Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.1

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT The description of the environmental and socio-economic setting, and current state of the environment within the Local Study Area (LSA) and, where applicable, the Regional Study Area (RSA) (Section 5.0), are compared in this Section of the EA report against the Project Description (Section 2.0) to identify potential effects that might be caused by the Project. The environmental and socio-economic effects assessment uses the information provided in the environmental and socio-economic setting to:

• evaluate the environmental and socio-economic elements of importance in the LSA and RSA;

• formulate appropriate site-specific mitigative measures that are technically and economically feasible;

• identify and evaluate Project residual effects associated with each environmental and socio-economic element of importance; and

• identify the effects of the environment on the Project.

In addition, the environmental and socio-economic effects assessment has determined the significance of potential adverse residual effects resulting from construction and operation activities after taking into consideration proposed mitigation and compensation measures.

6.1 Methodology

The assessment evaluated the environmental and socio-economic effects of the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment phases of each component of the Project (i.e., pipeline and facilities). The assessment method included the following components:

• determination of spatial and temporal boundaries for this assessment;

• identification of biophysical and socio-economic elements and associated Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs);

• identification of potential environmental and socio-economic impacts;

• development of technically and economically feasible mitigation and, where appropriate, compensation measures;

• identification of anticipated residual effects; and

• determination of the significance of adverse residual effects.

This environmental and socio-economic effects assessment methodology has been developed based on the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Agency’s The Authority's Guide to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Agency 1994), the CEA Agency’s Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999), the CEA Act and the National Energy Board's (NEB) Filing Manual (NEB 2004).

The environmental and socio-economic effects assessment associated with the construction and operation of the Project was a collaborative effort of several qualified professionals with element-specific expertise, under the guidance of representatives of TERA/Westland. Table 6.1 acknowledges the contribution of these experts and professionals by biophysical or socio-economic element.

November 2005 Page 6-1 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.1

TABLE 6.1

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT TEAM

Biophysical/Socio-Economic Element Assessor Physical Environment Geo-Engineering (M.S.T.) Ltd., TERA/Westland, SEACOR Environmental Inc. Soil Capability Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd., TERA/Westland Water Quality and Quantity TERA/Westland, Salmo Consulting Inc. Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Air Quality Lynn Ross Consulting, TERA/Westland Acoustic Environment HFP Acoustical Consultants Corp., TERA/Westland Fish and Fish Habitat Salmo Consulting Inc., Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. Wetlands TERA/Westland and R.U. Kistritz Consulting Ltd. Vegetation TERA/Westland, B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat TERA/Westland, A. Grant MacHutchon Species at Risk TERA/Westland, Salmo Consulting Inc. Heritage Resources R&W Archaeological Consulting Ltd., Madrone Environmental Services Ltd., L.V. Hills, TERA/Westland Traditional Land and Resource Use TERA/Westland Human Occupancy and Resource Use TERA/Westland Social and Cultural Well-Being TERA/Westland Human Health TERA/Westland Infrastructure and Services TERA/Westland Employment and Economy TERA/Westland Accidents and Malfunctions Terasen Pipelines, TERA/Westland

6.1.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

6.1.1.1 Spatial Boundaries

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

• A Project Footprint study area made up the area directly disturbed by assessment, construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., permanent right-of-way, temporary construction workspace, temporary access routes, temporary stockpile sites, temporary staging areas, construction work camps, off load areas, borrow pits, facility sites).

• A Local Study Area (LSA) consisting of a 2 km buffer centered on the proposed pipeline right-of-way. The LSA is based on the typical ‘indirect footprint’ of pipeline facilities and activities (i.e., the zone of influence within which plants (50 m), animals (500 m), and humans (500-800 m) are most likely to be affected by project construction and operation. For the pump stations, the LSA consists of a 1 km radius centred on the pump station site.

• A Regional Study Area (RSA) including 9,319 km2 captured in the ten 1:50,000 map sheets that could be affected by the Project. Includes the following communities most likely to experience socio- economic effects of the Project: Hinton; Jasper townsite; Tete Jaune Cache; and Valemount.

• A Supra-regional Study Area (SRSA) extending beyond the RSA but within the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia (BC).

• A Continental Area extending outside Canada. This includes the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y) corridor proposed for wide ranging species such as grizzly bear and wolves.

November 2005 Page 6-2 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.1

The ecological boundary is described within the discussions of each element. Spatial ecological boundaries were determined by the distribution, movement patterns and potential zones of interaction between an element and the Project. The ecological boundary may be limited to the Project Footprint (e.g., pipeline easement or facility) or extend beyond the physical boundaries of the area of the Project component since the distribution or movement of an element can be local, regional, supra-regional or continental in extent.

6.1.1.2 Temporal Boundaries

The time frames used in the assessment of the Project include the planning, construction, operations, and decommissioning and abandonment phases. The construction period (includes clearing, grading, trenching, testing, and reclamation) for the pipeline and associated appurtenances in Alberta, including JNP, is assumed to take eight months from August 2007 to March 2008. The construction period for the same components in BC is assumed to be eleven months within the period September 2007 to November 2008. A detailed pipeline construction schedule is provided in Section 2.7.4.1 of this EA report. Construction of Wolf and Chappel pump stations and associated infrastructure is anticipated to commence concurrently with pipeline construction and extend over a period of up to six months. Construction delays will not affect the overall assessment of environmental and socio-economic effects since it is assumed pipeline construction will occur during these times in a subsequent year. The operations phase was considered to commence in November 2008 following construction and extend an estimated 100 years.

6.1.2 Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements

Potential biophysical and socio-economic elements interacting with the Project were identified through the public and government consultation process including the Scoping and Requirements of the EA (TOR) (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency et al. 2005), through experience gained during other construction programs in areas with similar conditions as well as the professional judgment of the assessment team. Identifying potential Project interactions with biophysical and socio-economic elements is also guided by the operating experience of Terasen Pipelines' Pipeline Maintenance (PLM) staff. Key to determining element interactions with the Project was the identification of issues noted during public consultation with Parks Canada, BC MOE and other federal and provincial government agencies, local industry people, interested stakeholders and the general public (Section 4.0 of this EA report).

Biophysical and socio-economic elements potentially interacting with the Project include:

• physical elements such as physical environment, soil capability, water quality and quantity, greenhouse gases (GHG) and air quality, and acoustic environment;

• biological elements such as fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk; and

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, traditional land and resource use, social and cultural well-being, human health, infrastructure and services, and employment and economy.

Effects arising from accidents and malfunctions, and effects of the environment on the Project were also considered.

Those biophysical and socio-economic elements which are not considered to interact with a component of the Project are identified and justified in Sections 6.2 and 6.3, respectively of this EA report. As per Guide A.2.5 of the NEB Filing Manual, no further analysis is necessary for those elements where interactions between the Project and a biophysical or socio-economic element are not predicted.

November 2005 Page 6-3 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.1

The identification of VECs early on in the planning process of a project enables the environmental assessment to focus on the most important and known sensitive resources which may be affected by the project. For the Project, VECs were identified for applicable physical, biological and socio-economic elements through the TOR provided by the Responsible Authorities (RAs) (includes those VECs identified within JNP and MRPP), a workshop with interested stakeholders and environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) as well as through the professional judgment of the assessment team. The applicable VECs are identified and discussed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this EA report.

6.1.3 Potential Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects

The potential environmental and socio-economic effects resulting from the Project were identified through the public and government consultation process including the TOR, through experience gained during other construction programs in the area as well as in nearby areas with similar conditions, and most importantly, through professional judgment of the assessment team. The potential environmental and socio-economic effects arising from the construction and operation of the pipeline are identified in Table 6.2 (located at the end of Section 6.7 of this EA report) while those effects arising from the construction and operation of permanent and temporary facilities, including pump stations, are identified in Table 6.3 (located at the end of Section 6.7 of this EA report).

6.1.4 Mitigative Measures

To ensure that potential environmental and socio-economic effects are minimized during pipeline and facility construction and operation, a number of general and site-specific mitigative measures have been proposed based upon current industry-accepted standards, consultation with government agencies and interested groups and individuals, and professional judgement of the assessment team. Government agency and stakeholder-suggested mitigation measures incorporated into this assessment include timing of construction, buried pipeline watercourse crossing methods, protection of native root systems, use of native species during restoration and planting vegetation to limit line of sight (see also Tables 4.7 and 4.8 in Section 4.0 of this EA report). Within JNP, proposed mitigative measures also considered the operations and maintenance procedural guidelines outlined within the Best Available Methods for Common Leaseholder Activities (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and David Walker & Associates 1998) and the protection measures outlined within the Environmental Assessment and Protection Plan for Routine Maintenance and Operation in Jasper National Park (Trans Mountain Pipe Line Company Ltd. 1994).

The proposed mitigative measures form the basis of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for the Project to be submitted with the NEB Application. The EPP is a comprehensive document which outlines the detailed state-of-the-art protection measures to be undertaken by either Terasen Pipelines or their contractor during each activity of pipeline or facility construction. The EPP also takes into consideration various federal and provincial government, and industry standards and guidelines (e.g., Alberta Environment 1988; Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) 1993, 1996, 1999, 2005, CAPP et al. 2005, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1995, 1999; provincial Codes of Practice and federal operational position statements). Accompanying the EPP will be photomosaic Environmental Work Sheets which will identify where specific mitigative measures are to be applied. Highly qualified environmental Inspectors will be retained by Terasen Pipelines to ensure that the protection measures within the EPP are properly implemented during construction. The EPP and environmental inspection are further described in Section 8.0 of this EA report.

The implementation of the proposed mitigative measures will greatly reduce the environmental and socio- economic impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project. Continued use of accepted Parks Canada practices within JNP will maintain and, where feasible, enhance the current level ecological and commemorative integrity within JNP and will not compromise the ability of Parks Canada to meet their mandate and expectations pertaining to sustainable development. These mitigative measures will also be applied within MRPP. Proposed construction mitigation measures from the basis of operations and maintenance procedures during the life of the pipeline.

November 2005 Page 6-4 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.1

6.1.5 Residual Effects

Residual effects are the net environmental and socio-economic effects remaining following the implementation of mitigative measures. In some situations, the recommended mitigative measures will completely mitigate the potential adverse effects while in other situations, the mitigative measures will lessen the effects, but not entirely eliminate them. Residual effects may also be induced effects (e.g., the introduction of weeds through mitigative effects to control erosion). Potential impacts of an element for which no residual effects are predicted require no further analysis.

6.1.6 Significance Analysis of Residual Effects

The determination of significance of adverse residual effects generally followed the guidelines and principles of the NEB Filing Manual, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (1994), and the CEA Agency’s Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999). The agencies identify several possible methods for the determination of whether residual adverse environmental or socio-economic effects are significant. These include:

• the use of established environmental standards, guidelines or objectives in relation to potential adverse residual effects;

• the use of quantitative risk assessment;

• quantitative assessment of residual adverse effects; and

• qualitative assessment of the residual adverse effects.

Some noise, air and water quality issues can be assessed using the standards and guidelines method. However, only the qualitative method was considered to be appropriate for determining the significance of most anticipated adverse residual effects. Consequently, the determination of significance was evaluated by developing a set of qualitative criteria based on those identified by Hegmann et al. (1999). These six criteria are identified below and their definitions are presented in Table 6.4. In some cases, the definitions were modified to accommodate discipline-specific parameters. Ecological context is not included in Table 6.4, however, a discussion of the ecological context of potential environmental issues is provided for each applicable element.

• Spatial context (i.e., Project Footprint, LSA, RSA, SRSA or continental).

• Temporal context (i.e., duration and frequency of the event causing the residual effect, reversibility of the residual effect).

• Ecological context (e.g., levels of existing disturbance; resilience of the receiving environment).

• Magnitude (i.e., severity of effect in relation to environmental and/or social standards or tolerance).

• Level of confidence or uncertainty (i.e., availability of data to substantiate the assessment conclusion, previous success of mitigative measures, etc.).

• Probability or likelihood of occurrence of residual effect.

For each environmental and socio-economic residual effect, the impact balance or direction (i.e., determination as to whether the effect is positive or negative) was also established. A positive impact balance is considered to have a net benefit to the environment. A neutral balance is defined as no net benefit or loss to the environment, while a negative balance is considered to be a net loss or detriment to the environment.

All significance assessment criteria (e.g., temporal context, magnitude, etc.) were considered by the assessment team for each adverse residual environmental or socio-economic effect. Where appropriate, the key or most influential assessment criteria used to determine the significance of each adverse

November 2005 Page 6-5 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.1 residual effect(s) are noted. Positive residual effects have not been assessed for significance. A summary of the significance evaluation for adverse residual effects arising from the construction and operation of the TMX - Anchor Loop for the overall Project is provided in Table 6.5 (located at the end of Section 6.0 of this EA report) in while similar summaries pertaining to JNP and MRPP are provided in Tables 6.6 and 6.7, respectively. These tables are located at the end Section 6.0 of this EA report.

In addition, within JNP, the adverse residual effects of the Project are evaluated in consideration of the Canada National Parks Act (2000), Parks Canada's Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (1994), Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan (JNP Management Plan) (Parks Canada 2000) and Jasper National Park of Canada State of the Park Report (SOPR) (Parks Canada 2005). In particular, the maintenance, restoration or enhancement of ecological integrity within JNP will be discussed. The TOR defines ecological integrity as "with respect to a park, a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes".

Similarly, within MRPP, the adverse residual effects of the Project are evaluated with regards to the BC Parks Act and the Mount Robson Provincial Park Master Plan (BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP) 1992) and Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan (BC MWLAP 2001) where possible. In particular, the adverse residual effects will be upheld to what the TOR has described as the primary goal of BC Parks which is "to maintain or restore natural and cultural values for future generations".

TABLE 6.4

EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS TMX - ANCHOR LOOP PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 1

Assessment Criteria Definition SPATIAL CONTEXT - location of effect Project Footprint The footprint for the project is the land area directly disturbed by assessment, construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., permanent right-of-way, temporary construction workspace, temporary access route, temporary stockpile site, temporary staging area, facility sites). Local The Local Study Area (LSA) is defined as a 2 km buffer centered on the proposed pipeline right-of-way. The LSA is based on the typical ‘indirect footprint’ of pipeline facilities and activities (i.e., the zone of influence within which plants (50 m), animals (500 m), and humans (500 to 800 m) are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. For the pump stations, the LSA consists of a 1 km radius centred on the pump station site. Regional The Regional Study Area (RSA) includes 9,319 km2 in ten 1:50,000 map sheets within the Yellowhead Ecosystem Working Group study area that could be affected by the Project. This includes important montane and sub-boreal habitats within the Yellowhead corridor and incorporates the maximum zone of influence for behavioural effects on wide-ranging ungulates and carnivores. Supra-Regional The area extending beyond the RSA but within the provinces of Alberta and BC. Continental The area extending outside Canada. This includes the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) corridor which is important to wide ranging species such as grizzly bear and wolves. TEMPORAL CONTEXT – of the event and residual effect Duration Immediate Event duration is limited to less than or equal to two days. (interval of the Short-term Event duration is longer than two days but less than or equal to one year. event causing the residual Medium-term Event duration of is longer than one year but less than or equal to five years. effect) Long-term Event duration extends longer than five years.

