the construction phase. The airport could double its air passenger traffic without concerns about exceeding capacity, and is therefore in a position to handle the increased demand. • North Peace Regional Airport (YXJ). The North Peace Regional Airport will experience a 5 to 11% increase in air passenger traffic throughout the construction phase, then 15% increase between Q3 of 2016 and Q4 of 2017. The airport’s short
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-31 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
term plans to optimize flight scheduling and operations will allow the airport to handle peak demands more effectively, and the airport is also looking into further expansion or upgrades. • Dawson Creek Airport (YDQ). The Dawson Creek Airport will double its air passenger traffic for a short period in Q3 and Q4 2016. The airport currently has the capacity to triple its air passenger traffic and is also considering future upgrade options.
While increased demands on airports are of moderate magnitude, a combination of unused current capacity and planned upgrades at each airport gives a high resilience context. The peak project air passenger traffic is typically short-term, lasting only a few months, and is reversible at the end of the construction phase. The geographic extent of the demands is expected to be limited to the six airports assessed above, though the demands may extend to other airports in the LAA if charter flights are used. In this case, the demands would be of a lesser magnitude on any single airport.
21.5.4.4 Likelihood of Residual Effects on Change in Demands on Railways and Airports
The likelihood of a residual effect occurring is high based on the baseline conditions project actives, and project effects mechanisms.
21.5.4.5 Conclusion on Significance of Residual Effects on Increased Demands on Railways and Airports
CN Rail may choose to adjust its service to accommodate the demands on the Project, or decline to provide service in the case that capacity is exceeded. However, it is likely that neither of these two options will be required because the project demand compared to available capacity is likely relatively low. The residual effects of increased demands on rail infrastructure are anticipated to be not significant.
Each of the assessed airports is in a position to support the increased demands from the Project with current or planned available capacity. During the collection of baseline data, many airport authorities expressed the opinion that growth was welcome. It is anticipated that residual effects are not significant.
21.5.5 Confidence and Risk
Conclusions of this assessment are based on the project design (as of April 2014), publically-available baseline data sources, information obtained through key informant interviews, and professional judgement. Technical boundaries identified in Section 21.2.6.4 highlight potential gaps, incomplete baseline information, and incomplete project design information. However, conservative assumptions are made throughout in consideration of these uncertainties. Overall prediction confidence for the assessment of residual effects is moderate to high; therefore, no additional risk analysis has been conducted.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-32 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
21.5.6 Summary of Project Residual Effects on Transportation A summary of project residual effects on transportation are presented in Table 21-9.
Table 21-9: Summary of Project Residual Effects: Transportation
Residual Effects Characteristics
Follow-up
Project Mitigation Measures and Phase Monitoring Context Magnitude Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Likelihood Significance Confidence
Decreased Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes: • Compliance with NWPA, local regulations and PF- S, R Construction procedures L-H N-H S-L L-H N M-H None LAA M, C -I • Implementation of the MATMP Increased Demands on Major Road and Highway Infrastructure: • Implement Traffic Management Plan • Construction Compliance with TDG H L-M LAA S M R H N H None Act, permit approval conditions • Road use agreements Increased Demands on Airports and Railways • Worker scheduling Construction H M LAA S M R H N H None • Charter flights KEY: MAGNITUDE: DURATION: LIKELIHOOD of RESIDUAL N = Negligible—No S = Short-term—Effect EFFECTS CONTEXT: measurable change in restricted to no longer than the Based on professional L = Low resilience—Navigable navigability or demand project construction phase judgement. waterways are narrow and/or L = Low—A measurable M = Medium-term—Effect L = Low—Residual effects heavily impeded and have high change in navigability or extends beyond the construction are unlikely levels of current use; road and demand, but in a scale that will phase and through the operation M = Medium—A residual highway infrastructure, airports, not affect travel times or level of and maintenance phase effect is possible, but not and railways have little available service provided L = Long-term—Effect extends certain capacity and are sensitive to M = Moderate—A measurable beyond the project closure and H = High—A residual effect increased demands change in navigability or