Project number: 4325 Revision: 4 December 21, 2010

SWIFT CREEK PIPELINE REMEDIATION

SCREENING LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. 300 5th Avenue SW Suite 2700 Calgary, AB T2P 5J2

Prepared by:

1326 McGill Rd. Kamloops, BC V2C 6N6 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Disclaimer

This report is rendered solely for the use of Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.in connection with the Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation Project, and no person may rely on it for any other purpose without Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd.’s prior written approval. Should a third party use this report without Triton’s approval, they may not rely upon it. Triton accepts no responsibility for loss or damages suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report. The objective of this report is to provide a screening level environmental assessment based on baseline information regarding aquatic habitat, channel morphology, terrestrial wildlife, vegetation, and archaeological resources. The screening level environmental assessment will be used as the basis for regulatory agency approvals of the proposed Project on behalf of Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. This report is based on facts and opinions contained within the referenced documents and Project background information. We have attempted to identify and consider relevant facts and documents pertaining to the scope of work, as of the time period during which we conducted this analysis. However, our opinions may change if new information is available or if information we have relied on is altered. We applied accepted professional practices and standards in developing and interpreting data obtained by our field measurement, sampling and observation. While we used accepted professional practices in interpreting data provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc or third party sources we did not verify the accuracy of data provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. or third party sources. This report should be considered as a whole and selecting only portions of the report for reliance may create a misleading view of our opinions.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page i Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Disclaimer ...... i 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Project Information ...... 2 2.1 Project Stakeholders and Contacts ...... 2 2.2 Purpose of Project ...... 2 2.3 Location ...... 2 2.4 Project Description ...... 3 2.4.1 Site Access ...... 3 2.4.2 Site Isolation ...... 3 2.4.3 Pipeline Natural Hazard Remediation ...... 3 2.4.4 Habitat Mitigation ...... 4 2.4.5 Reclamation ...... 4 2.5 Alternatives to Project ...... 4 2.5.1 Suppressed Rock Layer (selected option) ...... 4 2.5.2 Cable Tied Concrete Mats ...... 5 2.5.3 Cable Tied Rock Drops ...... 5 2.5.4 Aerial Crossing ...... 5 2.5.5 Pipeline Lowering ...... 5 2.5.6 Crossing Replacement ...... 6 2.5.7 Horizontal Directional Drill ...... 6 2.6 Project Timing ...... 6 3.0 Scope of Project ...... 7 3.1 Project Components ...... 7 3.2 Scope of Assessment...... 7 3.3 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ...... 8 4.0 Environmental Setting ...... 10 4.1 Aquatic Environment ...... 10 4.1.1 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 10 4.1.2 Channel Morphology ...... 13 4.1.3 Channel Morphology Changes ...... 14 4.2 Terrestrial Environment ...... 15 4.2.1 Plant Species at Risk ...... 16 4.2.2 Ecological Communities at Risk ...... 19 4.2.3 Vegetation and Ecological Communities ...... 20 4.2.4 Wildlife Species at Risk ...... 25 4.2.5 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 26 4.3 Archaeological Resources ...... 27 5.0 Habitat Mitigation ...... 28 6.0 Potential Environmental Effects Assessment ...... 29 6.1 Vegetation ...... 29 6.2 Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat ...... 29 6.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 29 7.0 Cumulative Effects ...... 37

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page ii Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

8.0 Environmental Protection Plan ...... 38 8.1 Mitigation Plans ...... 38 8.1.1 Vegetation Removal ...... 38 8.1.2 Fish Salvage ...... 39 8.1.3 Site Isolation ...... 40 8.1.4 Work in and Around Water...... 41 8.1.5 Idle Reduction ...... 43 8.1.6 Waste Disposal...... 44 8.1.7 Fuel and Hazardous Material Storage and Handling ...... 44 8.1.8 Spill Response ...... 44 8.1.9 Environmental Monitoring...... 48 9.0 Conclusions ...... 49 10.0 References ...... 50

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Project phases/components ...... 7 Table 2 Potential Project Environment Interaction Matrix ...... 9 Table 3 Fish species at risk ...... 11 Table 4 Plant species at risk ...... 17 Table 5 Ecological communities at risk ...... 20 Table 6 Species list compiled for assessment area ...... 22 Table 7 Wildlife species at risk ...... 25 Table 8 Potential environmental effects analysis ...... 31

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Small stream Chinook HSI curves ...... 15

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I Project Overview Map Appendix II Isolation Plan Appendix III Proposed Project Design Appendix IV Habitat Mitigation Design Appendix V River 2D Modelling Results Appendix VI Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) Appendix VII Spill Reporting Form

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page iii Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

1.0 Introduction

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. (Triton) was retained by Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) to undertake a Screening Level Environmental Assessment (EA) as part of proposed natural hazard remediation works associated with the Swift Creek pipeline crossing, in Valemount. The environmental assessment will provide baseline information on aquatic habitat, channel morphology, terrestrial wildlife, vegetation and archaeological resources within the Project area. The EA will form the basis for regulatory agency notifications and approvals.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 1 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

2.0 Project Information

2.1 Project Stakeholders and Contacts The following is a list of the key Project stakeholders and contacts: Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. - Owner  Bob Zeleny P.Eng., Senior Project Engineer  Jason Turner, R.P.Bio. Environmental, Health & Safety Coordinator  Donna Ferguson, Lands & Right of Way  Eugene Yaremko, P.Eng. Design (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants) Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. - Environmental Assessment  Jason Dorey, AScT, R.P.Bio., Project Manager  Bob Costerton, P.Eng. BC Rivers Consulting (sub consultant)  Tina Donald, Simpcw First Nation (sub consultant) Landowners  Roger Hicks (private landholder)  Jack Osadchuck, (Tomcat Enterprises) Yellowhead Campground First Nations  Patricia Wight, Lheidli T’enneh First Nation  Sam Phillips, Simpcw First Nation

2.2 Purpose of Project KMC, operator of the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC ("Trans Mountain") is planning to conduct natural hazard remediation work at the crossing of Swift Creek near Valemount BC. The 24-inch (609.6 mm) diameter pipeline transports crude and refined hydrocarbons from Edmonton, Alberta to the coast of British Columbia and points in Washington State. The Trans Mountain pipeline crossing of Swift Creek is becoming exposed. The top of the river weights over the pipeline are currently exposed and remediation works are required to restore depth of cover over the existing pipeline crossing to avoid potential damage to the pipeline crossing. The proposed natural hazard remediation works will provide long term erosion protection for the pipeline crossing.

2.3 Location The proposed Project is located in Valemount, BC within the Trans Mountain Pipeline right of way (RoW) at approximately KP 496.5 where the pipeline intersects Swift Creek (Appendix I). The crossing site is located at UTM 11U 345896 Easting 5856608 Northing. The crossing site can be accessed via the Trans Mountain RoW from the south off Pine Road and from the north

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 2 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

off Highway 5. The proposed remediation works will require access from both directions. Primary access will be from the north side.

2.4 Project Description The proposed natural hazard remediation works consist of 5 phases of construction:  Site Access  Site Isolation  Pipeline Natural Hazard Remediation  Habitat Mitigation  Reclamation Details of each of the above mentioned phases are provided below.

2.4.1 Site Access Approximately 600 m of the RoW will require intermittent improvements to accommodate truck traffic. The creation of 30 x 20 m of temporary work space set back 30-40 m south of the crossing will be required to provide a truck turn around, and temporary storage for materials required for construction. Intermittent improvements to approximately 500 m of the RoW and creation of 15 x 25 m of temporary work space will also be required on the north side. These improvements will involve placement of aggregate along the existing tote roads, clearing of vegetation, and removal of danger trees. Approximately 18 m of riparian vegetation within the RoW along the north and south banks of Swift Creek will be removed to facilitate access for the placement of bank armouring and construction.

2.4.2 Site Isolation Prior to instream work, stream flow will be isolated and bypassed around the active construction area. The area to be dewatered will be isolated with fish exclusion fences and fish will be salvaged out of the area prior to dewatering. Water bypass will likely consist of a combination of setting mega bags and pumps depending on the discharge. The site isolation plan is outlined in Appendix II and will consist of 2 phases of isolation from left bank to right bank as construction progresses. Bypass water will be directed along the perimeter of the construction area. Diffusers will be utilized to mitigate potential stream bed scour. Seepage into the dewatered area will be pumped into the vegetated areas to the south of the pipeline crossing. Approximately 15 x 3 m of riparian vegetation will be cleared to accommodate the pump grouping and 20 x 3 m along an existing trail will require clearing for equipment access.

2.4.3 Pipeline Natural Hazard Remediation Pipeline natural hazard remediation works are outlined in Appendix III and consist of a suppressed rock layer, concrete cover weights, anchor blocks and bank armouring. After site isolation the existing material within the construction footprint will be excavated and the pipeline exposed. Existing concrete weights and intermediate steel protection would be removed and the

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 3 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

pipeline would be inspected. After inspection the pipe would be re-coated. Concrete cover weights and anchor systems will be installed along with back fill of rip rap material. Final bank armouring with rip rap will be done after instream works are completed.

2.4.4 Habitat Mitigation Instream habitat enhancement structures are proposed in order to mitigate short term impacts of construction and temporary loss of riparian habitat. Three large woody debris (LWD) structures, 3 boulder structures and boulder placement are proposed to improve the quality of the instream habitat in and around the pipeline crossing. Construction will require LWD and boulder placement within the stream channel (Appendix IV). Access will be from the north side of the pipeline crossing.

2.4.5 Reclamation Top dressing of stream banks and re contouring disturbed areas will follow construction. Temporary erosion protection measures (straw/mulch) will be implemented post construction. Riparian planting and seeding will follow in the spring prior to the growing season as construction is proposed for the late fall early winter when planting conditions are unsuitable (frozen ground/snow).

2.5 Alternatives to Project Northwest Hydraulic Consultants provided a design brief for 7 potential mitigation options: 1. Suppressed rock layer 2. Cable tied concrete mats 3. Cable tied rock drops 4. Aerial crossing 5. Pipeline lowering 6. Crossing replacement 7. Horizontal directional drill (HDD) A brief summary of each potential option is provided in the following sections. Option 1 was selected for the combination of construction footprint, potential environmental impacts and lifetime.

2.5.1 Suppressed Rock Layer (selected option) The design option proposed for the Project was the suppressed rock layer. This option has minimal impacts to the existing streambed level and bed profile. Channel complexity through the crossing has been incorporated in the design with the use of protruding boulders and provision of a thalweg for fish passage. The construction footprint of this option is minimal, mostly limited to the pipeline RoW and a small area dewatered upstream in the natural scour trough for pump installation and downstream for habitat mitigation works. The disturbance to

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 4 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Swift Creek would be short term (< 3 weeks). Significant changes to stream channel morphology are not anticipated. This option would be long term solution.

2.5.2 Cable Tied Concrete Mats This option would maintain the existing streambed level and bed profile. Construction materials are manufactured and although voids likely recruit river gravel the final look would still look unnatural. This option is difficult to install to ensure integrity through flood events. The construction footprint of this option is minimal limited to the pipeline RoW and the disturbance to Swift Creek would be short term (< 3 weeks). Significant changes to stream channel morphology are not anticipated. The uniform profile of the cable tied concrete mats makes it difficult to maintain fish passage over the structure at all flow regimes. This option may require maintenance to ensure long term pipeline integrity following flood events.

2.5.3 Cable Tied Rock Drops This option would raise the streambed level over the pipeline crossing to provide pipe protection. Natural materials would be used to create a series of downstream step weirs to recruit sediment over the pipeline crossing. Unrestricted fish passage upstream of the pipeline crossing would be difficult to maintain as a series of drops would be created. The construction footprint of this option is larger than options 1 and 2 as the downstream habitat modification (rock weirs) is required to gain the elevation over the pipeline crossing. This option may require routine maintenance to ensure the integrity of the downstream rock weirs.

2.5.4 Aerial Crossing This option would avoid direct impact with instream fish habitat. Temporary work space and construction access requirements to install this option would be significantly larger than options 1-3 and would result in the permanent loss of riparian habitat and terrestrial vegetation in and adjacent to the crossing and RoW. The visual impact of the crossing would be noticeable for users of the Yellowhead Campground (upstream) and private landowner (downstream). Exposing the pipeline crossing would also create the risk of third-party action (vandalism). This option would be a long term solution.

2.5.5 Pipeline Lowering This option would likely result in the temporary loss of spawning habitat upstream of the crossing due to construction. Temporary work space and construction access requirements to install this option would be significantly larger than options 1-3 and would result in the temporary loss of riparian habitat and terrestrial vegetation in and adjacent to the crossing and RoW. This option would require the pipeline to be shut in and create the added risk of exposing a significant amount of pipeline on either side of the Swift Creek crossing. Pipeline lowering also introduces additional strain to the pipeline, which increases the level of operating risks. This option would be a long term solution.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 5 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

2.5.6 Crossing Replacement This option would be considered a long term solution. Temporary work space and construction access requirements would be similar to option 5. This option would require the pipeline to be shut in and necessitates of exposing a significant amount of pipeline on either side of the Swift Creek crossing. Temporary work space and construction access requirements to install this option would be significantly larger than options 1-3 and would result in the temporary loss of riparian habitat and terrestrial vegetation in and adjacent to the crossing and RoW. As with Option 5 this solution would be a major undertaking.

2.5.7 Horizontal Directional Drill This option would be considered a long term solution. Temporary work space and construction access requirements would be similar to option 4. Swift Creek in the area of the pipeline crossing is part of an alluvial fan. The observed character of the surface material in the area and upstream of Valemount indicates gravels to large boulders. The depth of this material could be considerable at the crossing and attempting to HDD the crossing in these circumstances will typically present challenges with respect the risk of encountering large boulders. As well, this material will invite ‘frac-outs’ which would result in movement of drilling mud upwards into the channel. This crossing method at this location would have a higher than acceptable risk of failure. This option would be a major undertaking.