November 2005 Page 6-6 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.1

TABLE 6.4 Cont'd

Assessment Criteria Definition Frequency Accidental Event occurs rarely over assessment period and does not occur under normal (how often conditions. would the event Isolated Event is confined to a specific period (e.g., construction period; less than or equal to that caused the residual effect <10% of the assessment period). is anticipated to Occasional Event occurs intermittently and sporadically (e.g., animal mortalities on road ways, occur) and ground disturbance from unscheduled maintenance; estimated 10-15% of the assessment period). Periodic Event occurs intermittently but repeatedly over the construction and operations period (e.g., mowing during routine maintenance activities; routine aerial patrols; estimated >15% but <80% of the assessment period). Continuous Event occurs continually over the assessment period (e.g., noise at pump stations; estimated >80% of the assessment period). Reversibility Immediate Residual effect is alleviated in less than or equal to two days. (period of time over which the Short-term Greater than two days but less than or equal to one year to reverse residual effect. residual effect extends) Medium-term Greater than one year but less than or equal to five years to reverse residual effect. Long-term Greater than five years to reverse residual effect. Permanent Residual effect is irreversible. MAGNITUDE 2 - of the residual effect Negligible Residual effect is not detectable. Low Potential residual effect is detectable but well below established or derived environmental standards or thresholds. Medium Potential residual effect is detectable but within established or derived environmental and/or regulatory standards or thresholds. High Potential residual effect is beyond established or derived environmental standards or thresholds, or causes a detectable change beyond range of natural variability, or management plans for the indicator being considered. PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE - likelihood of residual effect happening High Is expected to occur. Low Is not expected to occur. LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE - degree of certainty related to significance evaluation Low Determination of significance based on incomplete understanding of cause-effect relationships and or incomplete data pertinent to the project area. Moderate Determination of significance based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships using data from outside the project area or incompletely understood cause-effect relationships using data pertinent to the project area. High Determination of significance based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships and data pertinent to the project area. Notes: 1 Significant Residual Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. 2 In consideration of magnitude, there are no environmental standards, guidelines or objectives for many of the construction/operation issues under evaluation. Therefore, the determination of magnitude of the residual effect often entailed an historical consideration of the assessment of magnitude made by regulators, land authorities, lessees, other stakeholders and the assessment team to adverse effects.

November 2005 Page 6-7 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2 Effects Assessment - Pipeline Construction and Operation

Using the assessment methodology described in Section 6.1, the following subsection evaluates the potential environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline loop.

Biophysical and socio-economic elements potentially interacting with the pipeline component of the Project include:

• physical elements such as physical environment, soil capability, water quality and quantity, GHG and air quality, and acoustic environment;

• biological elements such as fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk;

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, traditional land and resource use, social and cultural well-being, human health, infrastructure and services, and employment and economy; and

• accidents and malfunctions.

The effect of the environment on the Project is discussed in Section 6.5 of this EA report.

The potential environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the pipeline component of the Project as well as the accompanying proposed mitigative measures and resulting residual effects are presented in Table 6.2 Potential Biophysical and Socio-Economic Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation located at the end of Section 6.7 of this EA report.

In recognition of the unique landscape traversed by the Project and at the request of the RAs under the CEAA for this Project as outlined in the TOR, the effects assessment will be provided for three spatial contexts, namely the overall Project, JNP and MRPP. In each case, reference is made to the evaluation criteria presented in Table 6.4. A summary of the significance evaluation for adverse residual effects arising from the construction and operation of the TMX - Anchor Loop for the overall Project is provided in Table 6.5 while similar summaries pertaining to JNP and MRPP are provided in Tables 6.6 and 6.7, respectively. These tables are located at the end of Section 6.7 of this EA report.

6.2.1 Physical Environment

6.2.1.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on the physical environment include:

• thawing of potential degrading permafrost area from KP/KL 361.9 to KP/KL 362.4 may be accelerated;

• areas of minor instabilities may occur in fill materials as a result of blasting and/or terrain instabilities (e.g., debris flow activities and mass wasting);

• topography may be altered at locations where cut slopes are too steep to be replaced or where blasting was required to remove grade rock;

• substantial loss of cover over the pipeline may occur in isolated areas as a result of an extreme flood event;

November 2005 Page 6-8 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

• depending on the severity, a wildfire may affect the construction schedule; and

• depending on the type and severity of the change in climatic conditions, climate change may affect the scheduling of maintenance activities.

Permafrost Circular water-filled depressions suggestive of thermokarst (i.e., degrading or thawing permafrost) were observed between KP/KL 361.9 to KP/KL 362.4 in JNP. Field examination of this portion of the Proposed Route prior to construction will confirm whether perennially frozen ground will be encountered and, if so, appropriate mitigative measures will be implemented. Nevertheless, construction activities through this portion of the Proposed Route may result in an accelerated degradation of permafrost, if encountered. However, the Proposed Route abuts a previously disturbed pipeline alignment which has likely resulted in a degradation of the permafrost at this location, if present. The Proposed Route lies to the west of the existing alignment and away from the suspected thermokarst feature which further reduces the likelihood of encountering permafrost. The residual effect of construction activities on degrading permafrost is of low magnitude.

Minor Terrain and Fill Instabilities During the construction of the pipeline, minor areas of terrain and fill instabilities may occur along all segments of the route as a result of blasting and/or terrain instabilities. Areas where blasting may be necessary within JNP are listed below. In addition, some discrete areas in MRPP may require blasting.

• KP/KL 345.85 to KP/KL 346.0

• KP/KL 349.3 to KP/KL 350.3 (Windy Point)

• KP/KL 371.9 to KP/KL 373

• KL 396.3 to KL 398.2

• KL 398.6 to KL 399.5

• KL 402.0 to KL 405.4

Slope stability conditions along the Proposed Route are considered to be good based on observations and operating experience of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system to date. Where unstable slopes are anticipated, a field investigation will be undertaken by a geotechnical engineer and the recommended mitigation will be implemented during construction. The construction of the pipeline will comply with measures outlined in the EPP and, therefore, is not expected to trigger mass wasting events. Areas of potential terrain instability will be routinely monitored and promptly remediated, where warranted to protect pipeline integrity. This residual effect is of low magnitude and reversible in the short-term. Effects of the environment on the Project (i.e., mass wasting events) are discussed in Section 6.5 of this EA report.

Alterations of Local Topography As a result of construction, topography along the Proposed Route may be altered at locations where cut slopes are too steep to be replaced or where blasting was required to remove grade rock. Although this unavoidable consequence will be permanent in localized areas and of high probability, the magnitude is considered to be low to medium. Where there are no receptors to be visually affected by the altered local topography, the magnitude of this residual effect is considered to be low. Looking across Jasper Lake towards Windy Point (KP/KL 349.3 to KP/KL 350.3) from Highway 16, the visual absorption capacity (VAC) of the viewshed is considered high (TERA/Westland 2005e), meaning that it is less likely that alterations to the local topography at Windy Point will affect the viewshed and, consequently, the magnitude is considered low. The magnitude of the effect of the alteration of local topography due to

November 2005 Page 6-9 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 blasting of grade rock along the Celestine Lake Road is considered to be medium and is discussed in Section 6.3.3 of this EA report.

Loss of Cover Over Pipeline An extreme flooding event, either during construction or operations, could result in a loss of cover over the pipeline along floodplains and in watercourses along the route. Where such a loss could affect the integrity of the pipeline, the adverse residual effect could be considered significant. However, considering that construction is proposed during low flow periods or after peak flows, and that the elevation of the pipeline has taken into consideration flood events and scouring of the bed, the probability of such a loss of cover which could affect the integrity of the pipeline is low. This residual effect is considered to be reversible in the short-term. Flooding and the effects on the Project are further discussed in Section 6.5 under Effects of the Environment on the Project.

Wildfire A forest fire in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Route during the construction phase could delay construction activities along the route. Construction activities and/or construction-related traffic would be suspended if conditions were considered to be unsafe by Terasen Pipelines’ Construction Supervisor or if requested by the appropriate authority (i.e., ASRD, Parks Canada, BC MOE or BC MOFR). Construction of the Project is largely scheduled outside of the optimal periods for fuel treatments (i.e., prescribed burns) within JNP and MRPP. The effect of wildfire on the Project is further discussed under Effects of the Environment on the Project (see Section 6.5 of this EA report).

Climate Change Changes to climatic conditions during operation of the Project may manifest in several ways. Increases in snow pack in winter and warmer temperatures during spring may extend and intensify runoff and alter hydrologic regimes within watercourses including timing and duration of peak flows. Warmer winter temperatures coupled with increases in snow, which acts as insulation against colder temperatures, may facilitate large outbreaks of mountain pine beetle (MPB) into areas previously unaffected by the pest. Changes in summer temperatures and rainfall patterns could lead to an increase in wildfires. During operation of the Project, Terasen Pipelines will be adaptive in their management of the pipeline and schedule maintenance activities to accommodate local environmental conditions (e.g., conducting activity in the riparian area during periods of low flow and least risk) and implement the appropriate protection measures to suit local environmental conditions (e.g., regulatory measures regarding disposal of MPB infested vegetation) so as to minimize the potential environmental impact. By utilizing adaptive management practices which are responsive to changing conditions, the effects of climate change on the Project are anticipated to be neutral and, consequently, do not require an evaluation of significance. Climate change and the effect on the Project is also discussed in Section 6.5 under Effects of the Environment on the Project.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on the physical environment for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.1.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on physical environment within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.1.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

November 2005 Page 6-10 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Section 3.8 of the JNP Management Plan outlines the strategic goal, objectives and key actions associated with geology and landforms. By routing the pipeline away from important geological and physiographic features such as the Maligne karst system, the Columbia Icefield, and alpine and subalpine permafrost, the Project is consistent with Key Action #4 and does not hinder Parks Canada’s ability to meet their objective of protecting park landforms and physical processes from the impacts of development.

6.2.1.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on the physical environment within MRPP include areas of minor terrain and fill instabilities and potential substantial loss of cover over the pipeline due to an extreme flood event as described in Section 6.2.1.1 for the overall Project. The evaluation of significance within MRPP of these residual effects is presented in Table 6.7.

Neither the MRPP Master Plan nor the MRPP Ecosystem Management Plan makes specific references to landforms or physical processes.

6.2.2 Soil Capability

6.2.2.1 Overall Project

Most of the potential impacts on soil capability associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline are alleviated through the application of mitigative measures (see Table 6.2). The resulting residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on soil capability include:

• minor mixing of topsoil or root zone material and subsoil will likely occur;

• minor surface erosion of topsoil or root zone material can be expected until a vegetative cover has been established;

• revegetation of some disturbed soils with high wind erosion potential may be difficult;

• revegetation of disturbed soils that are strongly to extremely calcareous at the surface may be difficult; and

• minor trench subsidence may occur or a crown over the trench may remain.

Minor Topsoil or Root Zone Material/Subsoil Mixing During the construction of the pipeline, and to a lesser extent during maintenance activities, it is likely that a minor amount of topsoil or root zone material and subsoil mixing will occur along all segments of the route. This residual effect is confined to the Project Footprint, reversible in the medium-term and of low magnitude.

Minor Surface Erosion Construction and maintenance activities which disturb the soil will likely result in some minor surface erosion of topsoil or root zone material until a stable vegetative cover can be established, particularly on slopes which are more susceptible to water erosion. This residual effect is confined to the Project Footprint, reversible in the short- to medium-term and of low to medium magnitude.

November 2005 Page 6-11 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Revegetation of Some High Wind Erosion Potential Soils Due to the origin of the parent material (aeolian) and sandy texture of several of the soils located along the route, some of the soils have a high wind erosion potential when disturbed by short-term construction or maintenance activities. Restrictions on the species to be included in native seed mixes or used as a cover crop in JNP will likely prolong the period before vegetation is re-established in these areas as compared to soils with high wind erosion potential in Alberta, MRPP or BC where a greater diversity of native species to suit the site-specific conditions are permitted. This residual effect is confined to the Project Footprint, reversible in the short- to long-term and of low to medium magnitude.

Revegetation of Soils that are Extremely Calcareous at the Surface Some soils such as Hinton, Brule, Hillsdale 1, Devona and Talbot, are strongly to extremely calcareous at the surface which will make revegetation of these areas difficult in spite of specialized seed mixes and other reclamation measures. These soils are generally confined to Alberta and the eastern portion of JNP. Following construction, Terasen Pipelines will monitor the revegetation success of these disturbed calcareous soils and continue efforts in establishing a vegetative cover comparable to that in undisturbed areas adjacent to the route. This residual effect is reversible in the medium to long-term duration and of medium magnitude.

Minor Trench Subsidence or Remnant Crown Construction activities may result in minor areas of trench subsidence and/or a remnant crown over the trench along all segments of the route. This residual effect is confined to the Project Footprint, reversible in the medium-term and of low magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on soil capability for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.2.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on soil capability within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.2.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

Section 3.8 of the JNP Management Plan outlines the strategic goal, objectives and key actions associated with geology and landforms. By routing the pipeline away from the Jasper Lake dunes, the Project is consistent with Key Action #4 and does not hinder Parks Canada’s ability to meet their objective of protecting park landforms and physical processes from the impacts of development.

6.2.2.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on soil capability within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.2.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance within MRPP is presented in Table 6.7.

Neither the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park nor the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan makes specific references to soil or soil processes.

November 2005 Page 6-12 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2.3 Water Quality and Quantity

6.2.3.1 Overall Project

The potential impacts of high water table, disruption of streamflow, and withdrawal and release of hydrostatic test water (i.e., interbasin water transfer) will be alleviated through the application of mitigative measures (see Table 6.2). The resulting potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on water quality and quantity include:

• minor localized alteration of natural drainage patterns until trench settlement is complete;

• short-term reduction in surface water quality due to minor sedimentation during instream construction;

• although unlikely, the disruption of water well flows may occur; and

• potential minor short-term disruption of shallow groundwater flow where springs are encountered.

Minor Localized Alteration of Natural Drainage Patterns With proper implementation of the mitigation measures proposed, disruption of surface flow patterns following construction is likely to be minor along all segments of the route. In the event that construction or maintenance activities result in changes in surface water regimes, corrective action in consultation with the appropriate authorities will be undertaken to resolve the issue. The residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude.

Reduction in Surface Water Quality The selection of appropriate waterbody crossing techniques and implementation of surface erosion controls and riparian vegetation restoration are likely to substantially reduce the potential for adverse effects on surface water quality at waterbodies encountered along the Proposed Route. No immediate sedimentation is anticipated during the pipeline crossing of a watercourse using an open cut method since the use of this crossing method will generally be confined to those watercourses that are either dry or frozen to the bottom of the bed at the time of construction. Similarly, no sedimentation is expected at crossings where a horizontal directional drill (HDD) can be successfully undertaken since there is no instream construction associated with that method. Isolated crossings are proposed for all remaining waterbodies where detectable flow is present. During a completely isolated crossing, a minor sediment release is expected during installation of the dams prior to the isolation and during removal of the downstream dam at the conclusion of the isolation. In addition, minor releases of sediment may be associated with use of the temporary vehicle crossings. Although elevated suspended sediment concentrations may result from instream construction and vehicle crossing use, pulses of suspended solids are generally expected to settle out of the water column within the zone of influence in a timeframe measuring from minutes to a few hours. Recent evidence demonstrates that smaller waterbodies that lack substantial subsurface flow can be readily isolated with minimal sediment introduction when proper design, construction, and mitigation measures are applied (Reid et al. 2002, CAPP et al. 2005). Consequently, it is anticipated that average total suspended solid (TSS) levels during instream construction at these sites will be below the Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guideline for short-term (24 hour) exposure of 25 mg/L above background levels (CCME 1999). Residual effects are reversible in the immediate to short-term and of low to medium magnitude.

Completely isolated crossings of very large rivers (Athabasca, Snaring, lower Miette, Moose, and Fraser rivers) may not be possible if HDD crossings are not geotechnically feasible, and coffer dam, partial bypass, or open-cut crossings may be required. These methods release more sediment than a completely isolated crossing, and measures will be incorporated during crossing design and construction to reduce the magnitude and duration of the sediment pulse. Residual effects on water quality at sites where completely isolated crossings are not technically or economically feasible are anticipated to be reversible in the short-term and potentially of high magnitude.

November 2005 Page 6-13 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Disruption of Water Well Flows Disruption of groundwater flows caused by trenching, blasting and soil replacement that result in the reduction of flow rates in a water well could be significant to the owner if this is a critical water supply. However, the probability of disruption of flows to water wells during construction is low considering that no wells have been identified within likely blasting areas along the Proposed Route. Furthermore, considering that the mitigation provides for well replacement and, if warranted, the replacement of water of equal or better quality and quantity until replaced, the residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude.