reclamation is likely to occur M = Moderate resilience— demand such that watercourse Navigable waterways are of travel times are increased, or FREQUENCY: SIGNIFICANCE: moderate width and/or have level of service provided is S = Single event—Effect occurs S = Significant moderate level of current use; decreased only once N = Not Significant road and highway infrastructure, H = High— A measurable M = Multiple event —Effect airports, and railways have change in navigability or occurs more than once CONFIDENCE: some available capacity to demand such that the C = Continuous—Effect occurs Based on scientific handle increased demands watercourse is heavily impeded, continuously information and statistical H = High resilience - Navigable or demand exceeds capacity analysis, professional waterways are wide and/or have REVERSIBILITY: judgment and effectiveness low levels of current use; road EXTENT: R = Reversible—Effect will no of mitigation, and and highway infrastructure, PF = Project footprint—effects longer occur after Project assumptions made. airports, and railways have are restricted to the project closure and reclamation (or L = Low level of confidence considerable available capacity footprint sooner) M = Moderate level of to handle increased demands LAA = effects are restricted to I = Irreversible—Effect cannot confidence the local assessment area be reversed and is permanent H = High level of confidence RAA = effects restricted to the regional assessment area
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-33 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
21.6 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON TRANSPORTATION The cumulative effects assessment is a two-step process to determine the potential for cumulative effects on transportation. In conducting the cumulative effects assessment, the residual effects arising from interactions that are Rank 1 or Rank 2 are considered. The first step consists of answering two questions: • Is there a project residual effect? • Does the project residual effect overlap spatially and temporally with those of other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects? Where the answers to both of these two questions are affirmative, there is potential for the Project to contribute to cumulative effects, in combination with other projects. The potential contribution of these project effects to cumulative effects on transportation is assessed. The second step consists of answering a third question: • Is there a reasonable expectation that the contribution (i.e., addition) of the Project’s residual effects to the residual effects from past, present, and likely future projects would result in adverse cumulative effects of concern to transportation? Where the answer to this question is affirmative, a detailed assessment of the potential cumulative effects is required. An adverse cumulative effect of concern is one that would affect the viability and sustainability of transportation, as expressed in terms of the significance thresholds defined in Section 21.2.9.
21.6.1 Assessment of Potential Cumulative Effects The response to the first two questions is affirmative. Residual effects on transportation have the potential to overlap spatially or temporally with industrial land use and marine use, linear infrastructure, forestry and agricultural land use, and recreational land use. The potential overlap between project residual effects and the residual effects of other types of projects and activities is presented in Table 21-10.
Table 21-10: Potential Cumulative Effects on Transportation
Potential Cumulative Effects
Other Projects and Activities with Potential for Navigability of Major Railways Cumulative Effects Marine Waterways, Roads and and Rivers and Lakes Highways Airports Industrial Land Use and Marine Use (current and planned)1 Linear Infrastructure2 Forestry and Agricultural Land Use Recreational Land Use 1 Includes mining, oil and gas projects, energy projects, and other industrial activities 2 Includes highways, electrical transmission corridors and other pipelines = indicates those other projects and activities whose effects are likely to interact cumulatively with the Project’s residual effects The list of other projects that have the potential (depending on the effect and VC) for their effects adding cumulatively with this Project is in Appendix D.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-34 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
The potential for cumulative effects is discussed in the following subsections, as is the answer to the third question.
21.6.1.1 Navigability of Marine Waterways, Rivers and Lakes
In the marine environment, the residual effects of several other projects could overlap temporally and spatially with the residual project effects:
Industrial Land Use and Marine Use
• Pacific NorthWest LNG Project • BG Group Prince Rupert LNG • Watson Island Industrial Site Redevelopment/Seaport Terminal • Fairview Container Terminal Expansion • Westview Pellet Terminal • Ridley Terminals Expansion • Prince Rupert Potash Terminal Expansion.
Linear Infrastructure
• Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project and BG Group Natural Gas Transportation System.