2.6 Project Timing Construction is proposed for October/November of 2011. This construction window occurs outside the proposed fisheries instream work windows for Swift Creek (July 15-August 15). Two reasons were chosen for proposing construction outside the recognized instream construction work window. The first reason was that the timing window coincides with chinook salmon spawning migration. Construction methodology requires partial and alternating isolation within Swift Creek, which could potentially disrupt chinook migration. The second reason is that the discharge within Swift Creek would likely range within the 5-8 m3/s range, which presents added risk to a majority of the site isolation methodologies. Construction during the October/November window would likely have discharges ranging from 1-2 m3/s, which is within a range successfully managed with most site isolation methods. Finally, potential chinook spawning habitat was not identified within the active construction footprint and impacts related to instream construction can be effectively mitigated with standard best management practices to avoid negative impacts to upstream and downstream spawning areas.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 6 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

3.0 Scope of Project

3.1 Project Components The scope of the Project consists of Project phases and associated components. These phases and components are based on the proposed Project description and standard construction approach for removal of the existing structures and installation of the replacement structures. Anticipated phases and components are provided below in Table 1.

Table 1 Project phases/components

PROJECT PHASES/ DESCRIPTION COMPONENTS Site Access: - RoW clearing Removal of vegetation, organic debris and organic soil along the RoW tote road/pipeline crossing. - Tote road upgrade Placement aggregate to improve running surface of RoW tote road. - Temporary work space Removal of vegetation and placement of aggregate within temporary work space. Natural Hazard Remediation: - Site isolation Install a fish spawning exclusion fence. Bypass water around half of the construction site at a time and contain workspace. - Excavation Sub excavate pipeline crossing within Swift Creek exposing the pipeline, repair as required. Remove existing concrete weights and inspect pipeline. - Materials placement Install concrete cover weights/anchors and place rock armouring around pipe. - Rip rap bank armouring Placement of rip rap armour along left and right banks. Habitat Mitigation: - LWD structures Install 3 LWD structures along the right bank downstream of the pipeline crossing. - Boulder clusters Install 3 boulder clusters downstream of the pipeline crossing Reclamation: - Erosion protection Straw/mulch areas within riparian area that could potentially be prone to erosion. - Riparian Planting Plant riparian area with trees and shrubs.

3.2 Scope of Assessment Potential impacts arising from constructing the crossing are considered and assigned into three categories of potential environmental impacts. The first category includes potential impacting

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 7 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

activities where no environmental impact is anticipated. The second category includes potential impacting activities that can be mitigated during construction, operation, and maintenance through the implementation of standard “best management practices” (BMPs). The third category includes potential impacting activities that will have a direct impact on the aquatic environment and require a detailed analysis of environmental effect, discussion of proposed mitigation, and assessment of potential residual impact. Table 2 provides a matrix that identifies potential impacting activities with reference to specific environmental components within the Project area.

3.3 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries The spatial and temporal boundaries of the environmental assessment screening take into consideration the zone of influence of each component of the Project, beyond which Project effects are expected to be undetectable. Temporal boundaries consider the length of time (short term/long term) over which construction and operations-related effects of the Project are expected to occur. Construction related temporal boundaries are short term with construction taking approximately 3 weeks and reclamation over a year. Operations effects would also be short term and limited to vegetation management. Maintenance of the instream crossing is not anticipated in the short term (<20 years). Effects associated with decommissioning have not been included in the scope of this assessment as the pipeline crossing expected to be operational for the foreseeable future.

Spatial boundaries for the environmental assessment screening are defined below:  Fish and Fish Habitat - 100 m upstream and downstream of the pipeline RoW  Channel Morphology - 3 km upstream and 1 km downstream of the pipeline RoW  Terrestrial Environment - 50 m either side of pipeline RoW 600 m south and 500 m north of Swift Creek  Archaeological Resources - 50 m either side of pipeline RoW 600 m south and 500 m north of Swift Creek

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 8 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Table 2 Potential Project Environment Interaction Matrix

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS

DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT INDIRECT ENV. EFFECTS

PROJECT PHASES / OTHER Land Water Air Natural Systems Socio-Economic Cultural COMPONENTS

y y y

y 3 d

k

y y

r r r r avigation Relate avigation Soil Qualit Sediments Stability Erosion / Slope Othe Water Surface Quantit Water Surface Groundwater Qualit Groundwater Quantit Regime Wind/Wave Air Qualit Change Climate Othe Vegetation Wetlands at Ris Species Migratory Birds Habitat Wildlife / Wildlife Fish and Fish Habitat Othe Safet / Human Health N Land Use Othe Physical and Cultural Use Aboriginal Historical / Acoustic environment Vibration Terrain and Topography Site Access: - RoW clearing M M M MME - Tote road upgrade M M - Temporary work space M M E ME Pipeline Protection: - Site isolation M M - Excavation M M - Materials placement M E M - Rip rap bank armouring M M E Habitat Mitigation: - LWD structures M M M - Boulder clusters M M M Reclamation: - Erosion protection M - Riparian Planting M= impact avoided or mitigated with standard best management practices; E= detailed effects assessment required to determine residual impact

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 9 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

4.0 Environmental Setting

4.1 Aquatic Environment Swift Creek (WSC 100907400-60700) is a tributary to the McLennan River (WSC 100-907400), which lies within the Upper Fraser River watershed. The Swift Creek basin is part of the Selwyn Range and drains approximately 132 km2 westward into the McLennan River (Makowecki & Yaremko, 1997). The Project area lies in the lower 2 km of the drainage approximately 0.8 km downstream of the Highway 5 bridge crossing. This section will provide information on fish and fish habitat, background hydrology and fluvial geomorphology for the Project Area.

4.1.1 Fish and Fish Habitat

4.1.1.1 Background Fisheries Data Historical fisheries data indicate that rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) are present within the watershed (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1992; Makowecki & Yaremko, 1997; and Fishwizard, 2010). The Fish Habitat Inventory and Information Program summarizes that the potential spawning area for chinook salmon in the Swift Creek watershed was estimated at 17,732 m2 and the mean escapement between 1980 and 1989 was 857 chinook salmon (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1992). Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2010) escapement data from 2000 to 2009 indicates a mean escapement of 710 chinook salmon. Maximum escapement over both periods was approximately 1500 chinook salmon. Chinook salmon are known to spawn from the mouth of Swift Creek downstream (2 km) of the Project area to above the Village of Valemount water intake upstream (2 km) of the Project area. Incidental occurrences (2 fish) of sockeye salmon were documented in the 1980’s (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1992).

4.1.1.2 Fish Species at Risk The BC Species and Ecosystem Explorer website was queried for species at risk by Forest District, BEC zone designations SBSdh1, BC conservation list (red, blue, yellow), and legal designation (Federal species at risk (SARA), provincial identified wildlife, Provincial Wildlife Act) in order to identify fish species at risk that may have critically important habitat units within the Project area. The search resulted in the identification of 5 fish species (Table 3). Bull trout was the only species at risk identified as present within the Project area. Swift Creek potentially contains both fluvial and resident bull trout populations.

The primary concerns for the fluvial population would be maintaining access for spawning migration upstream of the Project areas as well as maintaining potential rearing and overwintering habitat. It is unlikely that the proposed Project would negatively impact potential spawning habitat for resident or fluvial bull trout or result in a loss of potential rearing or overwintering habitat. Migration of adults and juveniles will not be negatively impacted by the Project.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 10 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Table 3 Fish species at risk Species COSEWIC BC Identified Occurrence Rationale Status Wildlife in study area coho salmon (Oncorhynchus E (May 2002) Yellow No None Outside of historical range. kisutch) Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) na Blue No None Outside of historical range. bull trout na Blue Yes Present Documented in watershed. cutthroat trout lewisi subspecies SC (Nov 2006) Blue Yes None Outside historical range. (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) white sturgeon upper Fraser population (Acipenser E (Nov 2003) Red No None Outside historical range. transmontanus pop. 5)

4.1.1.3 Fish Species of Management Concern Fish species of management concern include federally and provincially managed “sport” fish and species listed as at risk. Within the Project area four species of management concern were identified:

 Rainbow trout  Bull trout  Chinook salmon  Sockeye salmon

All of the above-listed species are known or have the potential to occur within the Project area. Their potential occurrence ranges from unlikely (transient) to present and is dependent on the fish habitat at within the Project area. The potential for sockeye salmon occurrence within the Project area would be considered low and likely transient should sockeye enter Swift Creek during Project construction or over the lifetime of the structure. Rainbow trout, chinook salmon and bull trout will likely be present during construction and throughout the lifetime of the structure. Potential concerns for bull trout were identified in Section 4.1.1.2.

The primary concerns for chinook salmon would be maintaining spawning migration through the Project area, providing rearing habitat for juveniles, and potential negative impacts to spawning habitat upstream and downstream of the Project area. It is unlikely that the proposed Project would impact spawning migration or result in a loss of potential spawning, rearing or overwintering habitat.

The primary concerns for rainbow trout would be maintaining available rearing and overwintering habitat within the Project area. It is unlikely that the proposed Project would negatively spawning migration or result in a loss of potential spawning, rearing or overwintering habitat.

4.1.1.4 Fish Habitat The fish habitat in and adjacent to the Project area was assessed approximately 100 m upstream and downstream of the existing pipeline crossing. It is not anticipated that the effects of the

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 11 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

proposed Project will extend more than 50 m upstream or downstream of the existing pipeline crossing. Upstream The instream habitat upstream of the existing pipeline right of way was best described as a run type channel morphology with the thalweg along the right bank and a uniform channel bottom rising from a low point along the thalweg to the left bank. Channel slope was approximately 1%. Substrates were comprised of rip rap, large cobble along the right bank decreasing in size to gravel and fines along the left bank margins. Depositional areas were noted along the left bank in behind vegetation and woody debris as well as in the lower velocity areas along the inside of the stream bend. Cover for juveniles were primarily provided by overstream vegetation/small woody debris along the left bank margin and rip rap/large cobble along the right bank margin. Adult cover was present in the form of deep water along the thalweg. Potential chinook spawning habitat was noted approximately 8 m upstream of the existing pipeline right of way in a depositional area along the left bank. Farther upstream patches of suitable chinook spawning substrate were noted along the left bank margin and within pool habitat approximately 100 m upstream. The potential spawning habitat along the left margin may be subject to freezing during winter months due to its position within the stream channel. Overwintering habitat for juvenile and adult trout would be available within the deeper portions of the run and upstream within the pool habitat. Right of Way The instream habitat within the pipeline right of way was best described as cascade/riffle type channel morphology with a channel slope of approximately 7%. Substrates were primarily comprised of boulder and large cobble. Concrete pipe weights were also visible along the surface of the stream bed. At lower flow approximately 2 m3/s (April) the thalweg was in centered in the middle of the stream channel, whereas at higher flow approximately 6 m3/s the thalweg was located to the left side of the stream channel. Cover for juveniles were provided by boulders and large woody debris along channel margins. No potential spawning habitat was identified within the right of way as the substrate composition was too large for resident or anadromous fish species. The large substrates at the crossing provided habitat for primary production as well as offering water velocity breaks for holding or migrating fish. Potential overwintering habitat within the right of way was not observed as pool habitat or adequate water depth (>50 cm) in this section was not observed. Fish migration upstream and downstream of the right of way section was not restricted for juvenile and adult fish species of management concern at approximately 2 m3/s and 6 m3/s. Downstream The instream habitat downstream of the existing pipeline right of way was best described as primarily run type channel morphology with a 1% channel slope and the thalweg through the middle of the channel. Riffle habitat was observed approximately 50 m downstream of the right of way connecting run type habitat with a corner pool. Substrates were comprised of rip rap, large cobble immediately downstream of the right of way and along the right bank. Cobbles and large gravel was noted along the left bank margins. Cover for juveniles were primarily provided by boulders and large cobbles. Adult cover was present in the form of deep water along the thalweg. Potential chinook spawning habitat was noted approximately 70 m downstream of the existing pipeline right of way in the tailout of corner pool. Overwintering habitat for juvenile

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 12 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010 and adult trout would be available within the deeper portions of the run and downstream in pool habitat.

4.1.2 Channel Morphology The overall channel form in this portion of Swift Creek is typical of an alluvial fan. The stream issues from a steep mountain gully and deposits much of its bedload of gravel and cobbles, forming the alluvial fan. Typically, the channel will continue to aggrade until a flood overtops the banks and a channel avulsion occurs, with the stream moving to a new location where the fan is less aggraded. The long channel profile provided by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants suggests a flatter channel slope (deposition zone) near the apex of the fan, a transport reach near the pipeline crossing where deposited sediments are re-worked in a meandering section of the channel. This is accentuated by a further flattening of channel slope upstream of the municipal water intake drop structure, encouraging additional gravel deposition upstream. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants also reports that the channel has been degrading (down-cutting its bed) over the recent decades. This is said to be the cause of the pipe weight exposure at the subject crossing. The Northwest Hydraulic Consultants report indicates the primary cause is the interruption of gravel movement downstream at the municipal water intake. This structure has trapped a considerable amount of gravel and cobble behind the ~2 m high weir which ponds water at the intake. At the time of its construction / raising it would have been effective at trapping the majority of bedload moving downstream near the apex of the alluvial fan, forming a braided section of channel upstream of the intake where bedload exceeds the ability of the stream to transport sediment due to locally reduced channel slope upstream of the water intake weir. Looking at other sites downstream of the water intake there is limited physical evidence of channel degradation. Sites were inspected in May 2010 at the road and rail crossings below the intake, at the highway crossing and at the pipeline crossing. Photos from the road and rail crossings ~100 m downstream of the intake indicate no undermining of riprap on the abutments, no high cutbanks and no other evidence of channel deepening. The same is true of the Hwy 5 crossing, except that there may be slight evidence of these features, which indicate channel degradation estimated at 0.3 m. This is not a large change in light of some natural variability of flood flows and bedload accumulation. This may be in contrast to the natural trend of streambed aggradation on an alluvial fan. On balance, the interruption of gravel input to the reach may change the stream from a naturally aggrading system to one of slight degradation. The extent of this change in morphology depends on the operation of the intake (i.e. the frequency and magnitude of gravel excavation from the channel), and therefore, the ability of the intake weir to interrupt the gravel movement to locations downstream on this alluvial fan. Most intakes of this type are highly effective at intercepting gravel during low to moderate peak flows, but less effective during large floods when bedload may fill the intake pond and some bedload would continue downstream. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants has reviewed the channel degradation from 1986 to 1999 at the Water Survey of Canada streamflow gauge located 2 km upstream of the pipeline crossing. The shift in the lower end of the rating curves (i.e. at zero flow the water level equals the controlling streambed elevation downstream) at this site indicate a lowering of the streambed of approximately 0.20 m over 13 years. This average of 1.5 cm / year would result in channel

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 13 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

degradation of approximately 0.30 m over the past 20 years. This is consistent with the observable channel degradation of up to 0.30 m. At the pipeline crossing the history indicates that the streambed has lowered somewhat since the line was constructed in 1952. KMC have reported that this has occurred more in the past decade with approximately 6 pipe weights exposed pre-2010. The landowner reported that these same pipe weights were exposed ten years ago and some weights were exposed as early as the 1980s. Despite some variability in site observations over time (not surprising given the natural variability of stream flow and deposition on an alluvial fan) the picture seems to be one of only slight streambed degradation over the past 20 years. Based on all the physical evidence, an assumption of recent historic channel degradation of up to 0.3 m (i.e. 0.0 to 0.3 m) over the past 20 years is reasonable. Given that the municipal water intake weir captured a great deal of bedload following its construction and would now be capable of reduced gravel interception, future channel degradation rates may be comparable to, or less than, historic rates. Therefore, assuming an upper limit for future channel degradation of 0.3 m over 20 years is conservative, and the actual amount may be in the 0.0 to 0.3 m range. Even the maximum value in this range can easily be accommodated with the existing riprap sill design, without compromising the structure stability or fish passage. Two meander loop cutoffs downstream may have played a smaller role, and account for part of the channel degradation at the pipeline crossing. These would have created locally steeper channel slopes, encouraging downcutting upstream, deposition downstream and localized bank erosion until a regime (stable) slope was reestablished.