Disruption of Springs If springs are identified downslope of the Proposed Route, disruption of shallow groundwater flow may occur during the short-term construction period. Neither of the two identified springs in proximity to the Proposed Route near KP/KL 347.2 and KP/KL 348.9 has been drilled, nor are they in use as a source of water according to the Alberta Groundwater Information Centre. Monitoring of spring flow during construction and post-construction monitoring will detect any disruption to flows and measures (e.g., subdrains, trench breakers) will be implemented to restore groundwater flow regimes. This residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on water quality or quantity for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.3.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on water quality and quantity within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.3.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

Section 3.9 of the JNP Management Plan outlines the strategic goal, objectives and key actions associated with aquatic ecosystems. The Proposed Route avoids over 20 waterbody crossings in JNP as compared to the Existing Route. During hydrostatic testing of the pipeline within JNP, Terasen Pipelines will only use approved large water sources which may include the following: the Fiddle River (KL 327.7); Athabasca River (KP/KL 337); Snaring River (KP/KL 360.2); and Miette River (KP/KL 383.2, KP/KL 396.3). In addition, Terasen Pipelines will adhere to withdrawal rates from these water sources as determined by Parks Canada and withdrawal rates will not exceed 10% of streamflow at the time of withdrawal. As a result of this planning and mitigation, needs for aquatic and riparian systems of the source waterbodies are ensured, and hydrostatic testing activities associated with the Project are consistent with Key Action #7. In addition, the implementation of measures to reduce sedimentation during instream construction will minimize effects on water quality and given that no instream rechannelization or permanent structures (i.e., log or rock sills) are proposed in association with the Project, no long-term changes in water flows or water levels are expected as a result of the Project. Consequently, the Project does not hinder Parks Canada's ability to meet their objective of maintaining water quality, water levels and flow regimes within their natural range of variability.

6.2.3.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on water quality and quantity within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.3.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance within MRPP is presented in Table 6.7.

November 2005 Page 6-14 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

One of the objectives with regards to water under the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park is to protect the headwaters of the Fraser River and maintain the pure, unpolluted quality of waters within the park for aesthetic, ecological and health considerations. The Proposed Route avoids 4 crossings of the Fraser River and 7 crossings of its tributaries. Several strategies will be implemented during the construction and operation of the Project to maintain water quality including: selection of appropriate pipeline crossing methods which either do not result in any suspended solids within the water column (e.g., HDD or open cut if the bed is dry or frozen to the bottom) or result in a minor amount of sediment release (e.g., isolated); adherence to spill prevention measures as outlined in Table 6.2; and implementation of the Spill Contingency Plan as outlined in the EPP for spills during construction and of the Emergency Response Plan for accidental spills during operations. During hydrostatic testing of the pipeline within MRPP, Terasen Pipelines will only use approved large water sources which may include the following: the Yellowhead River (KL 416.3); Moose River (KL 433.3); and Fraser River (KL 458.1). In addition, Terasen Pipelines will adhere to withdrawal rates from these water sources as determined by provincial agencies and withdrawal rates will not exceed 10% of streamflow at the time of withdrawal. In addition, the operation of the Project does not require water impoundments, diversions nor is it required for domestic use. The above strategies and measures are consistent with the actions outlined in the Master Plan and, consequently, the Project does not hinder BC MOE's ability to meet their water objective.

Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan does not make specific references to water quality and quantity.

6.2.4 Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality

6.2.4.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline contributing to GHG emissions and on air quality include:

• incremental increase in the GHG emissions associated with the Trans Mountain system will occur;

• short-term increase in vehicle emissions from construction equipment will occur during construction;

• short-term increase in dust arising from construction traffic on the right-of-way or access roads and from blasting; and

• minute increases in vehicle emissions during maintenance activities.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources of GHG emissions identified as being associated with the Project by Lynn Ross Consulting (2005) include:

• combustion of fossil fuels associated with the manufacture and transport of equipment and material to the pipeline and station construction site;

• combustion of fossil fuels associated with pipeline and facility construction activities;

• emissions associated with the temporary and longer-term clearing of site vegetation (in particular, forest cover) and changes in land-use and vegetative cover; and

• incremental emissions associated with the operation of the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline system once the Project’s facilities are brought on line.

Although not quantified, the amount of GHG emissions associated with construction activities will be minimized by using a comparatively small construction workforce for the scope of the Project and utilizing

November 2005 Page 6-15 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites, to the extent practical. Similarly, the emissions associated with clearing of vegetation will be reduced since the Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of its length, thereby minimizing the amount of clearing required.

The main source of GHG emissions (99% indirect emissions) associated with the Project will be the incremental emissions associated with the ongoing operation of the Trans Mountain system once the Project’s facilities are brought into service. Incremental GHG emissions from the Project are estimated to be 31,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (abbreviated as “t CO2e”) of which over 99% of the projected GHG emissions from the Project are due to indirect emissions from increased electricity consumption. The Project is projected to increase GHG emissions from the Trans Mountain system (including the Trans Mountain Pump Station Expansion Project) by 16.0%, and from the Canadian operations of the Terasen Pipelines companies by 6.6%. The Project’s marginal contribution to total provincial (Alberta, BC) and national GHG emissions on an annual basis is estimated to be 0.012%, 0.008% and 0.004% respectively (Lynn Ross Consulting 2005). Given the minute projected increase in GHG, the magnitude of the residual effect of the Project on GHG is negligible to low.

Vehicle Emissions During Construction Although nuisance emissions arising from construction equipment will occur along the entire route, the residual effect of an increase in vehicle emissions will be limited to areas in proximity to human receptors (i.e., permanent residences and public facilities, including KP/KL 313.6, KL 325.9, Pocahontas Bungalows, Pine Bungalows, warden stations and the Jasper townsite in JNP and the Mount Robson Ranch in BC). This residual effect is reversible in the short-term and, as a result of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize air emissions during construction, is of low magnitude.

Dust During Construction With respect to increased dust along the construction alignment and unpaved access roads, this residual effect is confined to those portions of the pipeline to be built during non-frozen conditions (i.e., KP/KL 374.8 to KP/KL 377.8 and KP/KL 396 to KL 406.6 in JNP as well as MRPP and BC). This residual effect is reversible in the short-term, and as a result of proposed mitigation measures to minimize dust during construction, is of low magnitude.

Similarly, dust created during blasting will be confined to specific rocky portions of the Proposed Route. Although the dust associated with a blast may be concentrated over a limited geographical area, the duration of the blasting activity is immediate. If required for public safety, traffic will be controlled on Highway 16 for brief intervals in proximity to blasting areas in order that the safety and visibility of users of the highway are not impaired during blasting events. The residual effect is reversible in the immediate to short-term and of low magnitude.

Air Emissions During Operations The operation of the pipeline will not result in any continuous air emissions. However, during periodic maintenance activities of immediate to short-term duration, emissions from equipment will occur and depending on the location and season of the work, dust may result during the activity. Nevertheless, the residual effect of routine maintenance activities on air quality is anticipated to be of limited areal extent, reversible in the short-term and of negligible to low magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on GHG and air quality for the overall Project will be not significant.

November 2005 Page 6-16 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2.4.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on air quality within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.4.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

Section 3.7 of the JNP Management Plan outlines the strategic goal, objective and key actions associated with air quality. The management plan notes that air quality issues within JNP are few but include heavy summer concentrations of campfire smoke in Whistler and Wapiti campgrounds, and occasional concentrations of fossil fuel emissions around the Jasper townsite, especially during winter temperature inversions.

The proposed construction near the Jasper townsite (KP/KL 374.8 to KP/KL 377.8) is scheduled for the fall which is outside of the identified periods of air quality concerns, namely summer and winter. Any burning of slash within JNP will occur outside of the peak summer campfire period and will be located at least 500 m from any campground or residential areas and 100 m from highways unless otherwise approved. Additional measures regarding burning of slash and reducing smoke production from the Best Available Methods for Common Leaseholder Activities will be adhered to during the operation phase. Given the above, it is believed that the Project will not impede Parks Canada's ability to meet their objective of ensuring that human sources of pollution do not impair visibility, the ability of the ecosystem to support a full range of naturally occurring species, or human safety.

6.2.4.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on air quality within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.4.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance within MRPP is presented in Table 6.7.

Neither the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park nor the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan makes specific reference to air quality.

6.2.5 Acoustic Environment

6.2.5.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on the acoustic environment include:

• short-term increase in noise will occur during construction; and

• slight rise in noise levels will occur during site-specific maintenance activities.

Noise During Construction Noise arising from construction activities is unavoidable and will occur over the entire route. However, the residual effect of a short-term increase in noise will be limited to areas in proximity to human receptors (i.e., seasonal and permanent residences, including KP/KL 313.6, KL 325.9, Pocahontas Bungalows, Pine Bungalows, warden cabins and the Jasper townsite in JNP and the Mount Robson Ranch in BC). The linear progression of pipeline construction results in approximately four weeks duration of concentrated construction activity at any given location. Confining Project activities to respect local noise by-laws will also reduce noise concerns in populated areas. Noise arising from blasting is not anticipated to affect local or seasonal residences since none are located in proximity to potential blasting areas. The residual effect of construction noise on nearby residents and users of public facilities is of low magnitude and is immediately reversible. The effect of construction noise on wildlife is discussed in Section 6.2.10 of this EA report.

November 2005 Page 6-17 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Noise During Operation The operation of the pipeline will generally not result in an increase in noise levels over existing levels. However, during site-specific periodic maintenance activities of immediate to short-term duration, a slight rise in noise will likely occur from vehicles or equipment used during the activity. Nevertheless, the residual effect of routine maintenance activities on the acoustic environment is anticipated to be limited in areal extent, immediately reversible and of negligible to low magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on the acoustic environment for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.5.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on the acoustic environment within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.5.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

The JNP Management Plan does not make specific references to noise.

6.2.5.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on the acoustic environment within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.5.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.7.

Neither the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park nor the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan makes specific reference to noise.

6.2.6 Fish and Fish Habitat

6.2.6.1 Ecological Context

The Project crosses the Continental Divide and 129 cold- and cool-water waterbodies in the headwaters of the Athabasca and Fraser watersheds. Many of these waterbodies are considered to have relatively low productivity because they have coarse substrates, high gradients, relatively cold temperatures, variable seasonal flows, and receive turbid glacial meltwater for much of the open water period. Biophysical information for watercourses crossed by the Project is summarized in AAR (2005).

Fish found in the two watersheds display both migratory and resident life histories, and both spring and fall spawners are present. Thirteen fish species were documented in the upper Athabasca watershed in 2004 and 2005 during investigations undertaken for the Project. Seven of these species were also documented during investigations in the upper Fraser watershed.

The 30 species fish assemblage of the Project area is dominated by salmonids, with mountain whitefish and rainbow trout being the most abundant and widely distributed. Other salmonids common to both systems are bull trout and lake trout. Lake whitefish and northern pike are identified in the TOR as VECs, but were not present in any waterbodies crossed by the Proposed Route. Pygmy whitefish is another VEC that is very uncommon but native to both watersheds. This species was not documented during 2004-2005 investigations. Salmon, a VEC proposed by environmental stakeholders, were not present in the Project area.

November 2005 Page 6-18 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Bull trout, identified in the TOR as a VEC and species of special concern, was present in eight waterbodies crossed by the Proposed Route. Brook trout was relatively abundant and widely distributed in JNP, but present at only one site in the upper Fraser watershed. This non-native species was introduced to JNP and the upper Athabasca watershed, and represents a threat to bull trout because it has replaced or displaced the native species in other areas of Alberta (Post and Johnston 2002).

Fish and aquatic habitat sensitivity is generally highest during spawning and emergence, and other times when fish concentrate in spatially restricted habitats. During the spawning and emergence period, fish require suitable habitat and eggs and fry are most likely to be affected by suspended and deposited sediment. Overwintering habitat is often limiting for fish in temperate climates where waterbodies are ice- covered for several months or more; fish frequently concentrate in large, deep, isolated pools during this period. In the upper Athabasca and Fraser watersheds, fish also concentrate near the mouth of smaller tributaries during the open-water period where discharge is less, clarity is higher and foraging opportunities are improved relative to the larger mainstem river. Migration periods are also sensitive where fish undertake directed seasonal movements to specific habitat(s).

Work windows designated by provincial authorities were refined to define species-specific least risk periods for each crossing along the Proposed Route. These refinements considered the species and specific life-history stage(s) known or likely to occur at each crossing as well as the actual life-history of populations in headwater, montane systems in the upper Athabasca and Fraser watersheds. Where multiple species occur or are likely to occur within a waterbody, all instream work windows were overlapped and the period with no sensitive life history stages was defined as the work window (Table 6.8).

6.2.6.2 Crossing Risk Methodology

A risk-based approach was used to identify the residual effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat and determine the potential for harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat.

Potential aquatic effects pathways for construction and operation of the Project include the following. • Riparian and instream habitat alteration and loss from clearing, grading, and trenching. This alters the characteristics of the approach slopes, banks, and channel which can lead to changes in habitat suitability and productive capacity.

• Introduction of fine sediment to the water column from instream activities and right-of-way runoff and erosion. These fine sediments can have sub-lethal and lethal effects on fish and can also cause downstream sediment deposition that alters substrate composition and modifies the availability and suitability of habitat for spawning, overwintering, and rearing (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991, Anderson et al. 1996).

• Blockage of fish movements during construction.

• Mortality from blasting, dewatering, and recreational fishing. Detonation of explosives during trench blasting creates shock waves in the water column which can cause sub-lethal and lethal effects on fish. Channel dewatering at and downstream of the crossing site and water withdrawal sites during construction can have obvious effects on fish and fish habitat. Contractors and staff can increase fish harvest through recreational fishing.

• Inter-basin transfer of aquatic organisms with test water drawn from one watershed and discharged into another. This can create adverse effects on integrity of the receiving aquatic system.

• Contamination from spills during construction and operations.

• Cumulative project-specific effects on fish and aquatic habitat.

The occurrence and magnitude of actual effects depends on the crossing technique selected, the construction period, the mitigation and restoration measures adopted, as well as the sensitivity of the watercourse. A risk-based approach was adopted for the TMX - Anchor Loop for environmental planning

November 2005 Page 6-19 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 and evaluation of proposed crossings. This approach uses the “Pathways of Effects” (PoE) model developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (2004) to systematically identify fish and aquatic habitat sensitivity, potential effects, appropriate design/mitigation measures, and ultimate risk to fish and their habitat. Figure 6.1 provides a graphic depiction of the risk evaluation process used here.

Crossing Fish and Aquatic + Proposed = Habitat Sensitivity Crossing Methods Risk and Timing

Figure 6.1 Waterbody Crossing Risk Evaluation Schematic.

Sensitivity Sensitivity is a reflection of the habitat(s) present within the crossing’s ‘zone-of-influence’, the fish species present, and the use of the available habitats by various fish life stages to satisfy their life history requirements. The zone-of-influence includes the actual crossing site, adjacent areas where riparian habitat disturbance could occur, and the downstream area where 90% of the sediment discharged from the crossing is likely to be deposited.

Sensitivity ratings were based on field investigations to document fish presence and habitat potential within the zone of influence of each crossing. The extent of this zone depends on a number of channel and flow characteristics, and was determined by field crews based on professional judgement. For most proposed crossings, the zone-of-influence was considered to extend from 100 m upstream to 300 m downstream of the crossing site. The zone-of-influence in very large watercourses such as the Athabasca and Fraser rivers was assumed to extend for at most two meander bends (less than 1 km). At this point, any plume generated by instream works has mixed completely across the channel and through the water column.

For the Project, sensitivity ratings also considered the presence of non-native fish species identified as a threat to the ecological integrity of aquatic systems within protected areas (Parks Canada 2005). Although the Fisheries Act does not differentiate between native and non-native species, the sensitivity of native species and bull trout, a species of special concern, was generally rated higher for this Project to reflect existing stress on native fish populations and park management emphasis on natural aquatic systems.