Based on known construction timelines, the residual effects due to the increased marine traffic during construction of the two oil and gas projects (Pacific NorthWest LNG Project and BC Group Prince Rupert LNG) are expected to be minimal, and neither of the projects is expected to be in operation during the Project’s pipelaying activities. While the timelines for the other five industrial and marine use projects are not well defined, the location of these projects is such that spatial overlap with the residual effects of the Project is expected to be minimal. Construction of the Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project and BG Group Natural Gas Transportation System could be concurrent with the Project’s marine construction schedule and spatially close enough to cause cumulative effects in combination with the Project. If both projects were to happen concurrently, careful coordination between contractors and permitting through the NWPA can alleviate the potential for cumulative effects in the marine environment.
In the freshwater environment, there are no projects whose residual effects are expected to overlap both temporally and spatially with the residual effects of the Project; the residual effects of the Project are localized and short-term and have a low potential to act cumulatively.
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-35 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Section 21 Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Transportation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate
Based on this information, the contribution of the Project’s residual effects on navigability of marine waterways, rivers and lakes, in combination with other projects, are unlikely to result in a persistent interruption to existing activities on navigable waters thus would not result in adverse cumulative effects of concern. A detailed cumulative effects assessment, therefore, is not warranted.
21.6.1.2 Major Roads and Highway Infrastructure
All the project types listed in Table 21-10 have the potential to act in a cumulative fashion with the Project, through the movement of workers, equipment, or materials, because the same network of roads is likely to be used for the Project, and potentially at the same time. As discussed in Section 21.3.2.3, the existing road network is currently functioning at a high level of service, indicating a surplus of available capacity and high resilience to accommodate cumulative demands. It is expected that future developments will be required to apply similar standard mitigation strategies such as road agreements and compliance with oversize and overweight load regulations, which should limit or eliminate cumulative effects from heavy or oversized vehicle demands.
Based on this information, the contribution of the Project’s residual demands on major roads and highway infrastructure, in combination with other projects, are unlikely to exceed capacity on a persistent basis and thus would not result in adverse cumulative effects of concern. A detailed cumulative effects assessment, therefore, is not warranted.
21.6.1.3 Railways and Airports
All the project types listed in Table 21-10 have the potential to act in a cumulative fashion with the Project through the use of the same airports and railways to transport workers, materials, and other goods, and potentially at the same time. As discussed in Section 21.3.2.4, the existing rail network is expected to have ample available capacity, and will therefore be able to meet the cumulative demands. During the collection of baseline data, airport authorities indicated they were welcoming the growth and economic benefits associated with the cumulative effects of local projects. It was also established that each of the airports either currently had sufficient capacity, or was planning upgrades, to facilitate growth in air traffic, as discussed in Section 21.3.2.5.
Based on this information, the contribution of the Project’s residual demands on railways and airport infrastructure, in combination with other projects, are unlikely to exceed capacity on a persistent basis and thus would not result in adverse cumulative effects of concern. A detailed cumulative effects assessment, therefore, is not warranted.
PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 Revision 1 Page 21-36 May 2014 Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Part B-4 – Assessment of Potential Social Effects Section 21 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Transportation
21.6.2 Summary of Cumulative Effects
Residual effects on navigability of marine waterways, rivers, and lakes from the Project and other projects and activities are unlikely to overlap in space and time and are therefore unlikely to act in a cumulative fashion. In the unlikely case that they do overlap, standard mitigation measures will be applied to alleviate the cumulative effects. Roads, railways, and airports were found to have enough available capacity, either current or planned, to facilitate cumulative demands of the Project and other projects. Therefore, cumulative effects on transportation are considered not significant.
21.6.3 Confidence and Risk
The level of confidence for predicted cumulative effects on transportation is considered moderate due to the understanding of project effects, the adequacy of existing data and broad understanding of other projects and activities, and the current and future application of statutory requirements and management objectives to mitigate effects of the PRGT Project and other projects. Based on this level of confidence for cumulative effects, no additional risk analysis has been conducted.
21.7 FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM AND COMPLIANCE REPORTING
A follow-up program and compliance reporting is not required for transportation.
21.8 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The Project has the potential to decrease navigability and place additional demands on air, rail and road transportation infrastructure due to pipelaying activities, and the movements of workers, materials, and equipment. A conservative approach has been taken assessing the range of effects. The mitigation strategies will reduce or eliminate the effects, and both the residual and cumulative effects are anticipated to be not significant.