4.1.3 Channel Morphology Changes The sill is proposed to be raised by up to 0.3 m (from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants drawing and CAD file) over the existing situation. This will encourage the deposition of smaller material on the streambed upstream of the pipeline / sill. The current bed material has a D50 of approximately 15 cm. The bed may aggrade up to 0.3 m, tapering down to nothing within approximately 100 m of the crossing. The D50 may decrease to approximately 10 cm based on water velocity modeling by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants at channel forming flows of 24 m3/s (Appendix V). This may encourage more extensive spawning area similar to that seen 8 m upstream of the pipeline in the slower water along the left bank. The potential decrease in D50 size to 10 cm would lie well within the preferred spawning substrate size range for small stream Chinook. No negative impacts of such deposits are known / anticipated. The Northwest Hydraulic Consultants River2D modelling results indicate that the predicted depth and velocity contours upstream of the crossing at 3 m3/s (approximate spawning discharge) potentially provide more area for small stream chinook spawning based on Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) curves (Figure 1).

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 14 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Figure 1 Small stream Chinook HSI curves (Caldwell, Caldwell & Bruya, 1987).

The predicted velocity upstream of the crossing would become more uniform across the stream channel and deeper as the downstream control elevation would be uniform and raised 0.30 m. The average velocities upstream of the crossing would decrease, however they would remain well inside the range suitable for spawning. The increase in stream depth upstream of crossing would remain within the range suitable for spawning. As discharge decreases a greater area of the channel upstream of the crossing would remain wetted post spawn. The potential benefit of a greater wetted area would be to prevent against redd dewatering during winter low flow.

No major channel morphology change (as seen upstream where a single channel became a more braided channel due to a much flatter channel slope following a 2 m rise in bed level) is anticipated due to the minor nature of the <0.3 m grade adjustment. Water velocities would be increased slightly downstream of the crossing with the higher sill on place. Once again, the Northwest Hydraulic Consultants modeling indicates a change downstream, but it shows a more even velocity distribution rather than just higher velocities. This should be countered somewhat with the addition of large roughness elements (i.e. rock sticking up above the surrounding bed) to ensure a complex flow pattern that encourages many different fish passage options / velocity ranges over a wide range of flows. Boulder clusters in the tailout area downstream of the sill / riffle would also help to provide a variety of velocities and would dissipate energy, avoiding lengthening of the pool / alteration of the pool outlet elevation. The modeled velocity changes are manageable with the above techniques and the mitigation measures found in Section 5.0.

4.2 Terrestrial Environment

The Project area is located in the bottom of Robson Valley, near the confluence of Swift Creek and McLennan River. The mean elevation at the Project site is 780 m ASL. Project occurs within the Sub Boreal Spruce (SBS) biogeoclimatic zone, dry hot subzone, McLennan variant

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 15 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

(SBSdh1). It is influenced by cold air drainage from surrounding mountain ranges; Premier Range (Cariboo Mtns) to the west and Rainbow Range (Rocky Mtns) to the east.

4.2.1 Plant Species at Risk The BC Species and Ecosystem Explorer internet website was queried by SBS and Headwaters Forest District for plant species at risk in the proposed Project area, resulting in the identification of 7 red- and 34 blue-listed plant species (Table 4). Habitat descriptions and distribution information were derived from the descriptions found for each species on a variety of online web sources and government produced books Klinkinberg, 2010, CDC 2010, Douglas et al 2002, Pojar and MacKinnon 1994,. A list of plant species found in the Project area was compiled (Table 6). No CDC or COSEWIC listed species were found during the site visits. No species at risk were reported to Ministry of Environment for the Project area.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 16 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Table 4 Plant species at risk Common BC Species Habitat Occurrence Name Status Habitat is reported to be moist Anemone Canada meadows, thickets, and forest NO** canadensis anemone Blue openings (Douglas et al 2002). Bartramia Haller's apple Insufficient data NO - unknown halleriana moss Red Known from mesic to moist roadsides and disturbed areas in the Rocky NO – unlikely to occur Botrychium boreal Mountain Trench. The nearest known boreale moonwort Red occurrence is near Valemount, B.C. Bryobrittonia Insufficient data NO – unknown longipes na Blue NO – species known to Calliergon Insufficient data occur with C. richardsonii richardsonii na Blue inhabit this area Calliergon Known habitat is described as fens NO – unlikely to occur trifarium na Blue Found in bogs in the montane and swollen beaked sub-alpine zones of the SBS BEC NO - unlikely to occur Carex rostrata sedge Blue zone (Douglas et al 2002). Carex tonsa Habitat reported as sand dunes in the NO – unlikely to occur var. tonsa bald sedge Blue montane zone (Douglas et al 2002). Cynodontium Habitat includes rock, tree boles and NO - unknown tenellum Blue soil Dichelyma Insufficient data NO - unknown falcatum Blue Dicranum Insufficient data NO - unknown spadiceum Blue Preferred habitats include mesic to dry meadows and cliffs in the montane, NO – unlikely to occur gray-leaved subalpine and alpine zones (Douglas Draba cinerea draba Blue et al 2002). Habitats include mesic to dry coast mountain meadows, cliffs and scree slopes in NO – unlikely to occur Draba ruaxes draba Blue the alpine zones (Douglas et al 2002). Drepanocladus Insufficient data NO – unlikely to occur sendtneri Blue In the SBS this species appears to prefer drier and warmer sites than are present within the Project area NO – unknown (Douglas et al 2002). Although, little slender-leaf information exists about the habitat or Drosera linearis sundew Red distribution of this species within BC.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 17 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Common BC Species Habitat Occurrence Name Status Generally found in wet swamps and Dryopteris crested wood meadows in the steppe and montane NO – unlikely to occur cristata fern Blue zones (Douglas et al 2002). The spp. watsonii is known from wet to Epilobium mesic disturbed areas, roadsides, NO – unlikely to occur ciliatum ssp. purple-leaved fields and ditches from the lowland to watsonii willowherb Blue montane zone (Douglas et al 2002). Its preferred habitats include moist meadows and streambanks in the montane to alpine zones, and it is considered rare throughout BC NO – unlikely to occur (Klinkenberg 2010). Its general distribution does not include the Epilobium small-fruited Robson Valley (CDC 2010, Douglas et leptocarpum willowherb Blue al 2002). Eurhynchium pulchellum var. Insufficient data NO -unknown barnesii Blue Generally, found in bogs, wet Galium northern bog meadows and moist forests in the NO – unlikely to occur labradoricum bedstraw Blue montane zone (Douglas et al 2002) Habitats include wet meadows, Glyceria slender marshes, muskegs, ponds, and NO – unlikely to occur pulchella mannagrass Blue margins (Douglas et al 2002). Hypnum Insufficient data NO - unknown pratense Blue Hypnum Insufficient data NO - unknown procerrimum Blue Bog rush generally occurs in very wet, often calcareous, sedge-dominated habitats in full sun NO – unlikely to occur (Douglas et al 2002). Its habitats include bogs, marshes, shallow pools, Juncus stygius bog rush Blue and patterned peatlands (CDC 2010). Orthotrichum Insufficient data NO - unknown alpestre Blue Occurs in wet meadows, fens and bogs in the montane and subalpine Pedicularis zones (Klinkenberg 2010). The NO – unlikely to occur parviflora ssp. small-flowered distribution includes the Robson Valley parviflora lousewort Blue (Douglas 2002; Klinkenberg 2010), Whitebark pine is shade intolerant and usually found primarily in alpine and NO – unlikely to occur Pinus albicaulis whitebark pine Blue sub alpine areas.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 18 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Common BC Species Habitat Occurrence Name Status Plagiomnium Insufficient data NO - unknown ciliare Red Polytrichum Insufficient data NO - unknown longisetum Blue Rhizomnium Insufficient data NO - unknown punctatum Red Known to occur in wet thickets in the NO- unlikely to occur Salix petiolaris meadow willow Blue lower montane zone (Douglas 2002). Prefers dry open meadows and forests Senecio plains in the steppe and montane zones NO – unlikely to occur plattensis butterweed Blue (Douglas et al 2002). Habitat is listed as ponds, lakeshores and slow-moving streams in the NO – unlikely to occur Sparganium lowland and montane zones fluctuans water bur-reed Blue (Klinkenberg 2010) Sphagnum Insufficient data NO - unknown platyphyllum Red Sphagnum Insufficient data NO - unknown wulfianum Blue Splachnum Insufficient data NO - unknown luteum Blue Tetraplodon Insufficient data NO - unknown angustatus Blue Timmia Insufficient data NO - unknown megapolitana Blue Tomentypnum Insufficient data NO - unknown falcifolium Blue Habitats are listed as shallow water, marshes, bogs and wet meadows in the montane zone; although rare in NO – unlikely to occur east-central BC there are documented Torreyochloa Fernald's false occurrences within the Robson Valley pallida manna Red (Klinkenberg 2010). Generally occurs in bogs, lakeshores Trichophorum and wet meadows in the montane and NO – unlikely to occur pumilum dwarf clubrush Blue subalpine zones (Douglas et al 2002). ** NO = not observed

4.2.2 Ecological Communities at Risk Species and Ecosystem Explorer internet website was queried by SBS and Headwaters Forest District for ecological communities at risk in the proposed Project area, resulting in the identification of 1 red-listed and 3 blue-listed ecological communities (Table 5). Three of the ecological communities represent forested types and 1 represents a non forested type

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 19 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

(SBSdh1/Ws05) namely a wetland ecosystem type. The occurrences of 1 red listed and 1 blue listed ecological community at risk were noted in the field. The location and significance of the listed communities is discussed below in Section 4.2.3.

Table 5 Ecological communities at risk Ecological Community BEC Unit Status Occurrence lodgepole pine / Labrador tea - SBSdh1/05 Blue Not observed velvet-leaved blueberry lodgepole pine / velvet-leaved SBSdh1/02 Adjacent to RoW on the south Red blueberry / clad lichens approach. Douglas-fir - hybrid white spruce SBSdh1/06 Adjacent to RoW on the south Blue / thimbleberry approach. MacCalla's willow / beaked SBSdh1/Ws05 Blue Possible – not observed sedge

4.2.3 Vegetation and Ecological Communities

The Swift Creek Project site is a combination of site series within the SBSdh1 biogeoclimatic zone. Variations appear to be driven primarily by soil moisture, slope position, aspect, and riverine influence. Ecological communities/Site series observed at the Swift Creek assessment area include:

SBSdh1 SR/01: Fd – Sx – Rough leaved ricegrass

The community found on the north side of Swift Creek on relatively flat ground with slopes 0- 30%. Soil moisture regime is typically mesic to submesic and occurs as southern aspect on assessment area. Spruce dominated forest stand exhibits moderate density shrub and forbe layers. Course textured soils tend to occur on toe and level slope positions such as those observed here. This community is known to provide important browse habitat for deer. Negative impacts to this community are not anticipated.

SBSdh1 LV/02: Pl – Velvet leaved blueberry – Lichen

Found occurring on the south side of Swift Creek assessment area above the primary floodplain. Xeric to sub xeric soil moisture regime, very poor to poor nutrient regime and level ground support lodgepole pine dominated forest stands with low shrub and forbe cover. Carpet moss and lichen are common. Soils are typically eolian (wind) derived with extreme moisture deficit. Disturbance should be minimized due to challenges of re-vegetation. Clearing within this area is not anticipated as the RoW width is large enough to accommodate access. Negative impacts to this red listed community are not anticipated as the area lies outside of the active construction footprint.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 20 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

SBSdh1 ST/06: SxwFD - Thimbleberry

Community is considered common and typically occurring on lower or level slope positions with gradient less than 13%. It is characterized by mesic to sub-hygric soil moisture, variable nutrient regime and soil texture. It is prolific on floodplain adjacent to south bank of Swift Creek. Spruce dominated forest stands with some aspen, fir and cottonwood accompanied by moderate density forbe, shrub and moss layers. High wind throw concerns and valuable moose habitat are concerns for this this community. Provides valuable wildlife habitat in general and may act as a movement corridor. Clearing of temporary work space on the south side of Swift Creek will occur within this ecological community. The amount of clearing is minimal 600 m2 situated along the edge of the existing RoW and will not significantly impact this blue listed ecological community.

SBSdh1 SH/07: Sx – Horsetail

Typically occurring on level slopes (0-2%) with subhygric to hygric soils and medium to very rich nutrient regime. Community occurs within assessment area together with SBSdh1 06, where ground is level. Hybrid spruce dominated forest stands, dense understory and moderate moss layer. Some seepage areas occur on the RoW. This community is recognized for salmon and moose values, high water table and good wind throw hazard. Is considered common but often occurs in small patches. Negative impacts to this community are not anticipated as it occurs outside the active construction footprint.