Sensitivity ratings for the crossing zone-of-influence were assigned to one of six categories: • None: not fish habitat.

• Low: for Low potential habitat for broadly distributed species that is least sensitive to direct disturbance or suspended and deposited sediment (e.g., fine-textured rearing habitat).

• Low-Moderate: for Low to Moderate potential habitat for broadly distributed species that is somewhat sensitive to direct disturbance or suspended and deposited sediment (e.g., gravel and cobble rearing habitat).

• Moderate: for Low to Moderate potential habitat for broadly distributed species that is moderately sensitive to direct disturbance or suspended and deposited sediment (e.g., fine-textured or cobble spawning habitat; or rearing habitat for bull trout and native rainbow trout fish populations).

November 2005 Page 6-20 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

• Moderate-High: for Moderate to High potential habitat that is sensitive to direct disturbance or suspended and deposited sediment or is spatially restricted and important for native species (e.g., gravel spawning habitat; or overwintering habitat for mountain whitefish and fluvial bull trout).

• High: for Moderate to High potential habitat for species at risk or critical to the continued viability of a fish population (e.g., bull trout and Athabasca rainbow trout spawning habitat; or overwintering habitat for resident native fish populations).

Risk Risk is a reflection of the assigned sensitivity, the proposed crossing design, timing, mitigation and restoration, and the probability of success of those efforts.

There are a number of methods for pipeline and vehicle crossings of waterbodies. Factors considered when selecting the appropriate method include: geotechnical, channel, and flow conditions; pipeline diameter; environmental sensitivity; construction season; regulatory constraints; equipment availability; cost; and engineering constraints. Final method selection is an exercise in striking a balance to derive the most practical solution (Canadian Pipeline Water Crossing Committee (CPWCC) 1999; CAPP et al. 2005). Regulatory guidance on crossing methods is provided in Operational Statements issued by DFO, Alberta Codes of Practice (Alberta Environment (AENV) 2001a,b), and BC Oil and Gas Commission and Environment stream crossing guidelines (BC MWLAP 2004, BC Oil and Gas Commission 2004).

Pipeline construction methods are generally divided into three main types:

• Open-cut crossings (“wet” crossings), where trench excavation, pipeline installation, and backfill are conducted in the flowing, frozen, or dry active channel.

• Isolated crossings (including “dam and pump”, “flume”, and “coffer dam”) where a portion of the flow or the entire flow is diverted around the excavation area within the active channel.

• Trenchless crossings (including “horizontal directional drill” and aerial) where there is no trenching of the channel or banks.

Equipment crossing methods are generally divided into five main types: • Type I: Existing bridge or temporary single span bridge that does not result in disturbance or alteration to the active channel.

• Type II: Temporary multi-span bridge that requires one or more supports in the active channel.

• Type III: Ramp and culvert where the travel surface is placed over a culvert that replaces the natural channel bed or an open bottom culvert that confines channel flow within the structure.

• Type IV: Fords where equipment is driven through the active channel or a travel pad is placed to cover the natural channel bed below the water surface.

• Type V: Log or snowfills where cabled logs, snow, or ice are used to temporarily fill the channel and provide a travel surface.

Advantages and disadvantages of these crossing methods are summarized in Watercourse Crossings, 2nd Edition developed for the Canadian Pipeline Water Crossing Committee (CPWCC 1999) and the recently released 3rd Edition (CAPP et al. 2005).

Proposed work windows are intended to protect the most sensitive life-history stages (spawning adults, incubating eggs, newly emerged fry) of each species. These windows represent the period when construction activities should occur to avoid or minimize adverse effects on fish and fish habitat. Non-fish- bearing waterbodies were generally allocated an “open” instream work window, unless the sensitivity of the water body was rated as Moderate to High, or where there was a potential to affect fish or fish habitat immediately downstream (e.g., in the mainstem river at or below a tributary mouth).

November 2005 Page 6-21 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Once pipeline and vehicle crossing methods and timing were defined, waterbody crossing risk was assigned to one of four categories:

• No Risk – all potential effects are avoided through routing, design, or mitigation or no fish habitat is present.

• Low Risk − all potential effects are mitigated and residual effects on fish or aquatic habitat are unlikely to occur or be detectable.

• Moderate Risk – all potential effects cannot be mitigated and harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of Low to Moderate sensitivity fish habitat could occur.

• High Risk – all potential effects cannot be mitigated and harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of Moderate-High or High Sensitivity fish habitat could occur.

6.2.6.3 Overall Project

The ultimate success of a pipeline crossing depends on the selection of an appropriate crossing location, crossing technique and schedule, and application of environmental protection measures to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of construction and operation. Aquatic ecological integrity was considered during pipeline routing and selection of appropriate instream work windows, mitigation, restoration, and monitoring measures. Proposed mitigation and anticipated residual effects for fish and their habitat are summarized in Table 6.2. A complete list of waterbody crossing mitigation and restoration measures will be included in the EPP, based on the Best Available Methods for Common Leaseholder Activities in JNP, Terasen Pipelines' Environmental Assessment and Protection Plan for Routine Maintenance and Operation in Jasper National Park, and recently released Pipeline Associated Water Crossings, 3rd Edition (CAPP et al. 2005); the latter has been endorsed by DFO. A summary of habitat conditions and proposed site-specific crossing methods is included on the Stream Atlas prepared for fish-bearing waterbodies crossed by the Proposed Route (AAR 2005).

Potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on fish and fish habitat include:

• clearing or disturbance of riparian vegetation associated with waterbodies within right-of-way and temporary work space;

• alteration of instream habitat within zone-of-influence at High Risk partial isolation and open-cut crossings;

• increase in suspended solid concentration during instream construction at Moderate to High Risk crossings within zone-of-influence;

• increased fish mortality may occur; and

• with respect to bull trout, short-term increase in suspended solid concentration and habitat alteration within the zone-of-influence at High Risk crossings and increased mortality from recreational harvest.

Due to the number of crossings along the Proposed Route, crossing design and mitigation were standardized as much as possible using stream classification and Sensitivity ratings. The following summarizes the crossing methods and anticipated residual effects in terms of clearing or disturbance to riparian vegetation, alteration of instream habitat, and increase suspended solid concentrations for the five main crossing types as applicable.

No Defined Bed or Banks Of 220 potential crossing sites visited, 91 lacked bed or banks and do not provide fish habitat. An additional 31 investigated drainages have no fish habitat potential and are considered to have No Sensitivity within the zone-of-influence. These locations will be crossed with the conventional open-cut or

November 2005 Page 6-22 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 trench through method and Type IV equipment fords if water is present. Standard environmental protection measures to be defined in the EPP will be used. Crossings at these sites have no residual effects because they are not fish habitat and present No Risk to ecological integrity of aquatic systems.

Non-Fish Bearing Waterbodies with Fish Habitat Potential Fifty-six waterbodies along the Proposed Route were classified as non-fish bearing but rated as Low or Low-Moderate Sensitivity because they have fish habitat potential. These are mainly small (<1.5m) and medium (1.5 to 5 m channel width) streams, but include seasonal, intermittent, and perennial waterbodies of all sizes. An open instream window (i.e., no restricted construction period) was identified for these crossings because of their Low Sensitivity. Waterbodies east of KP/KL 396.3 will be crossed during the winter construction period while waterbodies west of this point in BC, MRPP, and the western end of JNP will be crossed the following summer. Fisheries information and proposed pipeline and vehicle crossing and mitigation methods for non fish-bearing waterbody crossings are summarized in Table 6.8.

To reduce cumulative aquatic effects from sediment introduction, isolated pipeline crossings and ramp and culvert vehicle crossings will be used for non-fish-bearing waterbodies with fish habitat potential if flow is present. They will be open cut and crossed with fords or log/snowfall if dry or frozen to the bottom. Perennial waterbodies will be crossed with ramp and culvert. Industry standard waterbody mitigation and restoration measures (‘Standard Crossing Measures’) will generally be adopted, including due diligence and measures presented in DFO Operational Statements and the Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings, 3rd Edition (CAPP et al. 2005).

Application of these mitigation and restoration measures will result in Low Risk crossings with unlikely or undetectable residual effects. Residual effects following clearing or disturbance of riparian vegetation will occur until pre-disturbance conditions are re-established, but this effect is not significant.

Standing Water Three small ponds or lakes are crossed by the Proposed Route (KL 330.1; KL 332; KP/KL 414.4). These provide seasonal or year-round habitat for a variety of fish species and have Low to Moderate Sensitivity. Avoidance or isolated crossings are proposed for these waterbodies. In most cases, the waterbody will be avoided by trenching the pipe into the highway shoulder. Silt curtains or appropriate erosion barriers will be erected downslope prior to disturbance to ensure that any sediment does not enter the water. During winter construction, some equipment may work or travel over these frozen waterbodies. If the ice thickness is limited, the ice surface will be flooded or built up with snow or protective matting to protect emergent vegetation and provide a secure and smooth travel lane. These crossings are considered to have Low Risk for fish and aquatic habitat because all potential PoE have been mitigated and potential adverse effects are unlikely to occur or be detectable. Residual effects following clearing or disturbance of riparian vegetation will occur until pre-disturbance conditions are re-established, but this effect is not significant.

Fisheries information and proposed pipeline and vehicle crossing and mitigation methods for standing waterbody crossings are summarized in Table 6.8.

Small to Large Fish-Bearing Watercourses with Moderate to High Sensitivity Twenty small to large (<1.5 m to 15 m channel width) watercourses with Moderate to High Sensitivity are crossed by the Proposed Route. These include 4 High Sensitivity crossings in JNP (Unnamed channel - KP/KL 354.1, Cottonwood Creek - KP/KL 375, Muhigan Creek – KP/KL 385.9, and Derr Creek – KL 400.0); 6 Moderate-High Sensitivity crossings in JNP (Unnamed channels – KP/KL 341.7 and KP/KL 352.2; Snaring River side channel – KP/KL 360.3; Cabin Creek – KP/KL 379.1; Conifer Creek – KP/KL 386.8; and Clairvaux Creek – KP/KL 394.8); 1 Moderate Sensitivity crossing in Alberta (Unnamed channel – KL 317.0); 5 Moderate Sensitivity crossings in JNP (Unnamed channels – KP/KL 338.0, KP/KL 338.1, KP/KL 387.0, and KP/KL 395.9; and Meadow Creek – KL 390.3); and 4 Moderate Sensitivity crossings in MRPP (Unnamed channels - KL 409.1, KP/KL 412.8, KP/KL 413.9, and KL 460.5). Fisheries information and proposed pipeline and vehicle crossing and mitigation methods for

November 2005 Page 6-23 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 fish-bearing waterbody crossings are summarized in Table 6.8. Since fall spawners are present or likely to occur in most of these watercourses, fisheries investigations were conducted in fall 2005 to confirm the presence of spawning and suitable overwintering habitat within the zone-of-influence.

Isolated crossings are proposed for these watercourses where flow is present. Recent experience demonstrates that waterbodies of this size that lack substantial subsurface flow can be readily isolated with minimal sediment introduction when proper design, construction, and mitigation measures are applied (Reid et al. 2002; CAPP et al. 2005). A suite of ‘Standard Isolate Measures’ will be adopted for these sites. Equipment crossing of these smaller streams will use a Type I crossing (temporary single span bridges) with access to either bank along the existing Trans Mountain alignment, or Type III ramp and culvert. Fish salvage and suspended sediment monitoring will be undertaken at all isolated crossings of very large rivers. Many of these watercourses have coarse-textured floodplains with unstable, braided channels, so mitigation and restoration measures will focus on restoring bank stability at the active channel edge. Brush layering and live cuttings with native species will be used to enhance riparian vegetation recovery where shrubs were present prior to construction.

Twelve of these crossings (Unnamed channels – KL 317.0, KP/KL 338.0, KP/KL 338.1, KP/KL 387.0, KP/KL 395.9, KL 409.1, KP/KL 412.8, KP/KL 413.9, and KL 460.5; Cottonwood Creek, Cabin Creek, Conifer Creek), are considered to have Low Risk for fish and aquatic habitat because all potential PoE have been mitigated and potential adverse effects are unlikely to occur or be detectable. Residual effects following clearing or disturbance of riparian vegetation will occur until pre-disturbance conditions are re- established, but this effect is not significant.

One crossing is considered to have Moderate Risk (Meadow Creek), and seven crossings are considered High Risk (Unnamed channels - KP/KL 341.7, KP/KL 352.2, and KP/KL 354.1; Snaring River side channel, Muhigan Creek, Clairvaux Creek, Derr Creek) because work is planned outside the proposed instream work window under low flow conditions when construction is technically and economically feasible. Suspended sediment released at these Moderate and High Risk crossings during instream activities could cause behavioural or sublethal lethal effects on fish within the zone-of-influence. Suspended sediment concentrations will be monitored at these crossings to confirm that averages remain below the CCME standard of 25 mg/L above background (CCME 1999). This is the level at which mortality of the most sensitive life history stage (salmonid fry) has been reported (Newcombe 1994). Residual effects following clearing or disturbance of riparian vegetation will occur until pre-disturbance conditions are re-established, but this effect is not significant.

Very Large Watercourses with Moderate to High Sensitivity Thirteen very large streams and rivers (>20 m channel width) are crossed by the proposed loop. Fisheries information and proposed pipeline and vehicle crossing and mitigation methods for fish-bearing waterbody crossings along the Project route are summarized in Table 6.8).

Surficial geology in this montane area is generally considered to be unsuitable for HDD crossings, but geotechnical investigations were undertaken at 9 crossings where trenchless crossings were recommended to determine if the HDD technique was technically and economically feasible. Based on these investigations, further work to define HDD crossing feasibility will be undertaken at two locations: (Miette River #1 (KP/KL 383.2) and Fraser River (KL 458.1). These two HDD crossings are considered to be Low Risk if this technique can be successfully completed and High Risk if an open-cut, coffer dam, or partial bypass crossing is required because the channels are too large to be effectively isolated.

Aerial crossings attached to existing bridge structures or abutments were considered at several locations (Fiddle, Miette, and Moose rivers), but the owners and park managers (Parks Canada and BC MOE) were not supportive of this approach because of long-term security, integrity, and liability concerns.

Isolated crossing methods are not considered to be practical in most very large watercourses during the conventional mid-summer least risk construction window (mid-July to mid- or late-August), because streamflow at this time exceeds manageable volumes. Hydrological studies indicate that flows in most watercourses could be successfully isolated during winter baseflow conditions, and this is identified as the

November 2005 Page 6-24 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 preferred construction method and period for the Fiddle River (KL 327.8), Snaring River (KP/KL 360.2, KP/KL 360.3); Sucker Creek - KP/KL 371.9; Unnamed channel (KL 382.4); Miette River (#2 - KP/KL 396.3; #3 - KL 405.4); Rockingham Creek (KP/KL 411.6); Yellowhead Creek (KL 416.4), Grant Brook Creek (KL 428.6); and Moose River (KL 433.3). Since fall spawners are present or likely to occur in most of these watercourses, fisheries investigations were conducted in fall 2005 to confirm the occurrence of spawning and suitable overwintering habitat within the zone-of-influence during the optimum winter construction period.

Equipment crossing of very large rivers will be via existing bridges, access to either bank along the existing Trans Mountain alignment, or Type III ramp and culvert where multiple channels exist. Fish salvage and suspended sediment monitoring will be undertaken at all isolated crossings of very large rivers. Many of these very large rivers have wide, coarse-textured floodplains with unstable, braided channels, so mitigation and restoration measures will focus on restoring bank stability at the active channel edge. Brush layering and live cuttings with native species will be used to enhance riparian vegetation recovery.

Six river crossings are considered to have Low Risk because crossings are feasible within the proposed instream work window and flow and channel conditions allow a completely isolated crossing (Sucker Creek; Miette River #2 and #3; Rockingham Creek; Yellowhead Creek; and Grant Brook Creek). The proposed Snaring River crossing is considered Moderate Risk because success of a completely isolated crossing is uncertain given the likely baseflow in this watercourse.