21.9 FIGURES
Please see the following pages.
Revision 1 PRGT004776-TC-EN-FM-0001 May 2014 Page 21-37 Tatlatui Lake Fredrikson r Pelly e v Lake r i A e R Thutade Lake iv r g K e R i
iv o S Lake R is n v D A YUKON NORTHWEST e a L iv D N A TERRITORIES
Ko tsi Sustut nta C Lake re S ± e k Bowser k e e Lake n a STIKINE Me ¤£37 R silink iv a R e iv S r REGION e a r " l Peace ly Tutizzi s FORT ! Summit o Start ! River u S Lake " TAYLOR t q Bear Williston ST. BRITISH ALBERTA Lake C r u Point PACIFIC ve in > 0+000 r i g Lake JOHN e R u Lake COLUMBIA e OCEAN e la k in silinka R t R O iv 37A n e PEACE RIVER ¤£ i iv O r ic Bear e m Lynx
S r in REGIONAL r !
Meziadin Lake e HUDSON'S!
e c " Creek v i a
Motase DISTRICT HOPE Lake R R
STEWART i P " a v Lake e Johnson in
n r ")C e
e S Creek R DAWSON h Moberly i A e e v AD e " CAN k d CREEK
50+000 r i > Kuldo n Lake S Germansen " SA C ! U Swan r !
KITIMAT-STIKINE e Landing CHETWYND POUCE e REGIONAL Lake k Dokie !" COUPE Key Plan B ! WASHINGTON 600+000 er a Germansen Siding Extent of Regional Assessment Area 1:30,000,000 DISTRICT iv bin Callazon > R e Lake
a Ri Creek > n v AALL AASSKKAA Borden er Hasler e 100+000 97
Cranberry e ")C ¤£ Flat
Lake 550+000 > k K S r C Junction e ") isp Kispiox v 150+000 M Kitsault i io Azu Ski R x ")C Tsayta u R > Village r s r
a
s i v a Lake y > e
N 650+000 r 450+000 R Kispiox " Bu 500+000 Indata MACKENZIE i rn v Glen Vowell Two > t R e ! i r Mile > Morrison Lake Witter 200+000 k ! ve Nass Camp Fort e r
Morrison e 29
HAZELTON " " NEW HAZELTON r Gitwinksihlkw Babine Lake Lake > ¤£ Gitlaxt'aamiks South Hagwilget Lake Tchentlo C ¤£39
C p ") i
")C l 700+000 Hazelton Lake Chuchi i TUMBLER iver h S > R Leo Lake P u RIDGE " ena ¤£16 k Laxgalts'ap e Natowite Creek un Lava k Kitwanga k Gingolx S ! Kitseguecla 400+000 > M Kloch a Lake Lake id R Cedarvale d Lake i ")C Babine l > 250+000 ve 0+000 e R r Lake iv McLeod Iskeenickh Tochcha e r > Chapman Middle 300+000 Lake d kalum Rive ¤£37 GRANISLE Lake x um r Lake > r m its " ")C River ve . K Driftwood Topley Ri s U.S. e A Middle a r i Creek Fulton Landing nk e r Kitsumkalum > Grand i iv a
! River Carp m R d !" o i Lake Lake 350+000 Rapids H it n p u CANADA SMITHERS Lake a TELKWA Tezzeron o 50+000 " W b _ E Usk Lake l a x Tachie i > s t te BULKLEY-NECHAKO Sunnyside a
Davie p Lax w Pinchi Quick Bear s D i x o n R TERRACE REGIONAL Stuart Lake Lake _
Kw'alaams Thornhill n iv " Donald e Kitsumkalum Wiley Lake o FORT ST. i E n t r a n c e r Perow DISTRICT Lake Great t
Landing a Remo JAMES t Barrett Topley Beaver r r ! North " o e ! p Metlakatla v Ri Lakelse Lake Rose Augier Lake s a " Bulkley n " PRINCE RUPERT en C ke Lakelse a Lake l Lake Lake r S o HOUSTON ! Summit t r Palling