SBSdh1 WH/00: Water sedge – Horsetail Marsh

This ecosystem occurs in depressional areas of the SBSdh1 such as that observed approximately 150 - 300 m south of Swift Creek along the right of way. It is characterized by high water table, standing water and dense plant community. It is a moisture receiving site. Negative impacts to this community are not anticipated as it occurs outside the active construction footprint.

A species list was compiled during the June 15th site visit and is provided below (Table 6).

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 21 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Table 6 Species list compiled for assessment area

Trees Alnus incana spp. tenuifolia Mountain Alder Betula papyrifera Paper Birch Picea glauca x Spruce - white x engelmann engelmannii hybrid Pinus contorta var. latifolia Lodgepole Pine Populus tremuloides Trembling aspen Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir Salix spp Willow

Shrubs Amelanchier alnifolia saskatoonberry Aralia nudicaulis wild sarsparilla Arctostaphylos uva-ursi kinnickinick Cornus stoloifera red osier dogwood Ledum groenlandicum Labrador tea Linnea borealis twinflower Lonicera involucrata black twinberry Lonicera utahensis Utah honeysuckle Menziesia ferruginea false azalea Ribes hudsonianum northern black currant Ribes oxyacanthoides northern gooseberry Rosa accicularis prickly rose Rosa nutkana nootka rose Rubus pubescens trailing raspberry Shepherdia canadensis soopolallie Spirea betulifolia birch leaved spirea Vaccinium myrtilloides velvet-leaved blueberry Vibernum edule highbush cranberry

Forbes Achillea millefolium yarrow Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlasting Antennaria microphylla rosey pussytoes Aquilegia formosa red columbine Castilleja miniata common red paintbrush Chimaphalia umbellata princes pine Cicuta douglasii Douglas water hemlock Cornus nutallii bunchberry Epilobium angustifolium fireweed Fragaria virginiana wild strawberry Geum rivale Water avens Geum triflorum sweet-scented bedstraw

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 22 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Goodyera oblongifolia rattlesnake plantain Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip Hypericum perforatum St. Johns wort Mianthemum canadense wild lilly-of-the-valley Mitella nuda common mitrewort Petasites palmatus palmate coltsfoot Pterospora andromedea pine drops Pyrola secunda pink wintergreen Ranunculus acris meadow buttercup Senecio traingularis arrow-leaved groundsel star flowered solomon's Smilicina stellata seal Streptopus amplexifolius clasping Twisted stalk Taraxacum officinale dandelion Thallictrum occidentale western meadowrue Trifolium pratense clover Vicia americana american vetch

Grasses Dactylis glomerata orchard grass Elymus cinerus giant wildrye Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass Oryzopsis asperifolia rough-leaved ricegrass Bromus ciliatus fringed brome

Ferns and Horsetails Athyrium felix-femina lady fern Equisetum arvense common horsetail Equisetum pratense meadow horsetail Gymnocarpium dryopteris oak fern

Sedges and Rushes Scirpus microcarpus small flowered bulrush Carex aquatilis water sedge

Mosses and Club Mosses Lycopodium annotinum stiff clubmoss Lycopodium complanatum ground cedar Lycopodium selago fir clubmoss Schreber's red stem Pleurozium schreberi feathermoss Campylium stellatum golden star moss

On the south side of the creek, the right of way starts from the road, above the floodplain and was classified as a dry site (SBSdh1 02). It was characterized by a dry lodgepole pine dominated forest with sparse shrub layer and prolific ground cover of kinnickinnick and mosses, moving toward the creek, the landscape drops over a small hill into a moisture receiving site. The

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 23 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

vegetation community changes was typical of a SBSdh1 07 site series. Spruce and horsetail are common with sedge and rushes occurring in hydric areas. There were small pockets of standing water on the right of way and very wet pockets to the east and west of the right of way. Surface soils appeared to be organic in nature. The SBSdh1 07 occurs as a depression area that transitions to a hygric to subhygric SBSdh1 06 nearer to Swift Creek. However, SBSdh1 07 characteristics were observed where historical channels meander through out the floodplain. SBSdh1 07 characteristics suggest an environmentally sensitive area. Wet organic soil layers are more readily compacted and can result in changes to the vegetative community it is able to support.

Vegetation observed in the SBSdh1 06 site series is indicative of drier soils. It was found within 30 m of the channel and encompasses the area proposed to be used as a work area/landing on the south side of the creek. Spruce and cottonwood dominate the overstory while red osier dogwood, mountain alder and high bush cranberry dominate the understory. Mosses cover the forest floor in small forest openings.

Riparian vegetation adjacent to RoW was dense. Cottonwoods, spruce, alder and red osier dogwood are prominent and provide for healthy riparian function. Open, drier and less shaded areas found on the west side of the right of way support a greater abundance of rose (prickly and nootka) and reed canary grass.

The north side of the creek is south facing aspect and supports different plant communities and site series than the south. The assessment area is relatively flat to approximately 200 m from the stream channel where a small embankment rises roughly 10 m in elevation. Beyond this, forest harvesting activities have occurred approximately 10 years ago and the site is now regenerating. There is an access road on the right of way from Highway 5 to Swift Creek. Private land that has been developed with horse pasture, residence and landscaped yard was not included in the assessment.

The area from the stream channel north to approximately 400 m, is classified as a zonal site SBSdh1 01. Spruce dominates the overstory with lodgepole pine, trembling aspen and fir as subdominants. Cottonwood is present but not prolific. The understory supports competent shrub, forbe and moss layers. The stream bank area supports regenerating spruce, mountain alder and willow that was growing within the rip-rap armored bank.

No areas were identified as wet or sensitive on the north side of the creek. The vegetation was somewhat uniform throughout the assessment site. The 15x 25 m area proposed as a temporary work space, adjacent to the creek, has been previously disturbed. Several spruce poles, lodgepole regeneration and 2 to 5 mature cottonwoods would be removed. Clearing area required for the pump grouping will include a 15 x 3 m section of previously disturbed riparian vegetation as well as 20 x 3 m of previously disturbed vegetation along an existing access trail. This vegetation would primarily consist of lodgepole, spruce and alder regeneration. An inventory was completed for the proposed works sites/staging areas on both the north and south sides of Swift Creek.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 24 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

4.2.4 Wildlife Species at Risk The Conservation Data Center BC Species and Ecosystem Explorer internet website was queried by SBS and Headwaters Forest District for wildlife species at risk in the proposed Project Area. Table 7 provides a list of species at risk along a rationale for occurrence within the Project Area.

Table 7 Wildlife species at risk Species COSEWIC BC Identified Occurrence in Rationale Status Wildlife study area Western Toad (Bufo SC (Nov Breeding habitat not NO – unlikely boreas) 2002) Yellow No present. Common Nighthawk Some habitat elements may NO – probable (Chordeiles minor) T (Apr 2007) Yellow No be present Grassy upland not present. Sandhill Crane (Grus NAR (May NO – unlikely Water course not suitable Canadensis) 1979) Yellow Yes for over water nesting sites. Not likely to occur. Typical denning and tunnelling NO – unlikely habitat (e.g talus or rocky SC (May No slopes, dense windfall) not Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 2003) Status No present. Low elevation floodplain Caribou (Rangifer No NO – unlikely habitat, lack of boreal tarandus) Status Yes lichens, not typically suitable No rookeries observed, Great Blue Heron Herodias adequate decadent NO – unlikely subspecies (Ardea deciduous trees not herodias herodias) Blue Yes available American Bittern (Botaurus Suitable wetland habitat not NO – unlikely lentiginosus) Blue No present. Olive-sided Flycatcher Suitable breeding nesting NO – probable (Contopus cooperi) T (Nov 2007) Blue No and foraging habitat. Assessment area outside of Bobolink (Dolichonyx NO – unlikely breeding range. Suitable oryzivorus) T (Apr 2010) Blue No habitat not present. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus SC (Apr Suitable breeding nesting NO - probable carolinus) 2006) Blue No and foraging habitat Not likely to occur. Typical denning and tunnelling Wolverine luscus NO – unlikely habitat (e.g talus or rocky subspecies (Gulo gulo SC (May slopes, dense windfall) not luscus) 2003) Blue Yes present. Barn swallow (Hirundo Suitable foraging and NO - probable rustica) Blue No nesting habitat present Suitable denning and NO – probable Fisher (Martes pennanti) Blue Yes foraging sites available (mix

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 25 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Species COSEWIC BC Identified Occurrence in Rationale Status Wildlife study area hybrid spruce and mature cottonwood forest) Northern Myotis (Myotis NO – unlikely Suitable habitats not present septentrionalis) Blue No Long-billed Curlew SC (Nov NO - unlikely Suitable habitat not present (Numenius americanus) 2002) Blue Yes White-veined arctic Not likely to utilize the edwardsi subspecies NO – unknown construction area for critical (Oeneis bore edwardsi) Blue No life stages Not likely to utilize the Jutta Arctic (Oeneis jutta NO - unknown construction area for critical chermocki) Blue No life stages SC (May May use area for movement NO – probable Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) 2002) Blue Yes corridor ** NO = not observed

Doug Wilson, Fish and Wildlife biologist at Ministry of Environment confirmed that there are no known occurrences of species at risk within the assessment area. Six species were identified as having the potential to occur within the study area. Four of these were bird species including the common nighthawk, olive-sided flycatcher, rusty blackbird, barn swallow. The primary use of the Project Area would likely be transient for foraging. The proposed Project will not result in a loss of critical breeding habitat or directly impact individuals within these populations. Fisher and grizzly bear were also identified as having the potential to occur within the Project Area. No denning sites were identified for fisher or grizzly bear. It is anticipated that the proposed Project would result in a temporary disturbance to the habitat and would not directly result in individual species mortality or loss of critical habitat. The primary impact would be a temporary disturbance or displacement during construction.

4.2.5 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife observations were made during the site visit. A reconnaissance of the assessment area (except for private land on north side of Swift Creek and west of the right of way) was conducted on foot. Mammals, birds, amphibian and reptile species likely to occur were assessed and observations of individuals and/or evidence of their presence were observed and recorded. Special habitat features were also observed and recorded.

Some mammals known to occur in the Robson Valley include black bear, grizzly bear, Moose, mule and white-tailed deer, elk, lynx, cougar, wolves, coyote, porcupine, muskrat, beaver, chipmunk and red squirrel. A black bear, red squirrel and chipmunks were observed on the Project site during assessment. Ungulate tracks (moose and deer) as well as browsing were frequent throughout the area. A small burrow on the south river bank approximately 15 m west of the right of way was observed. Species is unknown and the burrow appears to be dormant. A den was located on the north side several hundred meters north of swift creek and approximately

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 26 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

20 m west of the right of way. This den also appeared dormant. No evidence of recent use was observed. It is likely a coyote den but this could not be confirmed during the assessment.

A wildlife/danger tree assessment was conducted and trees were identified in the field and geo- referenced. Several danger trees were noted within the assessment area that will likely need removing to accommodate proposed Project activities. Wildlife trees exhibited signs of cavity excavation and foraging activities. No activity was observed at the cavities during the assessment.

Hawks, eagles, songbirds and waterfowl species are known to occur in the area. Observations revealed the following; Northern flicker, downy woodpecker, black capped chickadee, American robin, raven, yellow-rumped warbler, and american crow. A stick nest survey was completed and revealed no nest structures within the assessment area.

While no amphibians or reptiles were observed during the assessment, some species are likely to occur here including western toad, Columbia spotted frog, long toed salamander, and garter snake. This information is based on their known distribution and habitat requirements (Matsuda et al, 2006).

4.3 Archaeological Resources

An archaeological overview assessment (AOA) was completed by the Simpcw First Nation for the project footprint and 50 m either side of pipeline RoW 600 m south and 500 m north of Swift Creek. The AOA was completed according to the requirements of the Heritage Conservation Act of BC and the Territorial Law of the Simpcw First Nation. The AOA is provided in Appendix VI. The results of the AOA indicate local knowledge of the area, hunting and trapping land use history and oral history indicates cultural use. No archaeological concerns were noted and no further archaeological work is necessary prior to the development.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 27 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

5.0 Habitat Mitigation

The impact of the construction and loss of riparian vegetation (236 m2) will have some short term impacts at the site. These impacts can be mitigated with the improvement of fish habitat in and adjacent to the site through the addition of instream habitat complexing structures. The most advantageous location for these structures is downstream of the suppressed rock layer along the right bank. This location was situated within the margin of a pool with little cover and complexity. The addition of several Large Woody Debris (LWD) structures is recommended to provide greater complexity of habitat values, including cover, instream wood, high water refuge and a wide variety of water velocities. Boulder clusters are also recommended downstream of the suppressed rock layer to provide instream cover and diffuse water velocities immediately downstream of the rock layer within the deepest portion of the channel. Makowecki and Yaremko (1997) identified the limited amount of instream cover and the importance of LWD and boulder features as key rearing, resting and feeding areas for chinook (juveniles), rainbow trout and bull trout in Swift Creek. The permeable LWD structures would also avoid the concern of sediment accumulation (i.e. silting up) associated with rock spurs in such a slow moving flow. It is also worth noting that the water velocities will increase along this right margin following sill construction further avoiding fine sediment deposition.

A series of 3 LWD structures is proposed as shown in Appendix IV. The 2 upstream structures would be “A-frame” style hard points of logs cabled to rock ballast to anchor them. The downstream structure would be a similar feature, but would be kept closer to the bank to avoid any impacts to the right bank downstream at the outlet of the pool. The intent would be to establish LWD low enough in the water to be of use at most flows over the rearing season, close enough to the bank to remain stable, and extending far enough (with a low profile) into the channel to provide cover / velocity refuge near the thalweg (deepest portion of the channel). Boulder cluster features would be placed immediately downstream of the suppressed rock layer at 3 locations across the channel. The intent would be to group boulders so they create a permanent feature capable of creating a water velocity break large enough for fish to use as cover and refuge. Boulders will also be incorporated into the suppressed rock layer to provide a variation in flow across the rock apron to aid in fish passage and provide potential rearing opportunities across the pipeline crossing. These features will be field fit during construction to ensure they do not represent a hazard to navigation or a risk to the pipeline protection works.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 28 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

6.0 Potential Environmental Effects Assessment

Environmental effect and mitigative measures to offset the potential impacts are listed in Table 8. There are no significant residual impacts associated with the Project with the application of mitigation measures. Effect assessment was identified for the following environmental components:  Vegetation,  Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat, and  Fish and Fish Habitat. The anticipated environmental effects for these environmental components are discussed below.