High Risk sites are those where crossings are not feasible within the instream work window (Fiddle River, Unnamed channel KL 382.4 and Moose River), and/or where success of a completely isolated crossing is uncertain (Athabasca River). Suspended sediment released at High Risk crossings during instream activities could cause behavioural or sublethal lethal effects on fish and alteration of fish habitat within the zone-of-influence. Suspended sediment concentrations will be monitored at these crossings to confirm that average levels remain below the CCME short-term standard of 25 mg/L above background (CCME 1999). Residual effects following clearing or disturbance of riparian vegetation will occur until pre- disturbance conditions are re-established, but this effect is not significant.

The Athabasca River is too large to be completely isolated, so a partial isolate or coffer dam technique will be required during the winter low flow period. The crossing zone-of-influence provides overwintering habitat for mountain whitefish and bull trout, and this crossing is considered to be High Risk. Terasen Pipelines is currently evaluating alternative crossing methods, but compensation may be required to result in no net loss of fish habitat.

Spawning and staging mountain whitefish were present in the zone-of-influence of the Moose River (KL 433.3) during fall 2005, and the instream construction window does not overlap the desirable low flow period. This crossing is considered to be High Risk. Terasen Pipelines is currently evaluating alternative crossing methods, and compensation may be required to achieve no net loss of fish habitat.

Watershed-scale compensation measures will be developed with DFO, Parks Canada and BC MOE to offset any net loss in productive capacity at High Risk sites and avoid enhancing habitat that would encourage non-native fish to replace native species and strains. Compensation will ensure that combined effects on fish habitat resulting from the TMX - Anchor Loop Project are neutral to positive.

Fish Mortality Angler overharvest has been one of the primary sources of fisheries declines in western Canada and top level predators such as bull trout, northern pike, and lake trout have been particularly vulnerable (Berry 1994, 1999; Post and Johnston 2002; Post et al. 2002). Restrictive harvest regulations have been implemented in JNP, Alberta and BC to protect sensitive species.

Pipeline construction and operations personnel represent an incremental source of anglers and potential fish mortality. Recent information indicates that approximately 13% of Alberta residents and 7% of BC residents fish (Berry 1997; Levey and Williams 2003), which suggests that 25-45 members of the 350 person construction work force could fish while in the RSA. Two additional full-time operations personnel

November 2005 Page 6-25 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 will be needed. Winter construction will dramatically reduce mortality risk in JNP because most waterbodies are closed to angling between early October and early March.

Specific angler-use statistics for MRPP or JNP were not located, but approximately 24,000 licensed anglers fished in the Omineca Region in 2000. Almost three-quarters of the regional catch consisted of two species: rainbow trout; and kokanee. Other important species included whitefish, lake trout, and bull trout. All these species are found in lakes in MRPP. Canadians from outside BC contributed less than 10% of angler numbers and only 2% of the total catch. These anglers targeted rainbow trout, lake trout, and kokanee and retained under two fish per person on average (Levey and Williams 2003). Annual use in MRPP is estimated to be very low, in the range of 375-525 angler days, with more than half the effort occurring on Moose Lake during spring (VanWelzen pers. comm.).

To reduce potential harvest in MRPP and further reduce risk in JNP, construction staff will be prohibited from angling while on, or travelling to and from, TMX - Anchor Loop construction sites. Nonetheless, construction personnel or their families will likely fish while on time off. Available information suggests that incremental harvest during construction will be an isolated, short-term event of low magnitude. Incremental harvest during operations is unlikely to be detectable.

Bull Trout Bull trout were present in 7 of 64 waterbodies crossed by the Proposed Route in JNP; they are reported to occur in several additional waterbodies along the Proposed Route. Bull trout were collected in one waterbody in MRPP, but were not present at any proposed crossings elsewhere in Alberta or BC, although they are known to occur in the upper Fraser watershed. Potential effects on bull trout and their habitat have been avoided or reduced by the mitigation and restoration measures summarized in Table 6.2, and further defined in the Stream Atlas and EPP prepared for the Project. Terasen Pipelines will emphasize research on and restoration of bull trout habitat integrity (along with other native species) when developing watershed-scale compensation measures with DFO, Parks Canada and BC MOE. Proposed mitigation and compensation will be designed to result in neutral to positive effects for this species.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on fish and fish habitat for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.6.4 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on fish and fish habitat within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.6.3 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6. The TMX - Anchor Loop crosses 43 waterbodies in JNP along with 20 sites with no fish habitat potential or no bed or banks. This route avoids 22 crossings present along the Existing Route, and provides better crossing locations at the Fiddle and Miette rivers. Proposed crossings include 5 High Sensitivity waterbodies, 14 Moderate-High Sensitivity waterbodies, and 22 Moderate Sensitivity waterbodies. As noted in the overall project description, given proposed crossing methods, timing, mitigation, and restoration, most crossings (80%) are considered to have None or Low Risk. Two are considered Moderate Risk and ten are considered High Risk. Watershed-scale compensation measures will be developed with DFO and Parks Canada to offset any net loss in productive capacity at High Risk sites. To maintain or enhance ecological integrity of aquatic systems, the compensation program will avoid enhancing habitat that would encourage non-native fish to replace native species and strains, thus will be in keeping with Key Action #4 of Section 3.9 of the JNP

November 2005 Page 6-26 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Management Plan. Compensation will ensure that combined effects on native fish and aquatic habitat resulting from the TMX - Anchor Loop Project are neutral to positive in JNP. Through the implementation of the above measures, the construction of the Project does not hinder Parks Canada's ability to achieve their strategic goal for aquatic ecosystems of maintaining the natural structure and function of aquatic ecosystems as outlined in Section 3.9 of the JNP Management Plan.

6.2.6.5 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on fish and fish habitat within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.6.3 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.7. The TMX - Anchor Loop Project crosses 47 waterbodies in MRPP along with 93 drainages with no fish habitat potential or no bed or bank. Proposed crossings include 3 Moderate-High Sensitivity waterbodies, and 9 Moderate Sensitivity waterbodies. As noted in the overall project description, given proposed crossing methods, timing, mitigation, and restoration, most crossings (97%) are considered to have None or Low Risk. One (Moose River) is considered High Risk. Watershed-scale compensation measures will be developed with DFO and BC MOE to offset any net loss in productive capacity at High Risk sites. To maintain or enhance ecological integrity of aquatic systems, the compensation program will avoid enhancing habitat that would encourage non-native fish to replace native species and strains. Compensation will ensure that combined effects on native fish and aquatic habitat resulting from the TMX - Anchor Loop Project are neutral to positive in MRPP.

Through the implementation of the above measures, the construction of the Project does not hinder BC MOE's ability to achieve their objective of conserving viable natural fish populations while providing opportunities for viewing and limited recreational fishing as outlined in the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park. The Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan does not specifically reference fish.

6.2.7 Wetlands

6.2.7.1 Ecological Context

Wetlands in the LSA occur in the montane ecoregion and are essentially all associated with floodplains of the Athabasca, Miette and Fraser rivers. These wetlands do not occur in isolation, but as part of a wider landscape in which anthropogenic development and ecosystems interact and connect in a variety of ways. The valley bottoms that are traversed by the Project also function as major transportation corridors and as a result, the overall ecological integrity trend of the ecosystem has been identified as deteriorating (Parks Canada 2005) The natural riverine hydrology of the low-lying areas have been substantially altered by linear disturbances (e.g., Highway 16, access roads, and the railway). In fact, all 30 of the wetlands encountered along the Proposed Route have experienced some level of flow impoundment or restriction over time. However, all of the wetlands encountered seem to be successfully functioning as wetland habitat despite these alterations to the natural system. Nevertheless, it is the intent of the Project to minimize any additional alteration to the natural functions of wetlands through mitigation and restoration efforts.

The Proposed Route traverses lands that exhibit favourable topographic and hydrogeomorphic conditions where sufficient, long-term sources of water exist (i.e., saturated), thereby resulting in wetland habitat. The most resilient portions of the LSA are expected to be the low-lying riparian areas with high soil moisture and biodiversity. The least resilient areas are upland isolated basin locations with semi- saturated soil conditions. A generally accepted ecological principle in the Project area is that available soil moisture is the limiting factor to revegetation, i.e., the natural revegetation potential of wet, mild and flat portions of protected valley-bottoms is greater than the dry, cold and steep and exposed upland areas. Based on the low-lying, riparian location of most wetlands in the LSA and the elevated biodiversity of the ecosystem, the resilience of the receiving wetland environment is considered to be high overall.

November 2005 Page 6-27 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2.7.2 Overall Project

The Project is designed to avoid impacts on wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. However, most of the potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on wetlands that cannot be avoided will be minimized through the application of mitigative measures (see Table 6.2). Potential residual effects associated with the Project include:

• minor, short- to medium-term alteration of wetland habitat function;

• minor, short-term alteration of hydrologic function of wetlands; and

• minor, short-term alteration of water quality function in wetlands.

Potential Loss or Reduction of Habitat Function Construction and maintenance activities within wetlands along the Proposed Route will likely result in some minor disruption to the habitat function of wetlands. Examples of potential adverse environmental effects on wetland habitat function are: potential changes in species composition; stress on rare plant species; interruption of wildlife movements; and fragmentation of natural habitats. With proper construction and mitigative measures these adverse effects can be successfully minimized. For example, Zimmerman and Wilkey (1992) monitored wetlands for impacts to vegetation for 20-years post-disruption from pipeline construction. Findings of these long-term monitoring programs show that: adjacent natural wetland areas were not altered in type; no non-native plant species invaded natural areas; and the right- of-way increased diversity. Additional studies on wetland vegetation (Shem et al. 1993; Van dyke et al. 1994) record the following observations.

• Wetland community impacts: at most sites, many plants from adjacent natural areas re-establish themselves on the right-of-way; and properly constructed rights-of-way appear to have little impact on vegetation in the natural areas.

• Wetland species diversity: often, a greater number of wetland plants are observed on the right-of-way than in the adjacent natural area; and rights-of-way increase the number and types of habitats in the wetlands.

• Construction and management practices: vegetative cover on right-of-way sites in wetlands is generally well-established within 1 to 3 years after the pipeline construction; and minor differences in the final right-of-way surface elevation can produce substantial impacts with respect to the type of vegetation that re-establishes itself on the right-of-way.

The effects of construction of a natural gas pipeline right-of-way on wetland vegetation and bird communities were investigated up to two-years post construction by Santillo (1993). Results showed that: at two-years post-construction, wetlands were dominated by native hydrophytic graminoids; a 25 m pipeline right-of-way did not substantially affect abundance or richness of bird communities in adjacent portions of emergent wetlands; and no new bird species were introduced as a result of the different habitat provided by the right-of-way.

Mitigative measures will be employed before, during and after construction to minimize the residual effects on wetlands, depending on site-specific conditions and requirements. Scheduling of construction during frozen conditions along the Alberta and JNP segments of the Proposed Route, where snow conditions are expected to be favourable, will further minimize the effects on wetlands. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and in consideration of past monitoring programs, the potential disruption or alteration of wetland habitat function is considered to be reversible in the short- to medium-term and of low magnitude.

Potential Loss or Reduction of Hydrologic Function Potential changes to hydrologic flow (i.e., surface or groundwater flow) of a wetland may include wetland drainage, water diversion and natural flow impedance. Excessive wetland drainage or diversion will result

November 2005 Page 6-28 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 in an unnatural decrease to wetland area while flow impedance (i.e., inadequate drainage) creates wetland habitat; however, each of these alterations is an interruption to the natural hydrologic regime and is considered an adverse environmental effect. Among the most important considerations for keeping disturbances to hydrologic function at a minimum is assuring that preconstruction elevations and contours are achieved (Gartman 1991) and that there will be no unnatural impedance to flow. Short-term disturbances to wetlands are expected due to construction of the Proposed Route. If the right-of-way is restored to its preconstruction profile and the bed and bank of all channels are carefully reconstructed, then long-term impacts on wetland function are not expected.

Bayley et al. (1998) have discussed impacts to natural hydrology in wetland areas in JNP where the artificial creation of impoundments disrupt natural hydrologic regimes, alter environmental gradients and modify the connectivity of riparian/wetland environments from the active Athabasca River channel. The results of such an alteration to hydrologic function decrease overall biodiversity of a wetland system by reducing the diversity of habitats, altering vegetation succession patterns and disconnecting migratory pathways (e.g., fish, amphibians). According to Bayley et al. (1998), water levels are more constant on the upland side (as opposed to the active Athabasca River channel side) where Highway 16 has impounded natural drainage of the area. The water levels on the Athabasca River side are more erratic, often flood to deeper depths, but become very shallow in early spring, fall and winter.

These potential impacts will be effectively mitigated by construction techniques and the construction schedule, particularly along the Alberta and JNP segments of the Proposed Route which will be constructed during frozen conditions. Standard pipeline construction and operational activities are designed to avoid circumstances which result in drainage, diversion and/or unnatural retention of water. Consequently, the residual effect of the Project on wetland hydrology is reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude.

Potential Loss or Reduction of Water Quality Function Activity in or nearby wetlands during pipeline construction along the Proposed Route may result in an increased sediment supply and turbidity of surface waters thereby decreasing overall water quality function. Other possible impacts to water quality include the potential for loss of groundwater quality as a result of interference with shallow (within trench depth) groundwater movement, changes to nutrient levels due to flow impedance from an active river channel and, in the event of a major fuel spill from a piece of equipment, infiltration into surficial deposits and the groundwater are probable.

Examples of the degradation to wetland water quality function in JNP are provided in Bayley et al. (1998). Sediment levels of marshes on the upland side of an impoundment (i.e. Highway 16) were measured to be 0-50 cm higher than on the Athabasca River side of the roadway due to gradual infilling. In addition, the highway impounded area is also severely nutrient-stressed because it no longer receives nutrient-rich floodwaters from the Athabasca River.

Mitigative measures will be employed during construction and maintenance activities to ensure that all practical measures will be utilized to minimize impacts on water quality in wetlands. With the implementation of these measures, the residual effects of the Project on wetland water quality are considered to be of low magnitude and reversible in the short-term.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on wetlands and wetland function for the overall Project will be not significant.

November 2005 Page 6-29 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2.7.3 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on wetlands and wetland function within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.7.2 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

In JNP, the Proposed Route is adjacent to or crosses 17 wetlands and avoids 3 large wetland complexes encountered along the Existing Route. The total length of wetland habitat traversed by the Project Footprint in JNP is 8.35 km, however, for approximately 4.35 km of this length, wetlands are located proximal to the route and only the edge of the wetland is traversed. Wetland area directly impacted by the Project Footprint in JNP is 231.5 ha which is 11.9 ha less than along the Existing Route. Of the area directly impacted in JNP, 46% (106.1 ha) is located along the edge of the wetland where the disturbance is minimized, whereas only 22% (53.1 ha) of the Existing Route was aligned along wetland edges.

Numerous disturbances in both JNP and MRPP have previously altered natural drainage patterns of wetlands. However, according to a study of wetland function along the Existing Route in JNP (TERA/Westland and R.U. Kistritz Consultants Ltd. 2005), of all the linear disturbances (e.g., Highway 16, access roads, the railway and the existing Trans Mountain system), it is unlikely that the buried existing Trans Mountain pipeline is implicated in the current impounding effects on wetlands. Drainage retention and impoundment associated with the existing Trans Mountain pipeline appears to be from impacts related to construction of the pipeline (i.e., rip-rap left in place) and not from the buried pipeline. However, along the Proposed Route, through the appropriate use of contemporary construction techniques outlined in the EPP, no hindrances to the restoration of wetland function are anticipated.

Section 3.6 of the JNP Management Plan outlines the strategic goals to maintain biological diversity at varying scales. The implementation of mitigative measures to ensure no reduction to wetland habitat function aims to maintain biological diversity and restore viable populations of all native species.

Section 3.9 of the JNP Management Plan outlines the major concerns of aquatic ecosystems. By establishing the Project routing criteria, the Proposed Route avoids wetland habitat and follows existing linear disturbances, where feasible. The Proposed Route is consistent with Major Concern #2, lessening the possibility for wetland impoundment and flow restrictions.