Dodge Cove _ e Lake B !! Wet'suwet'en Village £27 1 R ¤ Lake u PORT EDWARD _ " i c 1 v Decker ")M 16 e k BURNS LAKE M 2 > ¤£ r C Aleza cG _ r Lake T"intagel r s MASSET ee Lake eg n 100+000 Port k Sheraton Salmon o a Willow r r " Khtada Alastair Upper Fraser McGregor R t Essington 35 Fort Valley River iv _ Lake ¤£ To er 1 Lake KITIMAT Endako Braeside rpy 2 " McBride Stellako Fraser Nukko FRASER-FORT R _ Tchesinkut Lake " ive a ! Lake r e Lake " GEORGE REGIONAL _
Morice Tagetochlain FRASER VANDERHOOF 5
r François Lake 5
e r 5 v ive Lake Lake LAKE DISTRICT i R Tachick PRINCE GEORGE " 0
R a 1 l al 16
l D ¤£ _ a Kidprice Nadina Lake t g
! i B
! f s Binta PORT CLEMENTS c o \ Lake Lake w 16 " SKEENA-QUEEN E ¤£ A Lake r Foch o E \ n CHARLOTTE REGIONAL r Hallett s
Lake e Nanika R e
iv r Lake i Cheslatta v u R e
DISTRICT Lake g i
o r
Ootsa f
n Tahtsa Lake \ a 97 s
¤£ i m Lake
Naltesby g
e Lake \ H e c a t e K 5
Glatheli Lake 5
Troitsa 5 16 S t r a i t Red Lake Chief 0 ¤£ Lake Tatuk 1 0 25 50 75 100 km Gamble Knewstubb 1 Bluff Whitesail Louis Lake 3 Coles Fenton Stony 2
Lake Lake 1
Lake Lake CARIBOO \ Lake Lake Lake Lake " Europa Natalkuz M " 1:2,000,000 REGIONAL Isaac E Blanchet \ CENTRAL Lake e
Lake v
VILLAGE OF QUEEN Ahbau Lake i
Lake DISTRICT t CHARLOTTE COAST REGIONAL Tetachuck Lake Bowron Lake c
Lake a \ 1
DISTRICT 3 2 1 \
" p u o r g k City, Town, Village, or Indian Reserves > Kilometre Post ")C Compressor Station r " Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project o Main Airports " w District Municipality ! \ Nisga'a Lands Pipeline Route ! M 4 " ") Metering Station 0 f -
Highway 3
Parks, Protected Areas, Coastal Land Alternative ! Other Airports Regional District Boundary 8
! 1
Road Ecological Reserves, ASSESSMENT AREAS FOR TRANSPORTATION 1 d
Marine Alternative Local Assessment Area C \
and Conservancies \ Railway
Regional Assessment Area Watercourse Waterbody M A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 0
International Boundary TRANSPORTATION : 3 2 : 9
Data Sources: DataBC, Government of British Columbia (GovBC); Terrain Resource Information Management, GovBC; National Topographic System, GovBC; BC Stats, GovBC; BC Oil & Gas Commission, GovBC; DATE: 20-MAR-14 PROJECTION: BC ENVIRONMENTAL ALBERS DRAWN BY: A. BOONE FIGURE NO: -
CanVec v12, Government of Canada (GC); National Hydrology Network, GC; Atlas of Canada National Framework, GC; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, GC; Environmental Canada; Natural Resources Canada; 4 1
TransCanada Corporation; UniversalPegasus International; IntecSea; Focus Corporation 0 2 /
Disclaimer: Contains information licensed under the Open Government License - British Columbia, Canada. Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used 0
FIGURE ID: 123110628 DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 CHECKED BY: M. RHYMER 2