6.1 Vegetation The creation of temporary work space will result in the temporary loss of forested land outside the pipeline RoW. Approximately 1080 m2 of forested land outside of the RoW will be cleared to accommodate temporary work space associated with construction. The proposed footprints on the north and south side of Swift Creek were examined for the presence of listed plant species and ecological communities at risk. No listed plant species were identified within the Project footprint. Two ecological communities at risk were identified adjacent to the Project footprint. The red listed SBSdh1/02 site series was identified along the dry bench adjacent to the Pine Road access to the RoW. This area occurs outside of the proposed Project footprint and no clearing of this area is anticipated. The blue listed SBSdh1/06 site series was identified adjacent to the pipeline RoW and within the footprint of the proposed south side temporary work space. Clearing of the temporary work space will result in a loss of approximately 600 m2 of this ecological community. The loss will occur along the fringe of the habitat type and will not represent a significant residual impact to this community. Indirect environmental impacts associated with the clearing and vegetation removal are not anticipated. Cleared areas will be reclaimed and planted post construction.

6.2 Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat In addition to clearing 1080 m2 of forested land outside of the RoW, several wildlife/danger trees will be removed for safety reasons. Clearing of vegetation, wildlife/danger trees and creation of temporary work space will not result in the direct or indirect mortality of any listed species at risk or impact their critical habitat. The disturbance will be temporary and the footprint is small in relation to territory size requirements for species listed as potentially occurring within the Project area. Indirect effects such as habitat fragmentation or construction disturbance are not anticipated to result in significant long term impacts to individual wildlife species or populations at risk within the Project area.

6.3 Fish and Fish Habitat Potential impacts to fish and fish habitat will occur during RoW clearing, materials placement, and rip rap bank armouring. Direct impacts include the temporary loss of approximately 236 m2 of riparian vegetation along the north and south banks of Swift Creek. The temporary loss of riparian vegetation will be offset through creation of permanent instream mitigative habitat

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 29 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010 features as well as riparian planting of the disturbed construction footprint. The placement of a suppressed rock layer will not significantly alter the existing habitat type over the pipeline RoW and will not impact potential spawning habitat upstream and downstream of the pipeline crossing of Swift Creek. Unrestricted fish passage over the pipeline crossing is anticipated over the range discharges on an annual basis. Placement of the suppressed rock layer will not result in a loss of fish habitat within Swift Creek. Rip rap armouring of stream banks within the pipeline RoW will alter the stream banks from a semi natural (existing armour) to a continuous rip rap armour. It is anticipated that the rip rap armour will accumulate organic debris and vegetative growth over time. The alteration of the bank habitat at this location will not result in any direct or indirect loss of fish habitat within Swift Creek.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 30 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Table 8 Potential environmental effects analysis

Recommended mitigation

Project Phase/ Environmental Description of Potential measures / or Best Residual Effect Component Components Environmental Effect Management Practices (BMPs) Follow-up Monitoring Significance of the Effect* Significance of Residual Effect* Site Access

RoW Clearing Erosion/Slope Exposure of erodible soils NS Work during periods of No residual NS M NA due to vegetation and topsoil least risk. Minimize area of effects removal. disturbance. Stockpile topsoil, shrub cuttings with root balls to be used in site rehabilitation Soils shall be covered.

RoW Clearing Surface Water Sediment mobilization from NS Implement sediment No residual NS M NA Quality exposed soils. control measures where effects applicable. RoW Clearing Vegetation Removal of vegetation from NS Minimize clearing No residual NS M NA within the RoW. footprint. Identify limits of effects clearing. RoW Clearing Migratory Birds Disturbance or loss of NS Conduct clearing outside of No residual NS N NA nesting habitat within the breeding bird window effects RoW. (May 15 to July 15). RoW Clearing Wildlife/Wildlife Temporary disruption to NS Conduct clearing during No residual NS N NA Habitat wildlife and wildlife habitat periods of least sensitivity. effects within the RoW. (Fall/Winter).

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 31 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Recommended mitigation

Project Phase/ Environmental Description of Potential measures / or Best Residual Effect Component Components Environmental Effect Management Practices (BMPs) Follow-up Monitoring Significance of the Effect* Significance of Residual Effect* RoW Clearing Fish and Fish Temporary loss of riparian ME Minimize clearing No residual NS M Y Habitat vegetation and habitat. footprint. Revegetate effects disturbed areas with native species Tote Road Surface Water Sediment generation from NS Implement sediment No residual NS M NA Upgrade Quality running surface materials control measures where effects applicable.

Temporary Erosion/Slope Exposure of erodible soils NS Work during periods of No residual NS M NA Work Space due to vegetation and topsoil least risk. Minimize area of effects removal. disturbance. Stockpile topsoil, shrub cuttings with root balls to be used in site rehabilitation Soils shall be covered.

Temporary Surface Water Sediment mobilization from NS Implement sediment No residual NS M NA Work Space exposed soils. control measures where effects applicable. Temporary Vegetation Temporary loss of ME Minimize clearing No residual NS M NA Work Space vegetation within temporary footprint. Identify limits of effects work space footprint. clearing. Temporary Migratory Birds Disturbance or loss of NS Conduct clearing outside of No residual NS N NA Work Space nesting habitat within the breeding bird window effects temporary work space (May 15 to July 15). footprint.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 32 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Recommended mitigation

Project Phase/ Environmental Description of Potential measures / or Best Residual Effect Component Components Environmental Effect Management Practices (BMPs) Follow-up Monitoring Significance of the Effect* Significance of Residual Effect* Temporary Wildlife/Wildlife Temporary disruption to ME Conduct clearing during No residual NS N NA Work Space Habitat wildlife and wildlife habitat periods of least sensitivity effects within the RoW. (Fall/Winter). Pipeline Protection Site Isolation Surface Water Sediment release during site NS Ensure sediment control No residual NS M NA Quality isolation and removal measures are implemented effects and appropriate diffusers are used downstream of water diversion. Site Isolation Fish and Fish Potential encroachment on NS Ensure upstream spawning No residual NS M NA Habitat upstream spawning habitat. habitat remains wetted or effects Temporary disruption of fish that spawning exclusion passage. fences are installed prior to spawning. Pursue Project to completion in a timely manner. Excavation Surface Water Sediment release during site NS Ensure sediment control No residual NS M NA Quality works. measures are implemented effects and stockpiles are isolated from the stream channel. Excavation Fish and Fish Potential encroachment on NS Ensure upstream spawning No residual NS M NA Habitat upstream spawning habitat. habitat is not disturbed. effects

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 33 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Recommended mitigation

Project Phase/ Environmental Description of Potential measures / or Best Residual Effect Component Components Environmental Effect Management Practices (BMPs) Follow-up Monitoring Significance of the Effect* Significance of Residual Effect* Materials Surface Water Sediment release during site NS Ensure sediment control No residual NS M NA Placement Quality works. measures are implemented effects and stockpiles are isolated from the stream channel. Materials Fish and Fish Potential sediment release NS Ensure surface materials No residual NS M NA Placement Habitat during re wetting of site. are clean of fine sediment effects prior to re introduction of water over crossing Materials Navigation Materials over pipeline NS Ensure provision of No residual NS M NA Placement Related crossing could provide a thalweg over pipeline effects navigation risk on crossing. watercourse. Rip Rap Erosion/Slope Erodible soils at the top of NS Ensure erodible soil/bank No residual effect NS M NA Armouring bank may become exposed. is covered with suitable depth of rip rap and non erodible material. Rip Rap Surface Water Sediment release during NS Ensure clean materials are No residual effect NS M NA Armouring Quality works. used for armouring, free of excess fines that could potentially be mobilized. Fines (excess streambed material or clean pea gravel) will be washed into rip rap to prohibit subsurface flow.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 34 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Recommended mitigation

Project Phase/ Environmental Description of Potential measures / or Best Residual Effect Component Components Environmental Effect Management Practices (BMPs) Follow-up Monitoring Significance of the Effect* Significance of Residual Effect* Rip Rap Fish and Fish Potential loss of vegetation NS Minimize rip rap footprint No residual effect NS M Y Armouring Habitat growing medium within the within the riparian area. riparian area. Provide areas for planting along the top of bank. Habitat Mitigation LWD Structures Surface Water Placement of materials may NS Ensure clean materials are No residual NS M Y Quality mobilize sediment. used in construction. Place effects materials with excavator thumb and bucket. LWD Structures Fish and Fish Potential disturbance to NS Isolate work site where No residual NS M Y Habitat resident fish and fish habitat. possible. Pursue work to effects completion in a timely manner. Monitor installations once complete. LWD Navigation Structures could present a NS Ensure structures are No residual NS M Y Structures. Related navigation hazard on installed properly and are effects watercourse. functioning as intended. Boulder Surface Water Placement of materials may NS Ensure clean materials are No residual NS M Y Clusters Quality mobilize sediment. used in construction. Place effects materials with excavator thumb and bucket.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 35 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Recommended mitigation

Project Phase/ Environmental Description of Potential measures / or Best Residual Effect Component Components Environmental Effect Management Practices (BMPs) Follow-up Monitoring Significance of the Effect* Significance of Residual Effect* Boulder Fish and Fish Potential disturbance to NS Isolate work site where No residual NS M Y Clusters Habitat resident fish and fish habitat. possible. Pursue work to effects completion in a timely manner. Monitor installations once complete. Boulder Navigation Structures could present a NS Ensure structures are No residual NS M Y Clusters Related navigation hazard on installed properly, do not effects watercourse. block channel, and are functioning as intended. Reclamation

Erosion Vegetation Seed mix could potentially NS Utilize native seed mix No residual NS M Y Protection introduce invasive or non known to be free of effects native species invasive species.

S: Significant adverse environmental effect M: Monitoring required ME: Minor Adverse Effect/ Mitigable Effect (Not Significant) F: Follow-up required NS: Not significant adverse environmental effect NA: Not required or not applicable UN: Uncertain/ Unknown Effect N: No monitoring required

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 36 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

7.0 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are defined as a project’s effect on the environment combined with the effects of projects and activities (past, existing or imminent) occurring over a certain period of time or distance. Cumulative effects can occur in a number of ways including:  When a high number of disturbances occur over a short period of time or within a small area and the environment is unable to recover to its pre-disturbance state; or,  Gradual disturbance occurring over a long time period, so that the environment does not have time to recover between disturbances.

The proposed Project is primarily located on previously disturbed land base within the existing RoW and does not significantly increase the footprint of the currently developed land base within the town of Valemount and adjacent areas. Much of the surrounding area is undeveloped land private land. The proposed Project was designed as a long term remediation measure, which will reduce the frequency of future maintenance or remediation works. It is anticipated that this Project in conjunction with future development within the area will not result in a significant cumulative effect due to the Project design, which incorporates previously disturbed land, existing pipeline infrastructure and RoW.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 37 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

8.0 Environmental Protection Plan

Due to the close proximity to environmentally sensitive areas (fish habitat), a Project of this magnitude requires planning and management to mitigate potential environmental impacts and meet the environmental objectives and requirements identified by regulatory agencies. This report has been prepared for submission to regulatory agencies, in order to demonstrate that a comprehensive and effective Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) has been developed and will be successfully implemented. The EPP identifies relevant environmental background information and construction methodology from which best management practices (BMPs) can be applied to ensure that potentially negative environmental impacts resulting from construction are avoided or mitigated.

The EPP is a dynamic document that will be updated as required to reflect changing site conditions encountered during the course of the Project. Effective communication between the Construction Supervisor, Contractor and the environmental monitor (EM) will ensure that the BMP’s outlined in this document are implemented and modified as required to avoid and mitigate potentially negative impacts to the environment.

8.1 Mitigation Plans Construction activities associated with installing the suppressed rock layer with potential to result in adverse environmental effects are primarily associated with sediment generation and surface erosion resulting from the removal of vegetation. Secondary effects are associated with dewatering the construction footprint and potentially isolating resident fish or spawning habitat. Possible adverse environmental effects associated with the project include:

 stranding of resident fish species;  exposure of Chinook redds;  introduction of deleterious substances into fish habitat;  loss or degradation of riparian vegetation; and  degradation or destabilization of stream banks and road side slopes.

It is anticipated that the following mitigation plans for vegetation removal, site isolation, fish salvage, work in and around water, environmental monitoring, waste disposal, and spill response plans will mitigate potentially adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed work.

8.1.1 Vegetation Removal The following are general guidelines to be followed during the removal of vegetation along the RoW and within the construction footprint:

 All clearing will extend only to the limits defined by design drawings contained in these documents or those amended by the Construction Supervisor in the field.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 38 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

 Prior to the commencement of clearing activities the EM and/or Construction Supervisor will familiarize construction personnel with the environmental requirements, locations of sensitive areas, and with acceptable clearing practices associated with the project.

 All equipment and machinery used in clearing activities in or adjacent to any watercourse shall be in good operating condition and free of leaks, excess oil or grease, and other materials deemed deleterious.

 Clearing activities will be conducted to protect vegetation outside of the project footprint with the exception of danger trees, which will be removed with minimal disturbance to surrounding vegetation.

 Where possible organic material and vegetation within the footprint would be stockpiled and used later for reclamation purposes.

 Clearing activities will be conducted to avoid falling timber into any watercourse with the exception of those situations approved by the EM and/or the Construction Supervisor.

 In the event of accidental or approved falling of timber into a watercourse, the removal (if required) of timber will be conducted in the presence of the EM in a manner that minimize disturbance to the watercourse and stream banks.

 In areas determined by the EM and/or Construction Supervisor to have high erosion or siltation potential, clearing activities will be conducted in a manner to limit the amount of ground disturbance.

 Cleared ground sensitive to inclement weather will be protected to withstand that weather in areas where earthworks and stabilization do not proceed promptly after clearing.

 Disposal of woody debris will be done away from any watercourse or sensitive area.

 Stockpiles containing erodible material generated from clearing will be situated where sediment and/or other deleterious material can be contained and prevented from entering any watercourse or sensitive area.