As a result of this planning and mitigation, the Project does not hinder Parks Canada's ability to meet their objective of maintaining biological diversity and avoiding wetland impoundment and flow restrictions.

6.2.7.4 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on wetlands and wetland function within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.7.2 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.7.

In MRPP, the Proposed Route is adjacent to or crosses five wetlands, directly impacting up to 36.4 ha of wetland habitat. This route avoids eight wetland complexes encountered along the Existing Route and reduces the area directly impacted by the Project Footprint by a substantial 129.7 ha. The total length of wetland habitat traversed by the Project Footprint in MRPP is 1.85 km covering an area of 36.4 ha. This length is entirely (100%) limited to wetland edges. The Existing Route traverses 7,400 m and encompassed an area of 166.1 ha; with only 57.7 ha (35%) of this route aligned along wetland edges.

The objectives with regards to wetlands under the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park are to protect the park's limited wetlands to maintain the natural environment and the diverse bird populations and to conserve biological diversity. These objectives are achieved by adhering to the Project's routing criteria. The Proposed Route avoids Moose Marsh and provides alternatives to staying in low-lying riparian areas for substantial distances by aligning the route on upland areas or following an abandoned railway grade. The above strategies and measures are consistent with the actions outlined in the Master Plan and, consequently, the Project does not hinder BC MOE's ability to meet their wetland objective.

November 2005 Page 6-30 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

The Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan does not make specific references to wetlands.

6.2.8 Vegetation

6.2.8.1 Ecological Context

The Project lies within a national and provincial park and, consequently, most of the vegetation in the parks is intact. However, the valley bottoms have sustained most of the anthropogenic changes through development, such as the community of Jasper, a railroad, highway, power lines, the existing Trans Mountain system and recreational and tourist facilities. The Proposed Route is primarily located in montane community type, on or adjacent to disturbed habitat for approximately 99% of its length. Following construction, revegetation and restoration measures are proposed to reclaim the lands affected by the proposed pipeline construction, helping to restore a portion of the previously disturbed montane vegetation community.

It is generally thought that the resilience of the lower elevation valley bottoms is greater than in higher elevation subalpine or alpine vegetation communities. Therefore, the resilience of the receiving environment is considered to be high overall. The most resilient portions of the Proposed Route are expected to be the warmer and moister areas such as montane vegetation in valley bottoms, as well as the wetland shrub and riparian forest community types. The least resilient areas are expected to be the drier, higher elevation areas, such as Windy Point KP/KL 349.3 to KP/KL 350.3), and areas with problem soils, such as the Talbot and Devona calcareous orthic and calcareous cumulic regosol soils.

6.2.8.2 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on vegetation include:

• if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some loss or alteration of the local population of S1, S2, and/or S3 rare vascular plants may occur;

• transplanted or propagated S1 and/or S2 specimens may not survive;

• if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some loss or alteration of the local population of S1, S2, and/or S3 rare non-vascular plants may occur;

• if a plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow strip of the S1, S2 or S3 community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or alteration of the community;

• temporarily covering of the site and implementing construction traffic restrictions may not completely protect the community;

• if the community cannot be avoided and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community, then a narrow strip of the unique plant community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or alteration of the community;

• approximately 470 ha of montane habitat could will be altered over the long-term;

• approximately 5 ha of Douglas-fir savannah habitat in JNP and approximately 1 ha in MRPP could be altered over the long-term;

• weed introduction and spread may occur;

• although MPB and other forest pathogens (e.g., Armillaria root rot) may extend their range, the Project will not exacerbate forest health issues along the route; and

November 2005 Page 6-31 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

• salvageable timber will be removed from the forested land base.

S1, S2, S3 Rare Vascular Plants Twenty-two species of rare vascular plants were identified within the Project Footprint along the Proposed Route. Of these, 8 species are ranked as S1, 12 species are ranked S2, and 2 species are ranked S3. A total of 101 rare vascular plant populations were identified within the Project Footprint, most of which were encountered along the JNP portion. VECs such as boreal moonwort (S1/Red in BC), Canada anemone (S2S3/Blue in BC), purple-leaved willowherb (S2S3/Blue in BC), and meadow willow (S2S3/Blue in BC) were not identified along any lands to be disturbed by the Project.

Mitigative measures will be implemented before, during and after construction to minimize the residual effects on rare vascular plants, depending on site specific conditions and the growth habits of individual species. Mitigative measures to protect rare vascular plants include one or more of the following:

• the pipeline will be realigned within the Project Footprint to avoid the site, if feasible;

• the proposed area of disturbance will be narrowed down and the site will be clearly marked using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction;

• the rare plant site will be temporarily covered with geotextile pads or swamp mats and construction traffic restrictions will be implemented along the covered segments;

• rare plants will be propagated or individual plants will be transplanted off the Project Footprint to equivalent habitat;

• the pipeline route and Project Footprint will be realigned around the site for S1 rare vascular plants; or

• the pipeline will be bored under the local S1 population on the Project Footprint and the area will be fenced off to restrict traffic from impacting the site.

The mitigative measures proposed above have been used previously on other major pipeline construction projects with good success. Following are some examples.

Narrowing down of the right-of-way was undertaken during construction of the Alliance Pipeline Project in 1999, at several locations. For example, in central Alberta, Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) (S3W) was fenced and the right-of-way narrowed down. During post-construction monitoring in summer 2000, the Douglas hawthorn was thriving and showed no signs of impact due to construction (Fryer et al. 2002).

During construction of the Alliance Pipeline in central Alberta, disturbance of low milkweed (Asclepias ovalifolia) (S2) was avoided by extending the length of a bore of the highway, railway and creek that were in the vicinity of the rare plant (Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership (Alliance) 2000a).

Turned sedge (Carex retrorsa) (S2S3) was found on the Alliance Pipeline near Whitecourt (Alliance 2000b). The area was ramped over by cutting and laying down willows, covering them with geotextile, and then ramping with subsoil. Upon completion of construction, the ramp was removed. During post- construction monitoring in 2001, the plant was found in very large numbers both on and off the right-of- way (Alliance 2002).

Goldthread (Coptis trifolia) (S3W) was found at a proposed compressor station location. The goldthread was transplanted to a similar habitat off the compressor station site using a backhoe in the spring just prior to construction in 1999. The transplanted goldthread was observed alive and growing during post- construction monitoring in summer 2000 (Alliance 2000c).

During construction of the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Capacity Expansion Project in 1994, seed from sand nutgrass (Cyperus schweinitzii) (S2) in the Hardisty, Alberta area was collected and stratified for dispersal following construction. During the post-construction monitoring program, numerous sand nutgrass plants were found where the collected seed was sown (Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 1995, Fryer pers. comm.). The

November 2005 Page 6-32 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 site was revisited yearly for several years after construction and the sand nutgrass was thriving (Fryer pers. comm.).

Based on the assessment of the rare vascular plants that will be encountered during construction, the proven mitigative measures described above are considered to be appropriate and applicable to the vascular species encountered by the Project. However, if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, a loss or alteration of a portion of the local population of S1, S2, and/or S3 rare vascular plants may occur. By basing mitigation on species ranking, abundance, grow habit and habitat, in addition to its location on the right-of-way, any loss or alteration of local rare plant populations, particularly S1 local populations, will be reduced to a level such that the local populations are not placed at risk. Consequently, the residual effects of the Project on rare vascular plant species are reversible in the long- term and of medium magnitude.

S1, S2, S3 Rare Non-Vascular Plants Sixty-two species of rare non-vascular plants were identified within the Project Footprint along the Proposed Route. Of these, 16 species were ranked as S1, 27 species were ranked S2, 18 species were ranked S3, and one species is considered "rare" in BC. At total of 112 rare non-vascular plant locations were identified along the Project Footprint. One rare non-vascular plant species was considered a VEC for the Project, Haller's apple moss (S1 in Alberta; S1/Red in BC; listed as threatened by COSEWIC/SARA), but was not found along any lands to be disturbed by the Project.

Similar to rare vascular plants, mitigative measures will be implemented before and during construction to minimize the residual effects on rare non-vascular plants, depending on site specific conditions and the growth habits of individual species. Mitigative measures to protect rare non-vascular plants include one or more of the following:

• the pipeline will be realigned within the Project Footprint to avoid the site, if feasible;

• the proposed area of disturbance will be narrowed down and the site will be clearly marked using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction;

• the rare plant site will be temporarily covered with geotextile pads or swamp mats and construction traffic restrictions will be implemented along the covered segments;

• the pipeline and Project Footprint will be realigned around the site for S1 non-vascular plants; or

• the pipeline will be bored under the local S1 population on the Project Footprint and the local population will be fenced off to restrict traffic from impacting the site.

Although development projects have been successfully mitigating for rare vascular plants for years, the level of effort in conducting a formal non-vascular plant survey carried out by qualified non-vascular identification specialists is unique for this Project. Nevertheless, the mitigative measures described above are considered to be appropriate and applicable to the Project by the Project’s non-vascular plant experts. By basing mitigation on species ranking, abundance and habitat, in addition to its location on the right-of- way, any loss or alteration of local rare non-vascular populations, particularly S1 local populations, will be reduced to a level such that the populations are not placed at risk. Rare non-vascular plants will be monitored along the Proposed Route during the post-construction monitoring program (two years) to determine the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. In an effort to learn more about non-vascular plants, longer term monitoring is proposed and is described in Section 8.0 of this EA report. Consequently, the residual effects of the Project on rare non-vascular plant species are reversible in the long-term and of medium magnitude.

S1, S2, S3 Rare Plant Communities and Unique Communities Ten rare plant communities were identified within the Project Footprint along all segments of the Proposed Route. Of these, one is ranked as S1, five are ranked S2, and four are ranked S3. Four unique plant communities (three in JNP and one in MRPP) were also found along the Proposed Route. Mature western redcedar/western hemlock stands and mature Douglas-fir stands, considered as VECs by the

November 2005 Page 6-33 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

TOR, were not found along the Proposed Route. However, two VEC plant community types, the montane community type and the Douglas-fir savannah community type, were found along the Proposed Route and are evaluated in the subsequent subsection.

Mitigative measures will be implemented before and during construction to minimize the residual effects on rare plant communities. Mitigative measures to protect S1 plant communities include one or more of the following:

• the pipeline will be realigned within the Project Footprint to avoid the plant community, if feasible;

• the proposed area of disturbance will be narrowed down and the site will be clearly marked using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction;

• the rare plant community will be temporarily covered with geotextile pads or swamp mats and construction traffic restrictions will be implemented along the covered segments;

• the pipeline and Project Footprint will be realigned around the site; or

• the pipeline will be bored under the plant community on the Project Footprint and the area fenced off to restrict traffic from impacting the site.

Mitigative measures to protect S2 and S3 rare communities as well as unique communities include one or more of the following:

• the proposed areas of disturbance will be narrowed down and the site will be clearly marked using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; or

• the rare plant community will be temporarily covered with geotextile pads or swamp mats and construction traffic restrictions will be implemented along the covered segments.

The mitigative measures proposed above have been used successfully on other major pipeline construction projects. For example, narrowing down of the right-of-way for sensitive communities was successfully done during construction at several locations on the Alliance Pipeline Project (Alliance 2000a,b,d). At the South Saskatchewan River, shrubby vegetation important for wildlife was temporarily covered with geotextile pads during construction (Alliance 2000d). In addition, sensitive grasslands with thorny buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), considered important for wildlife, was ramped over during construction. The thorny buffaloberry was cut low to the ground and the root mat preserved (Alliance 2000d).

Covering the rare plant community with geotextile or ramping over the community are measures which will be easier to undertake during construction in frozen conditions when the plants are dormant and snow can be used to protect the vegetation.

Based on the assessment of the rare plant communities that will be encountered during construction, the mitigative measures described above are considered to be appropriate and applicable to the Project. However, if the plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrowed strip of the S1, S2 or S3 community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or alteration of the community. In addition, temporarily covering of the site and implementing construction traffic restrictions may not completely protect the community. By basing mitigation on community ranking and abundance, in addition to its location on the right-of-way and the community type, any loss or alteration of the local community, particularly S1 local communities, will be reduced to a level such that the local community is not placed at risk. Consequently, the residual effects of the Project on rare plant communities and unique communities are confined to the Project Footprint or the LSA, are reversible in the long-term and of medium magnitude.

Montane Habitat VEC The montane community type was found along most of the Proposed Route. Approximately 470 ha of montane habitat could be altered over the long-term as a result of construction activities.

November 2005 Page 6-34 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

The Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances in montane habitat to the extent feasible, maximizing the use of previously disturbed areas and minimizing the total amount of disturbance.

The restoration potential of montane vegetation is considered to be high due to the warmer and moister climate and well developed soils in the lower elevation valley bottoms. It is anticipated that successful restoration of the montane habitat VEC can be achieved by replanting disturbed areas with native montane species, as well as employing natural regeneration techniques where appropriate. Not all of the montane habitat disturbed during construction will be restored since an area directly over the pipeline will be maintained free of woody cover for inspection and routine maintenance related to operation of the pipeline. However, since the Project Footprint encompasses some portion of previously disturbed montane habitat, it is expected that the net results of restoration efforts will be an increase in extent and quality of desirable early seral montane vegetation within the Project Footprint.

Detailed restoration measures will be developed and provided in the Restoration Plan to be submitted with the NEB application (see also Section 8.0 of this EA report). Montane restoration measures will be monitored during the first and second years following construction.

By using native species or natural regeneration at locations along the Proposed Route and through the control of invasive species during construction and operations, the montane habitat disturbed by the Project will be maintained or, in some instances where previously disturbed lands (temporary workspace and stockpile sites) are reclaimed using native species, restored. Clearing of the right-of-way and temporary work space and the maintenance of the right-of-way will result in the perpetuation of early seral montane vegetation. This increase in early seral vegetation over the life of the Project will contribute to the overall area of this desired habitat type in the Parks. Potential effects on montane vegetation are considered to be neutral following restoration. Consequently, the residual effect of the Project on montane habitat considered to be neutral.

Douglas-Fir Savannah VEC Five locations of Douglas-fir savannah habitat were found along the Proposed Route. Approximately 5 ha of Douglas-fir savannah habitat in JNP and approximately 1 ha in MRPP could be altered over the long- term.

Mitigative measures will be implemented before, during and after construction to minimize the residual effects on Douglas-fir savannah habitat. Mitigative measures to protect Douglas-fir savannah habitat include one or more of the following depending on site-specific conditions:

• the area of disturbance will be narrowed down to the extent practical and the disturbance boundaries (area to be cleared) will be fenced or clearly marked; or

• restoration measures will be developed and provided in detail in the Restoration Plan.

A combination of natural recovery and re-planting of Douglas-fir seedlings, where appropriate, will be prescribed in the Restoration Plan to facilitate the reestablishment of the Douglas-fir savannah VEC.

The mitigative measures proposed above have been used successfully on other major pipeline construction projects for other sensitive vegetation communities. For example, narrowing down of the right-of-way for sensitive communities was conducted during construction at several locations on the Alliance Pipeline Project (Alliance 2000a,b,c). In addition, the effectiveness of Douglas-fir savannah restoration measures will be monitored during the first and second years following construction.

Consequently, the residual effects of the Project on Douglas-fir savannah habitat are reversible in the long-term and of medium magnitude.

Invasive Species In general, invasive species tend to inhabit areas where the seed bank has been disturbed by anthropogenic activity. Road ditches and railway easements are particularly prone to invasive species.

November 2005 Page 6-35 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Trains and vehicles are noted as introducing non-native plants into JNP (Parks Canada 2000). Parks Canada (2005) notes that CN Railway has not conducted weed control measures along their easement within JNP over the past three years which has resulted in large infestations of invasive species.