21-1 / to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 3 x l kw go u Subset Map 21-4 in n i G X Ks iver >! Nass R Iskeenickh Nass ") Ks >! Bay gy K 0+000 >! uk 730+000 s >! w i sa H >! >! ' l t A g ± >! i le >! n n x I k 0+000 d ee 0+000 n Cr la rs rt be o m P ha C>! >! 10+000 0+000 20+000 >! Nasoga Gulf 10+000 WINTER INLET >! CONSERVANCY k WALES HARBOUR e 20+000 mas e CONSERVANCY An r X' C >! si th Steamer K o T KSI X' m MANZANITA COVE a A Passage la ANMAAS h CONSERVANCY a CONSERVANCY a t C 30+000 r e >! e k KHUTZEYMATEEN INLET CONSERVANCY
40+000 ek re ! Emma C > KHUTZEYMATEEN se Kateen River Passage U ou n INLET WEST M io n CONSERVANCY C re e k k ree k C e La arm e r C ZUMTELA BAY r ch C C 50+000 CONSERVANCY r r a ee >! d k LAX KWAXL/DUNDAS e KTS'MKTA'ANI/UNION C AND MELVILLE k LAKE CONSERVANCY e ISLANDS CONSERVANCY re C ne ha cs Chatham M ToonR Sound Work iver >! 60+000 Channel G THULME FALLS e o rg CONSERVANCY e to T w hu n lm C e re R e iv k er ek 70+000 re >! r C lve Si ek re C n KHYEX io ar CONSERVANCY WOODWORTH LAKE M CONSERVANCY >! Subset Map 21-3 80+000 ek re >! ^ " L C PRINCE RUPERT ac n hm de a Ar ^ ek ch Alternate Routes Cre R KSGAXL/STEPHENS LUCY ISLANDS se iv xRiver ni r e ye ISLANDS CONSERVANCY De e r h iv R K
CONSERVANCY a ^ iy
o
l K Kw in i 90+000 ts a C PORT re >! e
16 k
¤£ ^
EDWARD
^ "
SKEENA BANK
CONSERVANCY S k
e ^ ") e na 110+000 >! Metering K R h iv t e a ^ ^ r d Station a >! 100+000 R
E i S v
e c c r s o t
t a i l a l R R iv ECSTALL-SPOKSUUT i v e e r CONSERVANCY r
KENNEDY ISLAND
K HTADA LAKE CONSERVANCY C ONSERVANCY
" Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project
MARINE NAVIGATION
")
^^
")
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
Data Sources:
Disclaimer: 21-2
S S1/ 21/2 TSSIMIMPSPESAEN A2N 2
WOODWORTH LAKE CONSERVANCY 400000 TUGWELL 405000 410000 415000 420000 ISLAND 21 S 1/2 Salt Lake TSIMPSEAN 2
TUGWELL S 1/2 Shawatlan Lake ISLAND 21 TSIMPSEAN 2 16 SHOOWAHTLANS
0 4 0
0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0
2 80+000 2 0 PRINCE 0 6 > S 1/2 " 6 TSIMPSEAN 2 RUPERT WILNASKANCAUD 3 ±
^
r ! ¤£16 Oliver Lake 0 0
0 85+000 0 0 0
5 5 1 > 1 0 0 6 6 Morse Basin Nass
^ Bay Chatham Sound ¤£16
P o r 90+000 p o i 0 > 0 s
0 15A e 0
0 0 H 0 0
1 a 1
0 r 0 b 6 6 o u r Alwyn PORT Lake EDWARD
" Porpoise Lake ^ l ^ e n n a h C e s i o 95+000 p r o > P 15B ") Inve rness P assage 0 0 0 0
0 C h a t h a m 0 5 > 110+000 5 0 S o u n d 0
0 0 ^ 6 C h a t h a m 6 S o u n d ^ ^ Ts um T 100+000 sa da i I > nl 15C et 105+000 >
DASHKEN 22
KSGAXL/STEPHENS 0 0 0 0
ISLANDS 0 0 0 0
CONSERVANCY 0 0 0 0 6 6 Bremner Lake
SKEENA BAN K
CONSERVAN CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 9 9 9 9 5 5
EDYE 93
400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
" ") Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project
r
!