8.1.2 Fish Salvage Fish salvage of the stream habitat within the construction footprint is required. Site isolation and dewatering of the construction footprint has the potential to expose Chinook redds should they spawn in available habitat upstream of the crossing. Preventive measures are recommended to avoid allowing Chinook spawn within the dewatered area. The following mitigation measures are recommended prior to isolating the site the removal of the existing structures:

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 39 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

 Potential left bank Chinook spawning habitat upstream of the crossing to 40 m will be isolated with fencing material to deter Chinook from spawning within the proposed isolation area. Fencing material will be laid over the substrate in mid July prior to spawning.

 Fish exclusion fences will be installed a minimum of 15 m upstream and downstream of the proposed isolation area.

 Resident fish will be salvaged from the isolated area prior to dewatering and placed downstream of the isolated area.

 Salvage techniques should include at a minimum: electrofishing and minnow trapping.

 The EM will determine the salvage has been completed to acceptable standards and inform the Construction Supervisor prior to work commencing.

 The dewatered area will be inspected as the water is drawn down to ensure the fish salvage is complete.

8.1.3 Site Isolation Instream flow must be bypassed around the site to allow for the site isolation and instream construction. The site isolation diagram is presented in Appendix II. The following mitigation measures are recommended during site isolation and dewatering of the construction footprints:

 Utilize pumps or suitable diversion structure to bypass stream flow around the proposed work sites.

 Pump intakes should be located within the stream area that has been salvaged for fish or a suitable fish screening device be installed on pump intakes.

 The capacity of pumps or diversion structure on site should be at least 1.5 times greater than the flow present at time of diversion to ensure site isolation is maintained should the discharge increase over the time of construction.

 Diverted stream flow should re enter the stream channel immediately downstream of the construction footprint.

 A diffuser or similar structure should be utilized at the point of re entry to ensure that the stream bed does not scour.

 Seepage sumps should be installed within the area salvaged for fish.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 40 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

 Groundwater seepage removed from sump should be directed downstream of the work site into vegetated areas to allow for sediment filtering prior to re entry into the stream channel.

 Groundwater seepage disposal should be monitored by the EM to ensure that sediment laden water does not result in harmful or deleterious impacts to downstream fish habitat.

8.1.4 Work in and Around Water The natural hazard remediation works will require construction activities in and around aquatic habitat. Adverse impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided or minimized with the following mitigation measures:

 All work is to be undertaken and completed in such a manner as to prevent the release of silt, sediment or sediment-laden water, or any other deleterious substances into any watercourse.

 An EM is to be present on an as needed basis for aspects of the work where there are potential risks to fish and fish habitat.

 All equipment and machinery must be in good operating condition and free of leaks, excess oil or grease. Equipment with fuel or fluid leaks will not be permitted to enter the wetted perimeter of any watercourse or work on structures above any watercourse. Equipment will be cleaned and examined for leaks prior to beginning work and mobilization to the site.

 No equipment refueling or servicing may be undertaken within 100 m of any watercourse.

 Spill containment kits must be readily accessible at the construction site in the event of a release of a deleterious substance to the environment. Any spill of a substance deleterious to aquatic life must be reported to the Provincial Emergency Program (24 hour phone line: 1-800-663-3456) and to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as required by the Federal Fisheries Act Section 38(4).

 Any spill of fuels, lubricants or hydraulic fluids should be immediately contained and the contaminated soil removed from the site and disposed of in accordance with Provincial and Federal requirements.

 Vegetation on or adjacent to the stream banks is to be disturbed as little as possible. Upon completion of the works, the banks will be restored, re-stabilized and re-vegetated to prevent erosion as specified in the work plans. This work will be completed to the satisfaction of the EM and the Construction Supervisor.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 41 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

 All excavated material not used to fill interstitial spaces in the rip rap must be removed from the site or placed in a stable area above the high water mark of the waterbody, as far as possible from the wetted perimeter, and protected from erosion by mitigating measures such as covering materials with plastic sheets or construction tarps and/or contained using silt fencing. Material that is moved off-site must be disposed of in such a manner as to prevent its entry into any watercourse, floodplain, ravine, drainage system.

 Drainage structures will be incorporated into and maintained for the duration of the project along all detour, access and haul roads to minimize erosion and maintain drainage patterns.

 All permanent and temporary soil erosion control features will be incorporated into the project at the earliest practicable time as outlined in the accepted work schedule. Daily inspection of the integrity of such measures during construction will be the responsibility of the Construction Supervisor and/or EM. Control measures will be capable of continuous implementation during working and non-working hours.

 The Contractor will be responsible for ensuring that sediment and erosion control features are in place, are functional and are maintained. The required erosion/sediment control materials including: filter cloth, rock, drain rock, matting, polyethylene, etc. are to be stockpiled at the site. At a minimum, silt fences will be cleaned when sediment accumulation heights exceed 30 cm along any portion of the structure.

 Any material, such as riprap, placed below the high water mark of any waterbody, must be free of silt, overburden, debris or other substances deleterious to aquatic life. Furthermore, rock used as riprap is to be durable, angular in shape, and suitably graded and sized to resist movement by stream flow and achieve fish habitat objectives. Where possible use excavated streambed material or clean pea gravel to fill interstitial spaces to prevent excessive subsurface flow in rip rap armouring

 The disposal of deleterious materials in sites other than those approved by the Construction Supervisor and the Environmental Agencies is prohibited.

 The Contractor will cease operations, modify construction methods or relocate to an alternate site within the project area during periods of inclement weather where necessary to avoid siltation of designated waterbodies.

 Work will be pursued to completion as quickly as possible once started.

 A pre-construction meeting will be held between the EM, Construction Supervisor and the Contractor undertaking the work on the site to ensure that the personnel understands mitigation plans, details of the work activities, spill response/reporting procedures,

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 42 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

mandate of the environmental monitor and environmental consulting team, best management practices, safety procedures and any other issues and concerns.

 The project will not be considered complete or in compliance with the work plans if any mitigation remains outstanding or not completed to an acceptable standard BMPs.

It may be necessary to implement additional erosion and sediment control features as the work progresses, however the need for these additional works will be determined based on how well the above features are functioning and whether any new issues arise.

8.1.5 Idle Reduction The following applicable greenhouse gas reduction strategies should be implemented by the Contractor to reduce idling of vehicles and other combustion engines on site throughout the duration of the project:

 Motor vehicles and light diesel trucks will be limited to 1 minute of continuous idling time;

 Heavy duty diesel vehicles will be limited to 5 minutes of continuous idling time;

 Diesel vehicles involved in construction site transportation will be limited to 10 minutes of continuous idling time;

 Construction equipment are allowed continuous idling while actually being employed at the site for work intended;

Idling for more than the above times is permitted only under the following circumstances or if approved by the Construction Supervisor:

 When the vehicle of equipment is forced to remain motionless because of other traffic conditions or mechanical difficulties over which the operator has no control;

 To bring the vehicle or equipment to the manufacturer’s recommended operating temperature;

 When the outdoor temperature is below 0oC or above +30oC and the operator or passengers are inside the vehicle, and there are no auxiliary power sources available to provide temperature control;

 When it is necessary to operate auxiliary equipment that is located in or on the vehicle or equipment to accomplish the intended use of the vehicle of equipment (e.g. cranes and cement mixers);

 When the vehicle is detaching or exchanging a trailer;

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 43 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

 When the vehicle or equipment is being repaired or engaged in repairing another vehicle, if idling is necessary for such repair;

 When the vehicle or equipment is queued for inspection, if idling is necessary for such inspection;

 For designated emergency vehicles or any vehicle or equipment assisting in police, fire or ambulance services; and/or,

 When defrosting or defogging windows. Idling shall end when fog, frost, or ice conditions have been eliminated.

8.1.6 Waste Disposal

Non-toxic or non-hazardous wastes generated during the project that are not designated to be burned on site will be either recycled, disposed of in an approved landfill or disposed as directed by the Construction Supervisor. Non-toxic or non-hazardous waste products will be collected promptly, stored in suitable containers or locations, and regularly removed from the site.

Toxic or hazardous waste materials are not anticipated for this project. Should soils or other materials become contaminated with toxic or hazardous waste materials those materials and/or locations will be cleaned to regulatory standards.

8.1.7 Fuel and Hazardous Material Storage and Handling The Contractor will provide, in accordance with applicable Federal, Provincial or local requirements, suitable fuel dispensing equipment and storage containers/facilities and will take all precautions necessary to prevent the discharge of contaminants and the conduct of actions which may pollute or degrade the atmosphere, bodies of water, or land areas, or which may harm fish, wildlife and their habitats.

Fuel and hazardous material storage will not be located within 30 m of a watercourse, within a watercourse floodplain, or where there is a potential for any spilled fuel or hazardous material to enter a watercourse, groundwater or marine habitat. Fuel storage, dispensing, and transport will comply with the requirements outlined in Summary of Environmental Standards & Guidelines for Fuel Handling, Transportation, and Storage (Hollenberg, 1995).

8.1.8 Spill Response The purpose of this spill response plan is to ensure that spills of hazardous materials are dealt with and reported upon appropriately. The Contractor will provide, in accordance with applicable Federal, Provincial or local requirements, suitable equipment and facilities and will take all precautions necessary to prevent the discharge of contaminants and the conduct of actions which may pollute or degrade the atmosphere, bodies of water, or land areas, or which may harm fish, wildlife and their habitats.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 44 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

The Contractor will have the necessary spill abatement and clean-up equipment stored on-site at a convenient location. The Contractor will promptly replace any used spill abatement and clean- up materials and maintain a sufficient inventory of materials throughout construction operations. For operations adjacent to or within an ESA, the Contractor will have an approved spill kit ready for use at all times.

The Contractor will immediately report any spill of any toxic or hazardous material verbally to the Construction Supervisor, KMC inspector, Project Manager (Bob Zeleny), KMC's EHS Coordinator (Jason Turner), EM and KMC will report to Federal and Provincial bodies including the Provincial Emergencies Program (PEP) 24 hour telephone line: 1-800-663-3456. Written notification of the spill must follow within two weeks of this verbal report.

The EM and/or the Contractor will document any spills observed in the vicinity of the Project that are not the result of Project-related activities, and notify the Environmental Agencies of such incidents.

Emergency Contact/Sequence List

Prior to construction the Contractor must provide an emergency contact sequence and contact list for distribution to the Construction Supervisor and the EM.

Spill Response Equipment, Location and Contents

The Contractor will have Emergency Spill Kits on site at all times. Basic first response spill kits should be located in each piece of heavy machinery and a larger spill kit with absorbent socks (booms) capable of containing spills over water should be on site when working in and around water. The location of spill kits should be communicated to construction personnel as well as the Construction Supervisor and the EM. At a minimum each spill kit should contain:

 10 - 18”x 18” oil absorbent pads (white),  5 - 18”x 18” antifreeze absorbent pads (grey or yellow),  1 – 6” absorbent boom,  1 – container of dry absorbent (4 L minimum),  1 – pair of disposable gloves,  1 – bag for disposal purposes,  either ½ lb dry or 1 lb mixed stop leak material,  Leak proof contain for storage and transport of used absorbent materials.

If any items are used throughout the duration of the project, items will be immediately replaced.

Spill Response

1. Discovery a. Evaluate the Hazards – Safety First

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 45 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

b. Identify the product spilling c. Take precautionary measures, immediately halt operations and where practical remove all non-essential equipment and personnel from the area (extinguish all sources of ignition) 2. Stop product flow a. Act quickly, but ensure safety first b. Where possible shut off leaking valves, upright containers or machinery c. Secure site and notify appropriate personnel

3. Contain the spill a. Take action within your ability, using the resources at hand (employ relative spill abatement) b. Block off drains and ditches, surround spill with commercial absorbents, earthen berms, sand etc. In the event that a piece of equipment is upset within any watercourse the contractor should immediately employ a floating boom to contain the fluids

4. Notify and obtain assistance a. Report spill to appropriate project personnel b. Contact EM, Construction Supervisor, Project Supervisor etc.

5. Continue with clean-up and restoration a. Maintain and monitor recovery b. Excavate contaminated material and remove to an approved location for disposal (Any contaminated soils are to be disposed of in a manner that is in compliance with the Waste Management Act)

6. Report the spill a. Collect information and details on the Spill Incident Reporting Form (Appendix VII) b. Spills adversely effecting the environment must be reported (see below for reportable levels and contact information)

Spill Reporting

A person who had possession, charge or control of a substance immediately before its spill shall immediately report the spill verbally to the Construction Supervisor, KMC inspector, Project Manager (Bob Zeleny), KMC's EHS Coordinator (Jason Turner), EM and KMC will report to Federal and Provincial bodies including the Provincial Emergencies Program (PEP) 24 hour telephone line: 1-800-663-3456 or, where it is not practical to report to PEP within a reasonable time, to the local police or nearest detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 46 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Where it appears to a person observing a spill that a report under subsection (1) has not been made, he or she shall make the report referred to in this section. A spill reporting form is provided in Appendix VII.

A report under this section shall include, to the extent practical:  the reporting person's name and telephone number,  the name and telephone number of the person who caused the spill,  the location and time of the spill,  the type and quantity of the substance spilled,  the cause and effect of the spill,  details of action taken or proposed to comply with section 3,  a description of the spill location and of the area surrounding the spill,  the details of further action contemplated or required,  the names of agencies on the scene, and  the names of other persons or agencies advised concerning the spill.

Reportable Levels

Explosives Any Diesel Fuel 100 L Gasoline 100 L Grease 100 L Hydraulic Oil 100 L Lubricating Oils 100 L Solvents 100 L Flammable gases, other than natural gas as 10 kg, if the spill results from equipment defined in section 3.11 (a) of the Federal failure, error or deliberate action or inaction Regulations Non-flammable gases of Division 2 of Class 2 as 10 kg, where spill results from equipment defined in section 3.11 (d) of the Federal failure, error or deliberate action or inaction Regulations Flammable liquids of Class 3 as defined in 100 L section 3.12 of the Federal Regulations Waste oil as defined in section 1 of the Special 100 L Waste Regulation Natural Gas 10 kg, if there is a breakage in a pipeline or fitting operated above 100 psi that results in a sudden and uncontrolled release of natural gas A substance not covered by the above listed items 200 kg that can cause pollution (i.e. concrete)

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 47 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

Further Action

Where a spill occurs, the person who immediately before the spill had possession, charge or control of the spilled substance shall take all reasonable and practical action, having due regard for the safety of the public and of himself or herself, to stop, contain and minimize the effects of the spill.