By virtue of routing the pipeline loop to follow existing linear disturbances, thousands of occurrences of invasive species were recorded within the Project Footprint of the Proposed Route (TERA/Westland 2005a). Eleven weed species were identified as being of particular concern for the Project. The measures outlined in Table 6.2 will minimize the spread and introduction of weed species during construction. In addition, Terasen Pipelines will continue to coordinate efforts with Parks Canada and BC MOE to aggressively manage weeds through mechanical, chemical or physical means along their easement throughout the operations of the pipeline to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority. In addition, control of invasive species will also be undertaken at presently disturbed sites to be used as temporary work space. The control of these weed infested areas will improve the ecological integrity within the Parks. Consequently, the residual effect of the Project on invasive species control is considered to be neutral to positive.

Forest Health Forest pathogens, specifically MPB and Armillaria root rot, are a forest health concern identified within the RSA. Outbreaks of MPB have been recorded in MRPP while a few infestations have been noted in JNP. Of utmost concern is the threat of expansion of the MPB population inhabiting the Robson River valley in MRPP across the Continental Divide into JNP in the absence of severe winter conditions (Parks Canada 2005).

Several strategies will be employed during construction of the Project in relation to MPB concerns including conducting a risk assessment along the Project Footprint for the beetle during the quantification of the amount and type of timber, scheduling clearing activities outside of the flight period (May to September) to the extent feasible, and avoiding importing infested trees to Alberta or transporting logs within some portions of BC during the known flight period unless the bark has been removed. Information collected regarding the presence of the MPB along the Proposed Route will be passed along to the appropriate authority who will be responsible for the management of any identified MPB issues. A similar protocol will be followed during operation of the pipeline when maintenance activities are undertaken.

Given that the Proposed Route predominantly follows existing disturbances, concerns of the Project on forest health within JNP and MRPP by park managers were minimal (B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. 2005). Coupled with the protection measures outlined above, it is unlikely that forest health issues within JNP and MRPP will be exacerbated by the TMX - Anchor Loop Project (B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. 2005). Consequently, the residual effect of the Project on the spread of forest pathogens is anticipated to be neutral and, therefore, does not require an evaluation of significance. MPB in relation to climate change is also discussed under Physical Environment (Section 6.2.1.1) and in Section 6.5 under Effects of the Environment on the Project.

Removal of Salvageable Timber During construction, potential salvageable timber will be cleared from the Project Footprint using measures outlined in the EPP. The amount of clearing has been minimized through aligning the Proposed Route to follow existing linear disturbances. In Alberta and BC, all salvageable timber will be hauled to the appropriate holder of forest agreement or tenure. Within JNP and MRPP, salvageable timber will be given to the appropriate authority who will then determine the appropriate end use. Consequently, the residual effect is reversible in the long-term and of low magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on vegetation for the overall Project will be not significant.

November 2005 Page 6-36 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2.8.3 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on vegetation within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.8.2 for the overall Project.

Eighteen species of rare vascular plants (i.e., species with a provincial rank between S1 and S3) were found along the Proposed Route in JNP. One additional species, Eleocharis mamillata, was observed but not counted in the tabulation of rare species since it is currently unranked (SNR), however, Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre (ANHIC) has suggested a new rank of S1 be assigned this species. One other species has been tentatively identified as rare, but will not be included in the list of rare species until its identification is verified by an expert. A total of 53 rare non-vascular species with provincial ranks between S1 and S3 were observed along the Proposed Route in JNP. None of the species identified as VECs in the TOR were observed along the Proposed Route in JNP. Five rare plant communities with a provincial rank of S2S3 were observed along the Proposed Route, in addition to 2 unranked (SU) communities, 2 unique communities and 4 Douglas-fir savannah communities, which are VECs. The entire segment of the Proposed Route in JNP lies within montane habitat VEC. Other plant community types that are considered VECs include mature Douglas-fir stands and mature western redcedar / western hemlock stands, both of which were not observed within the Project Footprint in JNP.

Numerous invasive species were observed along the Proposed Route in JNP. Eleven weed species were identified from the overall list of observed invasive non-native species as being of particular management concern based on their designation by the Alberta Weed Regulation, the BC Weed Control Act, the Northwest Invasive Plant Council (NWIPC) and the JNP Field Identification Guide for non-native plants in JNP. Of these 11 species, 6 were observed along the Proposed Route in JNP, including spotted knapweed, common and dalmatian toadflax, scentless chamomile, clematis and common tansy. Blue weed, nodding thistle, leafy spurge and diffuse knapweed were also observed on temporary construction sites and access roads within JNP.

Vegetation is addressed within the JNP Management Plan in Sections 3.6, Biological Diversity and 3.10, Vegetation. By undertaking a vegetation survey of the Proposed Route to identify plant species and plant communities of concern, the Project is assisting Parks Canada in evaluating the status of species of concern in the park and in their collection of baseline information on little known park species such as fungi, bryophytes and lichens (Key Actions #8 and 11 in Section 3.6). The implementation of mitigative measures to the extent that local populations of rare plants and communities will not be placed at risk (i.e., will be maintained) does not impede Parks Canada from working towards their objectives of biological diversity of maintaining or restoring viable populations of all native species and protecting, maintaining or restoring rare, vulnerable, threatened or endangered species and biotic communities. In addition, by using native species or natural regeneration at locations along the Proposed Route and through the control of invasive species during construction and operations, the montane habitat disturbed by the Project will be maintained at an early seral stage and, in some instances where previously disturbed lands are reclaimed using native species, restored. In this way, the Project results in a net gain of desirable early seral montane vegetation within JNP and the Project is consistent with Key Actions #1 and 7 in Section 3.6.

The restoration of disturbed lands, the control of invasive species and monitoring of forest pathogen populations are also mentioned in Section 3.10 of the JNP Management Plan. Where vegetation is removed for construction purposes, the ecosystem functions will be protected by salvaging and replacing the nutrient rich topsoil or root zone material as well as peat material. This action is consistent with Key Action #9. The seed mixes to be used during restoration of disturbed lands associated with the Project will consist of native species approved by Parks Canada, some of which may be used to promote appropriate grazing and browsing by native herbivores and others, to be less palatable to wildlife, especially in areas adjacent to roads (Key Actions #8, 11 and 14). The implementation of the Invasive Species Management Plan and continued monitoring and control of invasive species along the Project Footprint during operations of the Project is consistent with Key Action #18 and is in support of Parks Canada’s objective of controlling or eliminating non-native species that threaten the integrity of native plant species and communities. In terms of forest health issues, JNP will be responsible for managing any issues, including MPB, brought to their attention by Terasen Pipelines through the construction or operation of the Project. In this way, the Project will assist Parks Canada in monitoring forest populations and diseases (Key Action #6).

November 2005 Page 6-37 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2.8.4 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on vegetation within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.8.2 for the overall Project.

Two species of rare vascular plants with a provincial rank between S1 and S3 were found within the Project Footprint of the Proposed Route in MRPP. One rare non-vascular species with provincial ranks between S1 and S3 were observed along the Proposed Route in MRPP. None of the species identified as VECs in the TOR were observed along the Proposed Route in MRPP. Four rare plant communities with a provincial rank of S3 (Blue-listed) were observed along the Proposed Route, in addition to 1 unique community and 1 Douglas-fir savannah community VEC. Most of the Proposed Route in MRPP lies within the SBSdh BGC Zone, which is comparable to montane habitat and considered a VEC in the TOR. Other plant community types that are considered VECs include mature Douglas-fir stands and mature western redcedar / western hemlock stands. These VEC communities were not observed along the Proposed Route. Although mature Douglas-fir, western redcedar and western hemlock were observed sporadically along the route, they are a generally a subdominant component of the communities encountered within the Project Footprint. Individuals of these tree species growing within predominantly spruce, pine or deciduous stands, as well as Douglas-fir and western redcedar / western hemlock stands of a younger seral stage (e.g., where western redcedar was observed as the dominant species in the subcanopy) were not considered to qualify as the VECs described in the TOR.

Numerous invasive species were observed along the Proposed Route in MRPP. Eleven weed species were identified from the overall list of observed invasive non-native species as being of particular management concern. Of these 11 species, 3 were observed along the Proposed Route in MRPP, including spotted knapweed, common toadflax and common tansy. Scentless chamomile was also observed on temporary construction sites and access roads within MRPP.

The Project is consistent with several objectives related to vegetation in the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park. The vegetation survey conducted for the Project revealed that no plant species identified as VECs in the TOR were encountered within MRPP. Only one plant community identified as a VEC in the TOR was encountered within MRPP. One location, approximately 1 ha in size, of Douglas-fir savannah in MRPP will be altered over the long-term. With the proposed mitigation, the development of Project does not interfere with the objective of preserving special sensitive and rare native plant communities and species. During the vegetation survey, a meander walking technique was used to survey the Project Footprint for rare vascular, non-vascular and rare, sensitive and unique plant communities which met the objective of improving the knowledge of the park’s vegetation using low impact scientific studies. Terasen Pipelines is committed to controlling invasive species through the implementation of the Invasive Species Management Plan during construction of the Project and monitoring and control of invasive species during operations. In this way, the development of the Project upholds the objective of discouraging the establishment of non-native species. Finally, the montane habitat disturbed by the Project will be maintained at an early seral stage and, in some instances where previously disturbed lands are reclaimed using native species, restored. In this way, the Project results in a net gain of desirable early seral montane vegetation within MRPP and will assist BC MOE in meeting their vegetation objective of maintaining the established pattern of varied aged forest stands and other communities.

Biodiversity is discussed throughout the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan. Within the Travel Corridor Zone where the Project is located, a management objective is to determine the extent of rare or endangered plant and animal species (Part 2, Section 3.4). The information gathered during the vegetation survey conducted for the Project may be of assistance to BC MOE in developing procedures for conserving identified species. In addition, the identification of weeds along the Proposed Route during the vegetation survey and the implementation of the Invasive Species Management Plan during construction of the Project and monitoring and control of invasive species during operations are actions which support the biodiversity objective of determining the degree to which alignments and natural ecosystems have been invaded by non-native vegetation. Furthermore, the use of native species during reclamation and restoration of the Project Footprint is consistent with the recommended action pertaining to the biodiversity management objective within the Travel Corridor Zone of reducing the potential for future invasion of non-native plant species.

November 2005 Page 6-38 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

MPB is addressed in both the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park and the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan. Under Vegetation in the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park, an action was identified to develop a control program for disease and insect outbreaks with the purpose to prevent the spread of insects and disease to commercial forests in BC and Alberta (JNP), and to protect view along the Travel Corridor. A management approach to MPB and spruce beetle is presented in Part 1, Section 5.4 of the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park. MRPP has developed a 10 year forest health management strategy to address the effects of the MPB infestation as well as the problematic even-aged stand condition in the Sub Boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zone and fire hazard (B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. 2005). To accomplish the goals of the strategy, treatments began in 2004 and will be continue in designated treatment zones over the next 10 years. By following the recommended mitigative measures regarding the clearing and transporting of trees during construction and maintenance activities, Terasen Pipelines is complying with the forest health management strategy and, consequently, the Project does not hinder BC MOE's ability to meet their vegetation objectives and effectively manage the park ecosystem.

6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

6.2.9.1 Ecological Context

Provincial governments in Alberta and BC as well as the federal government (Parks Canada) have adopted an ecosystem approach to land management. The ecological vision for JNP and the general ecosystem management goals outlined in the Mount Robson Provincial Park Management Plan focus on the maintenance and conservation of native biological diversity.

The jurisdictions crossed by the pipeline route recognize that several environmental factors occurring within the Greater Yellowhead Ecosystem (RSA) affect the wildlife and wildlife habitat resources of the LSA.

Regionally intensive land use including logging, tourism, oil and gas exploration, resource roads and mining located beyond the Project area put pressure on the ecosystems of the protected areas (JNP and MRPP). Tourism, transportation and settlements within the parks, especially in the valley bottom, or montane ecoregion, compound the problems of habitat fragmentation, wildlife mortality and habitat loss/alteration.

The montane ecoregion, representing only 7% of the total land area of JNP (Parks Canada 2005) and even less in MRPP, occurs at the lowest elevations in the parks – primarily in drainages of the lower Athabasca, Miette, and upper Fraser rivers. This Ecoregion is prime wildlife habitat and the ecological integrity of this vitally important region is assessed to be “fair”1 and “deteriorating”2 (Parks Canada 2005).

Existing Levels of Disturbance The Proposed Route is located on or adjacent to previously disturbed habitat for approximately 99% of its length.

Existing disturbances within the LSA have resulted in direct habitat losses and alterations in the past. Wildlife mortality impacts along Highway 16 and the railway line through the Project area also reduce ungulate and carnivore populations of the LSA.

1 Fair – some species are missing or limited to only part of their historic range and the ecosystem is beginning to change because of unnatural stressors. 2 Deteriorating (or Declining) – the trend over time. For example, there are signs that the ecological integrity of the ecoregion is moving from “Good” to “Fair” or “Poor.”

November 2005 Page 6-39 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Since the ecological integrity trend of the montane ecoregion in general, and the LSA in particular, is deteriorating (Parks Canada 2005), any additional unnatural stress will likely be a concern for park managers.

Resilience of the Receiving Environment Pipelines, unlike many other permanent land-altering linear developments such as highways and railways, will be restored to productive wildlife habitats following construction.

A generally accepted ecological principle in the Project area is that available soil moisture is the limiting factor to revegetation, i.e., the natural revegetation potential of wet, mild and flat portions of protected valley-bottoms (montane ecoregion) portion of the LSA is greater than the dry, cold and steep and exposed upland areas in the subalpine and alpine areas within the RSA.

The resilience of the receiving environment is considered to be high overall. The most resilient portions of the LSA are expected to be locations with high soil moisture such as the wetland and riparian forest habitat types. The least resilient areas are locations where permanent land altering disturbance will be necessary such as rock cuts/steep slopes and areas with low soil moisture (e.g., talus and dry slope habitats) or soils that are difficult to revegetate (e.g., soils which are extremely calcareous at the surface).

6.2.9.2 Background

Forested, shrub, wetland and grassland habitat types will be disturbed by several pipeline construction activities. The following describes the pipeline activity phase and the potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat:

• clearing causes direct losses of forested habitats in the Project Footprint and indirect alterations to adjacent habitat types through windthrow and increased light penetration;

• grubbing results in direct losses of groundcover plants and soil disturbance;

• grading alters habitat through changing the drainage patterns and aspect of slopes which, in turn, result in changes to plant distribution and species composition;

• topsoil or root zone material salvage can result in the spread of seeds of invasive plant species resulting in reduced habitat quality, especially in grassland and open canopy forest habitats;

• trenching may result in soil mixing and erosion which can affect the quality of habitat;

• backfilling may result in settling of the backfilled soils that are not properly compacted which, in turn, may result in changes to soil drainage and plant distribution. In addition, blasted rock and coarse textured soils, if used for final re-profiling of the trench area to form a low linear mound (also called a roach) over the trench area to compensate for potential subsidence, can be colonized by invasive plant species and support different vegetation types than adjacent areas;

• clean-up activities may not restore slopes to their pre-construction profile, resulting in cuts and fills which change soil drainage, slope and aspect and, subsequently, change the vegetation composition that re-establishes on these cut and fill sites from the pre-disturbance vegetation conditions; and

• reclamation/restoration activities may include redistribution of salvaged coarse woody debris, installation of final erosion control structures and application of native seed mixtures. Invasive plant species can become established following restoration and ongoing spread of these species can permanently alter wetland, forested shrub and grassland habitats of the Project Footprint.

6.2.9.3 Overall Project The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on wildlife and wildlife habitat include:

November 2005 Page 6-40 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

1. Wildlife habitat will be altered or lost

Changes to wildlife habitat will result from alignment clearing, grubbing, topsoil or root zone material salvage, grading, trenching, backfilling, cleanup, restoration, hazardous material spills and forest/brush fires. This will apply directly to areas where habitat is lost, and indirectly to areas immediately adjacent where use patterns may change in response to presence of a habitat edge, and the greater proximity of disturbance. Changes in and/or loss of habitat will affect many species of wildlife, particularly those with small home ranges, dens or other site-specific habitat requirements within the affected area. The degree to which species will be affected will depend on the amount of habitat lost, the type of habitat lost and its use by each species/species group and the size, mobility and home range/territory size of each species.