KENNEDY MARINE NAVIGATION ^^
ISLAND CONSERVANCY
SUBSET MAP 21-3
>
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
Data Sources:
Disclaimer: 21-3
GITXAALA NII LUUTIKSM/KITKATLA CONSERVANCY 425000 430000 435000 440000 445000 ± 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 9 9 0 0 6 6
0 0+000 0 0 0
0 Nass 0
0 > 0 9 Bay 9 0 0+000 0 6 6 > 0+000 0+000 > > 0+000 0+000 > > Iceberg > 5+000 Bay
5+000 > 5+000 0 0
0 > 0 0 0 5 5 8 8 0 0 6 6
Nasoga 20+000 Gulf 0+000 > > 15+000 > 10+000 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 6 6 5+000 >
> 10+000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 7 0 0 6 6
>
>
Alternate Routes
0 0
KNAMES 0 0
0 0 45 0 0 KNAMES 7 7 0 46 0 6 6 KSI X'
ANMAAS
CONSERVANCY
Steamer
Passage
425000 430000 435000 440000 445000
KHUTZEYMATEEN INLET CONSERVANCY
Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project
MARINE NAVIGATION
SUBSET MAP 21-4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
Data Sources:
Disclaimer: 21-4
Tatlatui Lake Fredrikson r Pelly e v Lake r i e R Thutade Lake iv r g e R i
iv o Lake R is n v D e a iv D N
Ko tsi Sustut nta C Lake re S e k Bowser k e e Lake n ± a Me ¤£37 R silink iv a R e iv S r e a r " l Peace ly Tutizzi o s FORT (! Summit o River u S Lake " TAYLOR t q Bear Williston ST. Lake C r u ve in >! r i g Lake JOHN e R Lake e u 16 e l 16 k a (! in silinka R 21 t R O iv ! 37A n e ( i ¤£ iv O r ic Bear e m HUDSON'S Lynx
S r in r (!
Lake e
Meziadin e c HOPE " Creek v i a
Motase R R Johnson
Lake i P " a v
Lake e in n Moberly DAWSON STEWART r Creek ")C e 1 e S 15 R CREEK (! h Lake i ! v e ( e e " k d i >! r Kuldo n S Germansen Moberly Lake o" C (! Swan r
e Landing POUCE COUPE e Lake k CHETWYND(!"(!Ã B er a Germansen ALBERTA iv bin Callazon 14 Dokie >! R e Lake (!
a Ri Creek >! Siding n ve AALL AASSKKAA Cranberry Junction r Hasler e 97
e ")C ¤£ Flat
>! k Borden K S r C e ") isp v Lake M Kitsault i 2 io R (! x ")C Kispiox Tsayta u 19 R >! r s 19 r
a s (! i v Azu a Lake y >! e MACKENZIE N r " Ski Village Bu R Kitwancool Lake Kispiox Indata i rn v Glen Vowell >! à t R e A >! Morrison Lake (!(! iv r A Nass Camp HAZELTONTwo Mile Witter er . D South Fort 29 S Gitwinksihlkw " Ã" Lake Lake >! 18 ¤£ . A Gitlaxt'aamiks Hazelton (! NEW HAZELTON Babine Tchentlo (! U N C Takla k 20 Hagwilget ") ")C e Chuchi e TUMBLER A (! Morrison Lake r er 6 Lake S v C C >! Ri (! Leo Lake u RIDGE " d a 16 Lake x n p k e ¤£ i u l e Natowite Creek i Laxgalts'ap Lava k n m . Gingolx S Kitwanga Kloch h k (! >! M a e Kitseguecla P Lake Cedarvale Lake id R r d u Iskeenickh Lake i t C Babine l >! ve ") c e r R McLeod u Lake Tochcha iv Middle r e Inzana t >! 37 Chapman r Lake s ¤£ Lake River a Lake r mkalum River 7 GRANISLE ! r f u 7 Lake > n its (! Driftwood " ")C ive i U. K R _ S.A 3 Creek Topley Middle Grand a r n 4 k e o ! Fulton >! n i (! ( i v t o Landing Rapids m i (!" River Carp R a Lake o ti t H i r Trembleur Tezzeron p CANADA SMITHERS Lake a o TELKWA Lake 13 p " Lake (! W s n
E Sunnyside a Usk 9 r >! x 9 t s ! ( _ t e Tachie r Lax w Cunningham i Quick Pinchi Davie a D i x o n R Kitsumkalum TERRACE Stuart _ Kw'alaams d iv " Donald Lake Lake Bear Lake e Thornhill Perow Lake Lake n E n t r a n c e r Remo Topley a