Disposal of Contaminated Material

The Contractor will immediately take the necessary steps to abate the discharge and provide the necessary labor, equipment, materials and absorbents to contain and remove the spill, clean up the affected area, dispose of waste materials at an approved disposal site and restore the area to the satisfaction of the Environmental Agencies. Any soil contaminated by spills will be removed and replaced by comparable substitutes. All contaminated soil and vegetation that is removed from the site will be disposed of in an approved waste disposal site.

8.1.9 Environmental Monitoring KMC will provide third party environmental monitoring services for the construction activities associated with the construction activities outlined within this document. Prior to new construction activities, the EM will provide the Construction Supervisor and construction personnel with locations of environmental sensitivity, mitigation plans, and best management practices. The EM will prepare daily reports containing photographs and chronologically sorted notes of each day of environmental monitoring. A summary report will be prepared at the end of the construction season.

The EM will have the authority to halt or modify construction activities if some aspect of the work is creating or will result in environmental damage. The EM will document all such instance and measures taken to address the environmental emergency.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 48 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

9.0 Conclusions

The environmental effects from the proposed Project to the ecosystem are primarily associated with the loss of vegetation under the footprint of the proposed Project. These include temporary impact to vegetation, wildlife/wildlife habitat and fish and fish habitat resources in and adjacent to the proposed works. Standard mitigation and best management practices contained in the Environmental Protection Plan would effectively minimize or mitigate any residual environmental effect resulting from the proposed Project.

Based on the screening level environmental assessment, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse environmental effects to aquatic habitat, channel morphology, terrestrial wildlife, vegetation and archaeological resources within the Project area.

The proposed Project will provide positive benefits to the fish and fish habitat within Swift Creek by improving the rearing and potentially the overwintering habitat in and adjacent to the pipeline crossing as well as mitigating potentially adverse impacts resulting from damage to the existing pipeline crossing.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 49 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

10.0 References

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2010. Conservation status reports: various species. B.C. Ministry of Environment. [accessed June 9, 2010]. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/

Caldwell, J, B Caldwell and K Bruya. 1987. Documentation and rational for preference curves for IFIM studies. Unpublished. State of Washington Department of Fisheries and State of Washington Department of Ecology.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1992. Fish Habitat Inventory and Information Program: Stream Summary Catalogue Subdistrict# 29J Clearwater. Fraser River, Northern BC and Yukon Division Fisheries Branch Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Douglas, G.W., Meidinger, D.V., and Penny, J.L. 2002. Rare native vascular plants of British Columbia, 2nd edition. B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C.

Fishwizard. 2010. Provincial Government fisheries database web link – www.fishwizard.com

Hollenberg, R. 1995. Summary of Environmental Standards and Guidelines for Fuel Handling, Transportation and Storage. Prepared for BC Ministry of Environment and BC Ministry of Forests, Smithers, BC.

Klinkenberg, B (editor). 2010. E-Flora BC: electronic atlas of the plants of British Columbia. Lab for advanced spatial analysis, Dept. of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. http://www.eflora.bc.ca/

Makowecki, R and E. Yaremko. 1997. Swift Creek Environmental Assessment and Implications for Water Intake Operation: Village of Valemount. Consultant report Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates Ltd. Valemount, BC.

Matsuda, B.M., D.M. Green and P.T. Gregory. 2006. Royal BC Museum handbook amphibians and reptiles of British Columbia. Royal B.C. Mus., Victoria, BC

Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, BC.

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Page 50 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

APPENDIX I

PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Appendix I British Columbia Alberta Edson Wolf Niton Chip Gainford Hinton Stony Plain Swift Creek Edmonton HargreavesTrap Rearguard

Jasper ^_Albreda Chappel Hardisty Blue River Finn McMurphy Ribstone Creek Blackpool STARVIEW RD Darfield LOSETH RD Youngstown

LOSETH RD 495 Kamloops «¬ Stump Jenner

VALEMOUNT DISPOSAL AREA ACCESS RD Kingsvale Burnaby Westridge Port Kells Suffield Sumas Sumas Tank SumasFarm Tank Hope Ferndale Wahleach Peace Butte Laurel

Anacortes Washington Washington Idaho Montana Wildhorse

Faulkner's Coulee

Eagle Buttes McLennan River STARVIEW RD Denton «¬496

0001: Swift Creek KP 496.5 Latitude: 52.83713 Longitude: -119.28778 0001: Swift Creek KP 496.5 MAIN ST Latitude: 52.83713 Longitude: -119.28778

UNNAMED LANE UNSIGNED UNNAMED LANE PID: 027243532 PID: 027243532

JUNIPER ST

PID: 008568391 PID: 027243541 COMMERCIALGORDON DR DR APID: 008568391 HIGHWAY 5 N WILLIAMS DR 1ST AVE A MARTIN DR 2ND AVE PID: 027243541 MAIN ST JACKADAMS RD ELM ST

HIGHWAY 5 N 3RD AVE McLennan River GRENFELL PL 4TH AVE PINE RD «¬497 DR HILLSIDE 5TH AVE

BRUCEPL GEORGE PL 6TH AVE BEAVAN CRES 2ND AVE KARAS DR FIRST 7TH AVE

GORSEST

CEDARST 8TH AVE 8TH AVE 3RD AVE

BIRCH ST 9THUNNAMED AVE LANE 9TH AVE GRENFELL PL West Cranberry Creek

4TH AVE ELM ST 497

ELM ST «¬ HIGHWAY 5 S Valemount 5TH AVE

BRUCEPL

GEORGE PL

WestCranberry Creek HILLSIDE MINE RD 13TH AVE PINE RD ASH ST

DOGWOOD ST HIGHWAY 5 S FIRST 6TH AVE 14TH AVE «¬498 UNNAMED LANE

KING RD

7TH AVE Cranberry Creek

CEDAR ST

KARAS DR 17TH AVE

8TH AVE 8TH AVE CRANBERRY PL

GORSE ST CRANBERRY LAKE RD

ELM ST DOGWOOD ST 0 250 500 1,000 0 125 250 500 9TH AVE UNNAMED LANEValemount9TH AVE Meters CRANBERRY LAKE RD Meters CANOE VIEW PL

DOGWOOD ST TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE A Mitigation Site Freeway & Primary Highway Other Parks & Recreation 2010 MITIGATION SITE Active Pipeline Secondary Highway Provincial Park SWIFT CREEK KP 496.5 Local Road Map Number: 2010-NATHAZ-MAP-0001 Access National Park Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 11N Railroad Land Parcel Conservation & Ecological February 19, 2010 § Areas Date: 2010_NATHAZ_MAP_0001.mxd Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

APPENDIX II

PROPOSED ISOLATION PLAN

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Appendix II SWIFT CREEK ISOLATION/WATER CONTROL PLAN NOV 9 2010

Dewater Isolation

Sump

Bypass ‐ Mega Sump Bags/Plastic

Clear Old Trail near ‐ bank‐side 20 m x 3 m

Pump Grouping Clear Bank‐side 15m ,x 3 m

Phase I Water Bypass Along Left Bank

Dewater Isolation

Sump

Sump

Bypass ‐ Mega Bags/Plastic/Geotextile Clear Old Trail near ‐ bank‐side 20 m x 3 m Pump Grouping Clear Bank‐side 15m ,x 3 m Phase II Water Bypass Along Right Bank Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

APPENDIX III

PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Appendix III Historic hydrographs for Swift Creek at pipeline crossing *) 45

40

average

35 min max

30

Project Site 25

20 Discharge (m³/s) Discharge(m³/s) 15

10

5

0 01-Jul 15-Jul 29-Jul 08-Apr 22-Apr 07-Oct 21-Oct 01-Jan 15-Jan 29-Jan 03-Jun 17-Jun 12-Feb 26-Feb 11-Mar 25-Mar 04-Nov 18-Nov 02-Dec 16-Dec 30-Dec 12-Aug 26-Aug 09-Sep 23-Sep 06-May 20-May

*) Water Survey of Canada gauges (adjusted): 08KA010 SWIFT CREEK ABOVE BARRETT CREEK (1972 to 1981) 08KA012 SWIFT CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH (1985 to 1998)

Edmonton

Calgary Project Site 1 0 1 2 3 km

Vancouver SCALE 1:50,000

KINDER MORGAN INC.

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE SYSTEM SWIFT CREEK : KP 496 PIPELINE COVER REMEDIATION DESIGN 210 Dec 2010 Issued for permitting KM northwest Hydrograph and Location Plan 129 Nov 2010 Issued for permitting KM DWG. 7425-1 DEC. 10, 2010 Sheet 1 of 2 0 31 May 2010 Issued for permitting KM hydraulic No. REVISIONS consultants northwest hydraulic consultants ltd. No. 1 Issued permittingfor Issued permittingfor Issued 0 1 2 31 May31 2010 Nov 201029 Dec 201010 1. Prepare worksite Prepare 1. worksite Prepare 1. D Disposal of vegetation shall be at the direction of the environmental representative. environmental of directionthe the be shall at Disposal of vegetation rock constructionpipeline and of layerarmour the on of channel concrete top weights of on include replacement Project components Project components 778.62 Elev. N5856178.07 E346308.25 MRK: PL FD I: bed and banks at the Swift Creek pipeline crossing. The concrete weights will be connected to anchor toblocks will weights connected viaThe concrete be crossing. galvanised CreekSwift pipeline the at banks and steel bed PLAN VIEWPLAN Site dewatering / isolating: Streamflow bypass shall be established at the direction of Kinder Morgan. The workof Morgan. directionKinder Streamflowdewatering isolating:the area mustbe bypass shall at established Site / be 783.97 Elev. N5856195.61 E346355.90 GCM 123588: control:Survey armour layer footprint shall be stockpiled nearby and combined with new within rock thewith proposed combined and nearby armour stockpiled be shall layer.footprint layer armour thalweg profile ingradeshowncross(A-A as section and form B-B).the Excavated material within and tobed excavated the shallrepresentative.Thewithchannela Morgan pipeline onlydirectionKinder vicinity the from the be in Excavation over of and 2. abelow level pipeline. to the dewatered Class with armoured be shall II The riprapchannels Ømm. 10 (d cables Re-vegetate 5. weights concrete Place 3. pipeconcrete removeexpose weights, Excavate, and 2. thickness of 800mm. thickness of withoutsupervision MorganKinder representative. ofpipeline vicinity a of the the profile priorshall established construction any shallNo over,excavation workThe be pipeline into being place undertaken. take or Vegetation removal: All shrubs, including weeds, within project footprint shall be removed prior to commencingpriorto removed be any shall constructionfootprint within project weeds, including All shrubs, removal: work.Vegetation banksarmour layer and rock Place 4. e sign notes: sign

7 7 7 7 3 4 7 7 Issued permittingforIssued 2 E345910.56 N5856619.71 Elev. 775.80 Elev. N5856619.71 E345910.56

7

7

4 UTM COORDINATES:UTM UTM COORDINATES:UTM

7 N5856617.38

7 E345885.62

3 N5856583.04 E345888.18 772 R OW B

OUND

ARY C

E C T S I O

N B S O S C

(B R Y R

KMC) O

S

S

S E

C 7 T 7

3 C I

O

R N

24" P O

IP E S

LINE A

REVISIONS

S

S

E C 7

RO 7 T W I

4 B O OUND

ARY (B N Y K

MC) A 10

UTM COORDINATES:UTM

E C T S I O

N B S O S C R N5856590.80 E345904.95 SWIFT CREEK SWIFT 10 0 50 = The rock 500mm). minimum layershallarmour have a SCALE 1:500 SCALE

20

7

7

3

7 7 7

7 7 7

3 4 5 30 m 30 KM KM KM SECTIONS CROSS SECTION A-A: PIPELINEA-A: SECTION CROSSINGCROSS ELEVATION - m B-B: THALWEG SECTION PROFILE CROSS ELEVATION - m 771 773 771 773 775 769 770 772 774 772 774 776 5 5 WEST (DOWNSTREAM) WEST SOUTH (LEFT BANK) (LEFT SOUTH 24" PIPELINE (FLOWING SOUTH) PIPELINE 24" DOWNSTREAM ROCKKEY EXISTING BANK EXISTING GEOTEXTILE FILTER GEOTEXTILE EXISTING THALWEG EXISTING Rock riprap Class II: 570 m³ 570 Classriprap RockII: Quantities Material crack approvedor spall as to unlikely and by the durable engineer. hard, be shall Rock material Design gradations are on a by-mass sphericalgiven are on Design dimensionsbasis; equivalent are for gradations diameter. equivalent. non-woven or 4551 propex Gravel surface area. range the the sizes appearance shall naturalin of gravel of 8abe to to more order establish 64 in imported mm layer,supplementedarmour with the part of as used materialclean not shalllayer back-filled excavated of be the with remnants The wire ends. near ropeboth willtwo locations at the Ømmformed installing each weightplastic by pipes 15 through passages pipe. Galvanised steelthe wire rope Ømm of will 10 top concrete rockon be weights whereplaced the and exposed are toshield be Geotextile: infill:Gravel limits Rockfor riprap Class Gradation II 5. The re-vegetation plan willplan The re-vegetation provided others. by be 5. kg 30 or 300 mm kg 200 larger than or 500 mm kg 300 80% larger than or leastat 600 mm 50% larger than leastat 20% leastat mid-channelfish forAllgeotextile passage. rock filter,shall underlain developed along a by boulders be A be thalweg shall diameter. The pipeline within representative. the Morgan Kinder main a channel from direction with shall placed be shall weights Concrete 3. then be extended through these passages. Both ends will be secured to a clamp atsystem ends will the Both a clamp anchor secured these passages. to be through blocks. be extended then weightsprovide shall the weightto blocks. two toanchor locationsThe manufacturer of secure specialeach concrete be at used then 4. Rock riprap Class II shall be placed as shown in Section A-A and B-B (thickness at least 800 mm). The mm). interstices 800 least B-B at (thickness and A-ASection inshownas of the armour placed be Rock riprapshall Class II 4. CLASS II RIPRAP II CLASS D50 = 500mm = D50 10 10 100% smaller than 800 mm or 700 kg 700 or 800 mm smaller than 100% 1.5 2.0 GEOTEXTILE FILTER GEOTEXTILE 500mm = D50 RIPRAP II CLASS ARMOUR BANK 0.8 100 m³ 100 750 m 15 15 1.0 min. overlap min. ²