Landing _ l o North Bulkley Wiley i Rose a er (! " FORT ST. JAMES Great r PRINMCeEtla RkUatPlaERT iv Barrett Augier _ Dodge na R Lakelse "8 Lake d " ee Lakelse C (! Beaver a
k o l Lake Palling Lake Cove S Lake o HOUSTON (! r r o Lake Taltapin Lake _ e B (! Wet'suwet'en Village £27 5 R ¤ u PORT EDWARD Decker Lake Lake _ " i c 1 v Summit Lake ")M ¤£16 5 e k Maxan M 2 >! (! r C Decker Lake Aleza cG _ r Lake " Tintagel r s MASSET ee Lake eg n Port k BURNS o a 11 Nukko Willow r r " Khtada Alastair (!11 Upper McGregor R t Essington LAKE Sheraton Fort Chief Lake 97 River iv _ Lake ¤£ To er 1 Lake KITIMAT Endako Braeside Lake Fraser rpy 2 " McBride Tchesinkut 10 Fraser Salmon Valley R _ (! " ive a Lake Stellako (! r e Lake " _
Morice Tagetochlain FRASER VANDERHOOF 5
r François Lake 5
e r 5 v ive Lake Lake LAKE i R Tachick PRINCE GEORGE " 0
R a 1 l al 16 l D ¤£ o _ a Kidprice Nadina Lake t 12 g (! i B s Binta (! f c o \ Lake Lake w 16 " E ¤£ A Lake r PORT CLEMENTS Foch o E \ n r Hallett s
Lake e Nanika R e
iv r Lake i Cheslatta v u R e
Lake g i
o r
Ootsa f
n Tahtsa Lake \
a s
i m Lake
Naltesby g
e Lake \ H e c a t e K 5
Glatheli Lake 5
Troitsa 5 16 S t r a i t Red Lake Chief SQUAMISH/SURREY 0 ¤£ Lake Tatuk 1 0 25 50 75 100 km Gamble Knewstubb 1 Bluff Whitesail Louis Lake 3 Coles Fenton Stony 2
Lake Lake 1
Lake Lake \ Lake Lake Lake Lake " Europa Natalkuz M " 1:2,000,000 Eutsuk Isaac E Blanchet \
Lake e
Lake Lake v
VILLAGE OF QUEEN Ahbau Lake i
Lake t CHARLOTTE Tetachuck Lake Bowron Lake c
Lake a \ 1 3 2 1 \
" p u o r g k City, Town, Village, or Indian Reserves >! Kilometre Post C Compressor Station à r
") o " (! Potential Rail Siding Site o Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Main Airport " w District Municipality (! \ Nisga'a Lands Pipeline Route M 4 " ") Metering Station Rail Network 0 f -
Highway ! Other Airport 3 Parks, Protected Areas, Coastal Land Alternative Access Road ( 8 1
Road Ecological Reserves, ROAD, RAIL, AND AIR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 1 Highway Segment d
Marine Alternative C \
and Conservancies \ Railway
Watercourse Waterbody M P
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9 0
International Boundary TRANSPORTATION : 3 2 : 4
Data Sources: DataBC, Government of British Columbia (GovBC); Terrain Resource Information Management, GovBC; National Topographic System, GovBC; BC Stats, GovBC; BC Oil & Gas Commission, GovBC; DATE: 19-MAR-14 PROJECTION: BC ENVIRONMENTAL ALBERS DRAWN BY: R. COATTA FIGURE NO: -
CanVec v12, Government of Canada (GC); National Hydrology Network, GC; Atlas of Canada National Framework, GC; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, GC; Environmental Canada; Natural Resources Canada; 4 1
TransCanada Corporation; UniversalPegasus International; IntecSea; Focus Corporation 0 2 /
Disclaimer: Contains information licensed under the Open Government License - British Columbia, Canada. Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used 9
FIGURE ID: 123110628 DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 CHECKED BY: M. RHYMER 1
21-5 / to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 3