A

V

E

R

A

G

E PIPELINE COVER WEIGHT TIED TO ANCHOR TIED WEIGHT COVER BLOCKPIPELINE

S

L

O

P

E

≈

7

% hydraulic northwest consultants 20 20 CLASS II RIPRAP II CLASS PIPELINE COVER WEIGHT PIPELINE 0.8 BED ARMOUR BED D50 = 500mm = D50 DISTANCE - m DISTANCE - m DISTANCE 24" DIA. PIPELINE24" DIA. ANCHOR BLOCKANCHOR 25 25 FLOW DIRECTION FLOW GEOTEXTILE FILTER GEOTEXTILE CLASS II RIPRAP II CLASS BANK ARMOUR BANK D50 = 500mm = D50 1.0 ROCK TO TO CONCRETEROCK CAREFULLY BUTTRESSCAREFULLY WEIGHT SURFACE WEIGHT min. overlap min. 30 30 0.8 EXISTING BANK EXISTING 2.0 DWG. 7425-1 1.5 PIPELINE COVER REMEDIATION DESIGNCOVERREMEDIATION PIPELINE northwest hydraulic consultants ltd.consultants northwest hydraulic TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE SYSTEM TRANSPIPELINE MOUNTAIN EXISTING THALWEG EXISTING 500mm = D50 ROCK UPSTREAM KEY CLASS II RIPRAP II CLASS KINDER MORGAN INC. KINDER SWIFT 496 CREEK KP : 35 35 DESIGN NORTH (RIGHT BANK) NORTH DEC. 10, 2010DEC.10, EAST (UPSTREAM) EAST 40 40 Sheet 2 Sheet of 2 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

APPENDIX IV

HABITAT MITIGATION DESIGN

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Appendix IV Geomorphological Highlights Summary of Channel Aggradation / Degradation Information 1. The natural process on the alluvial fan is for the channel to aggrade (deposit gravel) and Alluvial Fan avulse (overflow it's banks and change location), Apex 2. Near the alluvial fan apex the municipality has removed gravel to maintain their water intake (and presumably manage the avulsion risk) (see photos 1 and 5), 3. The drop structure at the intake has trapped a large quantity of gravel historically. It would N now require some gravel removal near the intake (photos 6 and 7), but during a large flood some gravel bedload would pass downstream, 4. This interuption of gravel input to downstream reaches has caused some degradation, although none is evident at the CNR and Main St. crossings (photo 4) and only minimal evidence at the Hwy 5 bridge (photo 2), 5. The KMC pipeline crossing has had pipe weights exposed for many years - since early 1980's according to landowner (see photo 3). General channel degradation in this reach is estimated at up to 0.3 m over the past 20 years, 6. With a reduction in the gravel interception at the intake (i.e. the channel upstream is now mostly filled) the future degradation is expected to be less than 0.3 m over the next 20 years. The design of the protective apron can deal with this scale of potential degradation without interupting fish passage or creating undo scour / erosion, Meander 7. With the proposed mitigation works (see Figure 2) this "protect in place" pipeline solution Loop appears sound from a river morphology perspective. Cutoff

Photo 4: CNR crossing - No evidence of degradation at rail or adjacent Main St. crossings

Photo 3: KMC crossing - Pipe weights exposed since the mid-1980s. Nearby, the channel may have degraded up to 0.3 m in the past 20 years

Photo 5: Channelization for gravel removal and avulsion risk

Gravel Removed

Photo 2: Hwy 5 Bridge - Minimal evidence of degradation (up to 0.3 m)

Photo 1: Google Maps image of Swift Creek near Valemount, from alluvial fan apex (top right), downstream to municipal water intake, Hwy 5 and pipeline crossing. Photo 7: Intake drop structure Photo 6: Gravel deposition and removal at intake

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Figure 1

Swift Creek - 24" Oil Pipeline Crossing River Morphology Site Assessment Drawn By: Bob Costerton, P.Eng. Date: 30 Nov 2010 Site Layout Habitat Enhancement (Mitigation) Design Notes 1. The intent of this mitigation work is to improve fish habitat complexity in this reach, and avoid generating uniformly high water velocities across the proposed riprap apron, 2. The proposed mitigation features include: Large Woody Debris (LWD) structures (3), boulder clusters (3), and adding surface roughness elements to the apron, 3. The LWD features will add cover for fish on the edge of the main flow. The length projecting out from the toe of the slope (4 m, 4 m, and 2.5 m) is selected to provide maximum benefit without compromising the stability of the structre by extending it into the highest energy portion of the channel. Conifers cleared from the RoW can be incorporated into the LWD structures to add cover for juvenile fish, particularly during the first few years before the needles / small branches become damaged, 4. Boulders projecting up through the surface of the riprap apron will to create a variety of flow velocites and fish passage routes, 5. Boulder clusters downstream of the apron will break-up higher velocity flow and disapate energy, avoiding erosion and scour downstream of the reach shown, 6. All features should be placed under the direction of an experienced river engineer, to allow the design to be modified to best utilize the available materials (logs and rocks) and the site conditions at the time of construction, 7. The details of the LWD structures are shown in Figure 3.

Oil Line

Do Not Disturb Constr. Vegetation Access

Constr. Access

Scale: 1:250 (when printed 11" x 17") Photo 1: LWD Habitat Enhancement Concept

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Figure 2

Swift Creek - 24" Oil Pipeline Crossing Mitigation Prescription Drawn By: Bob Costerton, P.Eng. Date: 17 June 2010 Riprap Specifications Typical LWD Hard Point - Features 1. Rock size will be approximately 0.7 to 0.9 m in diameter, 2. Rock must be competent, with minimal cracks or seams that would increase the chances of a anchor failure, 3. Rock for use as riprap shall be sound and durable and of a suitable quality to ensure permanence in the structure and the climate in which it is used. 4. The estimated volume of rock required for the mitigation works is as follows: - 2 loads (~15 cu. m) for the LWD ballast, - 2 loads (~15 cu. m) for the boulder clusters, - 2 loads (~15 cu. m) for the roughening of the apron surface.

LWD Hard Points

Rock - As above

LWD - haul logs 8 to 10 m length with rootwad attached - cut logs to length (around 7 m) onsite to keep options open, - Minimum 0.4 m butt diameter - Conifers cleared from RoW can be incorporated into the LWD features. Cable conifers to main logs to provide additional cover within LWD "A frame", - the two main logs in the "A frame" are to be cables together with 9/16" cable running through both logs, - smaller cut conifers can be cabled to the main logs with 3/16" cable.

Anchor - 9/16" Solid Core Steel Cable - A7 Epoxy in 20 cm x 16 mm drilled holes - Minimum 2 ballast rocks per log; minimum 2 anchors per rock - Drill through log and finish both ends of cable in epoxy holes, Typical LWD Hard Point - Cross-Section - Use 2 x 9/16" cable clamps on each anchor cable as back-up.

Anchor Detail

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Figure 3

Swift Creek - 24" Oil Pipeline Crossing LWD Details and

Material Specs Drawn By: Bob Costerton, P.Eng. Date: 17 June 2010 Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

APPENDIX V

RIVER 2D MODELLING RESULTS

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Appendix V Baseline

5856620

776.00 m

775.50 m 5856600

775.00 m 5856580

774.50 m

5856560 774.00 m 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940

773.50 m Pipeline covered with riprap apron

5856620 773.00 m

772.50 m 5856600

772.00 m

5856580

771.50 m

771.00 m 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940

KINDER MORGAN CANADA INC. PIPELINE CROSSING - SWIFT CREEK BATHYMETRY OF SWIFT CREEK: BASELINE AND PIPELINE COVERED WITH RIPRAP APRON

Project#: 7425 Date: 28-May-2010 Figure 1 northwest hydraulic consultants Swift Creek - River2D modelling results Q = 2 cms

Baseline - Velocity Baseline -Flow depth

5856620 5856620 3.6 m/s 2.0 m

3.4 m/s 1.9 m

1.8 m 3.2 m/s 5856600 5856600 1.7 m 3.0 m/s 1.6 m 2.8 m/s 5856580 1.5 m 5856580 2.6 m/s 1.4 m 2.4 m/s 1.3 m 2.2 m/s 5856560 1.2 m 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 2.0 m/s 1.1 m

1.8 m/s 1.0 m Pipeline covered with riprap apron - Velocity Pipeline covered with riprap apron - Flow depth 1.6 m/s 0.9 m 5856620 5856620 0.8 m 1.4 m/s 0.7 m 1.2 m/s 0.6 m 1.0 m/s 5856600 5856600 0.5 m 0.8 m/s 0.4 m

0.6 m/s 0.3 m 5856580 5856580 0.4 m/s 0.2 m

0.2 m/s 0.1 m

0.0 m 0.0 m/s 5856560 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940

KINDER MORGAN CANADA INC. PIPELINE CROSSING - SWIFT CREEK PIPLINE EXPOSURE MITIGATION STRUCTURE RIVER2D MODELLING RESULTS Q = 2 cms

Project#: 7425 Date: 29-May-2010 Figure 2 northwest hydraulic consultants Swift Creek - River2D modelling results Q = 3 cms

Baseline - Velocity Baseline -Flow depth

5856620 5856620 3.6 m/s 2.0 m

3.4 m/s 1.9 m

1.8 m 3.2 m/s 5856600 5856600 1.7 m 3.0 m/s 1.6 m 2.8 m/s 5856580 1.5 m 5856580 2.6 m/s 1.4 m 2.4 m/s 1.3 m 2.2 m/s 5856560 1.2 m 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 2.0 m/s 1.1 m

1.8 m/s 1.0 m Pipeline covered with riprap apron - Velocity Pipeline covered with riprap apron - Flow depth 1.6 m/s 0.9 m 5856620 5856620 0.8 m 1.4 m/s 0.7 m 1.2 m/s 0.6 m 1.0 m/s 5856600 5856600 0.5 m 0.8 m/s 0.4 m

0.6 m/s 0.3 m 5856580 5856580 0.4 m/s 0.2 m

0.2 m/s 0.1 m

0.0 m 0.0 m/s 5856560 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940

KINDER MORGAN CANADA INC. PIPELINE CROSSING - SWIFT CREEK PIPLINE EXPOSURE MITIGATION STRUCTURE RIVER2D MODELLING RESULTS Q = 3 cms

Project#: 7425 Date: 29-May-2010 Figure 3 northwest hydraulic consultants Swift Creek - River2D modelling results Q = 24 cms

Baseline - Velocity Baseline -Flow depth

5856620 5856620 3.6 m/s 2.0 m

3.4 m/s 1.9 m

1.8 m 3.2 m/s 5856600 5856600 1.7 m 3.0 m/s 1.6 m 2.8 m/s 5856580 1.5 m 5856580 2.6 m/s 1.4 m 2.4 m/s 1.3 m 2.2 m/s 5856560 1.2 m 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 2.0 m/s 1.1 m

1.8 m/s 1.0 m Pipeline covered with riprap apron - Velocity Pipeline covered with riprap apron - Flow depth 1.6 m/s 0.9 m 5856620 5856620 0.8 m 1.4 m/s 0.7 m 1.2 m/s 0.6 m 1.0 m/s 5856600 5856600 0.5 m 0.8 m/s 0.4 m

0.6 m/s 0.3 m 5856580 5856580 0.4 m/s 0.2 m

0.2 m/s 0.1 m

0.0 m 0.0 m/s 5856560 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940

KINDER MORGAN CANADA INC. PIPELINE CROSSING - SWIFT CREEK PIPLINE EXPOSURE MITIGATION STRUCTURE RIVER2D MODELLING RESULTS Q = 24 cms

Project#: 7425 Date: 29-May-2010 Figure 4 northwest hydraulic consultants Swift Creek - River2D modelling results Q = 34 cms

Baseline - Velocity Baseline -Flow depth

5856620 5856620 3.6 m/s 2.0 m

3.4 m/s 1.9 m

1.8 m 3.2 m/s 5856600 5856600 1.7 m 3.0 m/s 1.6 m 2.8 m/s 5856580 1.5 m 5856580 2.6 m/s 1.4 m 2.4 m/s 1.3 m 2.2 m/s 5856560 1.2 m 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 2.0 m/s 1.1 m

1.8 m/s 1.0 m Pipeline covered with riprap apron - Velocity Pipeline covered with riprap apron - Flow depth 1.6 m/s 0.9 m 5856620 5856620 0.8 m 1.4 m/s 0.7 m 1.2 m/s 0.6 m 1.0 m/s 5856600 5856600 0.5 m 0.8 m/s 0.4 m

0.6 m/s 0.3 m 5856580 5856580 0.4 m/s 0.2 m

0.2 m/s 0.1 m

0.0 m 0.0 m/s 5856560 5856560 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940 345840 345860 345880 345900 345920 345940

KINDER MORGAN CANADA INC. PIPELINE CROSSING - SWIFT CREEK PIPLINE EXPOSURE MITIGATION STRUCTURE RIVER2D MODELLING RESULTS Q = 34 cms

Project#: 7425 Date: 29-May-2010 Figure 5 northwest hydraulic consultants Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

APPENDIX VI

ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT (AOA)

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Appendix VI

Swift Creek Pipeline Remediation December 2010

APPENDIX VII

SPILL REPORTING FORM

Prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Appendix VII Spill Incident Reporting Form

All non-authorized releases or discharges of contaminants to the environment in excess of the reportable levels identified in the Waste Management Act must be reported immediately to the Provincial Emergency Program: 1-800-663-3456.

Reporting Person’s Name: ______

Reporting Person’s Contact Number: ______

Name of Company or Person Causing Spill: ______

Contact Number for Person or Company Causing Spill: ______

Location of Spill: ______

Date / Time of Spill: ______

Substance Spilled: ______

Quantity: ______

Cause and Effect of Spill: ______

Actions Taken to Stop / Contain / Minimize / Maintain Spill: ______

Description of Spill Location and Surrounding Area: ______

Further Action Required: ______

Name of Agencies and Environmental Representatives on Site: ______

Report Completed By: ______Dated: ______