2. Changes in wildlife movement may occur

Wildlife movement patterns vary between species, with species-specific attributes such as size and age, and other factors such as time of day and season. Most species will alter their movement to avoid construction areas, however, some may be attracted either during active hours or after hours by curiosity, machine oils and/or garbage. The most substantial changes in movement patterns are predicted to occur in areas where new alignment is constructed away from the existing alignment or another linear development. In these areas, travel corridors, feeding sites and nesting sites will be bisected or lost and individuals may adjust their movement patterns.

3. Wildlife may be displaced during construction due to sensory disturbances

Project personnel, construction activities and equipment have the potential to cause sensory disturbance to wildlife during the planning, construction and restoration phases of the Project. Sensory disturbance is defined here as comprising aural (e.g., blasting, equipment operation), olfactory (e.g., machine odour, human odour) and/or visual (e.g., construction personnel, equipment – their occurrence and movement) disturbance to wildlife species. Responses of wildlife to sensory disturbance will vary between species, and between individuals within species but will likely range from undetectable metabolic changes (e.g., accelerated heart rate), to vocalizations (e.g., warning calls) to movement away from the disturbance. Sensory disturbances are considered reversible once the disturbance ceases, if the individual moves outside the disturbance zone and once normal activity patterns resume. Wildlife species may become acclimated to certain re-occurring sensory disturbances particularly those associated with construction activities, or the regular passage of Project vehicles and construction equipment.

4. Wildlife mortality rates may increase

The level of mortality that will occur due to Project activities may depend on the timing of clearing activities and on species group. Clearing during the breeding season has the potential to result in high levels of mortality for nesting birds. Grubbing and soil removal will result in mortality for small mammals, amphibians and reptiles that inhabit woody debris, litter and soil. In less frequent situations, collisions with construction vehicles may result in mortality for a wide range of species including the more conspicuous ungulate and carnivore species.

The following subsections will discuss the above potential residual effects for each wildlife and wildlife habitat VEC as applicable.

Habitat Types There are eight habitat VECs crossed by the Proposed Route. These are: Wetland, Shrub and Riparian Forest Habitat; Douglas Fir and White Spruce Forest Habitat; Grassland and Dry Slope Forest Habitat; Pine Forest Habitat; Floodplain Spruce Forest Habitat; Aspen and Balsam Poplar Forest Habitat; Cedar and Hemlock Forest Habitat; and Cedar and Mixedwood Forest Habitat.

Table 6.10 outlines the amount of habitat to be affected by the Project Footprint, including the pipeline alignment and temporary workspaces.

November 2005 Page 6-41 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

TABLE 6.10

AREA (HA) OF FOOTPRINT IN EACH HABITAT TYPE CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED ROUTE

Jurisdiction Total 1, 2 Wildlife Habitat Type AB (ha) JNP (ha) MRPP (ha) BC (ha) (ha) Wetland, Shrub and Riparian Forest Habitat 2.38 57.70 30.30 0 90.38 Douglas Fir and White Spruce Forest Habitat 23.62 46.33 93.18 0 163.13 Grassland and Dry Slope Forest Habitat 0 29.96 0 0 29.96 Pine Forest Habitat 23.00 68.34 63.29 0 154.63 Floodplain Spruce Forest Habitat 0 1.52 5.10 0 6.62 Aspen and Balsam Poplar Forest Habitat 4.78 31.33 25.57 0 61.68 Cedar and Hemlock Forest Habitat 0 0 0.16 5.46 5.62 Cedar-Mixedwood Forest Habitat 0 0 5.64 0 5.64 Miscellaneous 0 6.80 0.58 0 7.38 TOTAL 53.78 241.99 223.82 5.46 525.04 Note: 1. Habitat categories are based on ecosites (from ELC mapping) as follows: Wetland Shrub and Riparian Forest Habitat: Ecosites VL1, VL3, VL4 and VL5 Douglas Fir and White Spruce Forest Habitat: Ecosites NY1, NY3, DV2, HD2, HD3, TA3 and CA2 Grassland and Dry Slope Habitat: Ecosites AT3, HD4 and TA2 Pine Forest Habitat: Ecosites AT1, BV1, FR1, PR1, PT1 and PT3 Floodplain Spruce Habitat: Ecosites CA1 and PT5 Aspen and Balsam Poplar Forest Habitat: Ecosites HD1 and PT4 Cedar and Hemlock Forest Habitat: Ecosite RA4 Cedar-Mixedwood Forest Habitat: Ecosites RA3 and RD4 Miscellaneous: Ecosites W, P and SC 2. The total footprint area provided includes the existing disturbance associated with the right-of-way, incremental Project disturbance and temporary workspace.

Changes to each habitat type and the respective use of the habitat by wildlife are summarized below. As outlined in Table 6.5, the alteration or loss of wildlife habitat types due to short-term construction activities is considered to be reversible in the long-term. Routing of the pipeline to follow existing linear disturbances has reduced the overall disturbance to wildlife habitats associated with the Project. In addition, minimizing pipeline length within wetland and riparian areas has further reduced the effects on one of the most productive ecosystems in the RSA. Consequently, the residual effect of a loss or alteration of wildlife habitat is considered to be of low to medium magnitude.

Wetland, Shrub and Riparian Forest Habitat • Herbaceous, shrub and tree clearing in one of the productive ecosystems of the RSA.

• Important ungulate winter ranges for moose and elk.

• Migratory bird staging and nesting areas.

• Primary reproductive sites for amphibians.

• Important habitat types for aquatic mammals, such as beaver, muskrat and river otter.

November 2005 Page 6-42 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Douglas-Fir and White Spruce Forest Habitat • Clearing of structurally complex forest and mature trees.

• Rich in berry-producing shrubs that are of importance to black bear and grizzly bear.

• Suitable nesting habitat for hawks and owls.

• Important habitat type for wolf, lynx, marten and fisher.

• Understory complexity of importance to small mammals, including weasels and marten.

Grassland and Dry Slope Habitat • Disturbance to grass-dominated habitat types with high susceptibility to noxious weed encroachment.

• Fire- and herbivore-maintained ecosystem that is limited across the landscape.

• Important ungulate winter range for elk and deer.

• Reproductive habitat for bighorn sheep (rutting and lambing).

• Important habitat for large carnivores (i.e., wolves) due to rich prey availability, particularly in winter.

Pine Forest Habitat • Clearing of trees and shrubs in a widespread habitat type of the RSA.

• Tree and shrub components of importance to grizzly bears, black bears, ungulates and small mammals.

• High abundance of berry-producing shrubs and graminoids provide important winter habitat for deer and elk.

Aspen and Balsam Poplar Forest Habitat • Clearing of deciduous trees and complex understory that have limited distribution in the RSA.

• Highly productive forest habitat type.

• Abundant berry producing shrubs and grasses provide important fall and winter forage.

• Aspen bark is an important food source during winter periods with limited foraging opportunities.

• Important habitat type for:

- Ungulate winter range (deer, elk and bighorn sheep);

- Primary (e.g., woodpeckers) and secondary (e.g., owls, barrows goldeneye) cavity nesters;

- Small mammals;

- Black and grizzly bears; and

- Carnivores.

November 2005 Page 6-43 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Floodplain Spruce Forest Habitat • Clearing of structurally complex forest habitat.

• Structural complexity is important due to tall shrub layer and dense low shrub layer, and coarse woody debris availability.

• High diversity of breeding birds.

• Important habitat for small mammals and carnivores (weasels, marten, wolverine, lynx and coyote).

Cedar and Hemlock Forest Habitat • Removal of lush herbaceous vegetation and berry producing plants.

• Removal of large trees with limited distribution in the RSA.

• Productive areas for black and grizzly bears.

• Nesting and roosting sites for insect eating birds, owls, woodpeckers and hawks.

• Locally important habitat for large carnivores.

Cedar-Mixedwood Forest Habitat • Clearing of trees, shrub and herbaceous layers in habitat with high structural complexity in the subcanopy layers.

• Abundant berry producing shrubs make this habitat type important to black and grizzly bears.

• Forest structure important to forest birds including raptors (e.g., northern goshawk), primary and secondary cavity nesters, and other passerines.

• Important habitat for carnivores (e.g., wolves).

Invertebrates Invertebrate VECs include the Whitehouse’s emerald dragonfly, a species listed as sensitive in Alberta, and the Quebec emerald dragonfly, a blue-listed species in BC. Neither species has been detected in the LSA. Consequently, no residual effects on the invertebrate VECs are identified.

Amphibians Amphibian VECs include boreal chorus frog, western (boreal) toad and long-toed salamander. Locations of wetlands along the Proposed Route where these amphibian VEC species have been confirmed are listed in Table 6.11. Boreal chorus frog was found to have the most limited distribution of any of the amphibian VECs in the LSA.

November 2005 Page 6-44 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

TABLE 6.11

WETLANDS ALONG THE PROPOSED ROUTE WITH AMPHIBIAN VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS

Jurisdiction Location along Proposed Pipeline Amphibian VECs present Alberta KP/KL 314.0-KP/KL 314.2 Long-toed Salamander KP/KL 315.5-KP/KL 315.6 Western Toad KP/KL 317.6-KP/KL 317.7 Western Toad, Long-toed Salamander KP/KL 324.0 Western Toad Jasper KL 330.1 Long-toed Salamander National Park KL 331.4-KL 332.3 Western Toad, Boreal Chorus Frog KL 333.2-KL 334.5 Western Toad, Boreal Chorus Frog KP/KL 352.0-KP/KL 352.1 Long-toed Salamander KP/KL 357.6-KP/KL 357.8 Western Toad, Long-toed Salamander KP/KL 361.8-KP/KL 362.4 Western Toad, Long-toed Salamander KP/KL 384.1-KP/KL 384.3 Western Toad KP/KL 387.2-KP/KL 387.4 Long-toed Salamander KP/KL 387.6 Long-toed Salamander KP/KL 391.5-KP/KL 394.4 Long-toed Salamander, Western Toad KP/KL 395.9-KP/KL 399.4 Long-toed Salamander, Western Toad KL 401.4-KL 402.0 Long-toed Salamander Mount KL 407.8-KL 408.5 Long-toed Salamander Robson KP/KL 413.3-KP/KL 413.9 Western Toad Provincial KP/KL 414.9-KP/KL 415.1 Long-toed Salamander Park

Wildlife habitat will be altered or lost Impacts of greatest magnitude are expected to occur during clearing, grubbing and topsoil or root zone material salvage.

Potential impacts are greatest in wetlands during the amphibian breeding season (starting in April) and until the metamorphs emerge from ponds in late summer/early fall. The VEC species do not over-winter in wetlands and, consequently, are expected to burrow into the ground (generally loose gravely soils) or utilize existing burrows, leaf litter and other microsites under coarse woody debris, rocks or leaf litter. Amphibians are also particularly sensitive to changes in water quality or increased siltation that may result from construction in and adjacent to wetlands. Construction activities in wetlands are, therefore, best completed during frozen conditions as will be the case along the Alberta and most of the JNP segments of the Proposed Route, where snow conditions are expected to be favourable.

Changes in wildlife movement may occur Amphibians move around within a wetland, particularly when water levels rise during the spring freshet. These movements may be affected if the hydrology of a wetland is altered due to construction activities. Movements away from the wetland occur after metamorphs emerge from the wetlands in early to mid summer. The greatest potential impacts to such movements will be due to placements of barriers, such as spoil piles or pipes, or digging trenches. Amphibian movement corridors near wetlands will be maintained by providing regular breaks in movement barriers and installing or maintaining trench plugs. During segments to be constructed in summer, the Environmental Inspector will move any amphibians found during a sweep of the Project Footprint at locations adjacent to or within a wetland used by western toads to nearby forested habitat.

November 2005 Page 6-45 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Wildlife may be displaced during construction due to sensory disturbances Sensory disturbances during construction would be an interference of construction noise with the transmission of frog vocalizations (a courtship and breeding-related behaviour). Since much of this vocalizing is done at dusk, dawn and night, there will be daily breaks in the interfering background noise caused by construction equipment. In addition, most of the vocal activity coincides with the spring breeding season (April and May). This potential impact is avoided in most of JNP by scheduling construction during winter and is minimized in MRPP by scheduling construction in summer and fall.

Wildlife mortality rates may increase Mortality of amphibian VECs may occur during clearing and construction. Causes include hibernating adults being killed by compaction of the soil or disturbance of the substrate they were using (leaf litter, coarse woody debris, topsoil, etc.) during winter construction, and some individual adults, or metamorphs, may be killed by the construction equipment. Maximizing work in areas where soil has previously been compacted (i.e., previous disturbance such as the Canadian Northern Alberta (CNA) Railway grade and highway fills) will minimize amphibian mortality. The salvage and redistribution of coarse woody debris where permitted by the appropriate authority and organic materials will provide opportunities for restoring hibernation habitat, post-construction.

Combined Effects on Amphibians The evaluation of the four potential residual effects noted above when considered together is presented in Table 6.5 for each of the amphibian VECs, namely boreal chorus frog, western toad and long-toed salamander. In general, the combined residual effect for each of these species is reversible in the medium- to long-term and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, is of low magnitude. Consequently, the combined effect of the Project on amphibians is reversible in the medium- to long-term and of low magnitude.

Reptiles The western terrestrial garter snake is a reptile VEC, which was observed once along the Proposed Route, at KL 369.9 in JNP.

Wildlife habitat will be altered or lost The most important habitat feature to snakes is the den site (hibernacula). Through soil compaction and trenching, hibernacula may be damaged or destroyed. No snake hibernacula were identified along the Proposed Route. Salvaging coarse woody debris and creating small rock-piles and slash berms during construction, may restore potentially disturbed snake hibernacula.

Changes in wildlife movement may occur Snake movements could be blocked or altered by barriers, such as the pipeline or a steep trench. Regular breaks in the string of pipe and escape routes from the trench (such as soft ditch plugs) will allow for escape by snakes that may become trapped in the trench. Snakes are not active during winter and, therefore, construction during frozen conditions will avoid changes in movements by snakes along the Alberta segment and most of the JNP segment.

Wildlife may be displaced during construction due to sensory disturbances Sensory disturbances are not expected.

November 2005 Page 6-46 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Wildlife mortality rates may increase Mortality for western terrestrial garter snakes could occur during clearing and construction. Unidentified hibernacula may be destroyed and individual snakes may be killed during construction. Where permitted by the appropriate authority, the salvage and redistribution of coarse woody debris to restore hibernacula will reduce the chances of snake mortality.

Combined Effects on Reptiles The evaluation of the four potential residual effects noted above when considered together is presented in Table 6.5 for the western terrestrial garter snake. The combined residual effect of the Project on western terrestrial garter snake is reversible in the medium- to long-term and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, is of low magnitude.

Birds Bird VECs include harlequin duck, shorebirds, owls, eagles (bald and golden), migratory birds, osprey, hawks, woodpeckers and passerines (songbirds). Impacts for these VECs will be discussed in four categories, including:

1. wetland associated birds (waterfowl, shorebirds, eagles, osprey);

2. harlequin ducks;

3. forest and grassland birds (passerines, hawks, owls, woodpeckers); and

4. migratory birds.

Wildlife habitat will be altered or lost Impacts to wetland-associated birds are a result of clearing and construction activities. Wetland vegetation will be restored after construction, however, riparian forest may require clearing for the creation of the alignment and temporary workspace. Important waterfowl nesting and feeding areas along the Proposed Route are found in JNP at KL 331.4-KL 332.3, KL 333.6-KL 335.0, KP/KL 361.8-KP/KL 362.4 and KP/KL 395.9-KP/KL 399.4.

Clearing and construction near harlequin ducks is of concern at one location along the pipeline route, Sucker Creek (near KP/KL 371.9). Routing has avoided direct habitat loss to the harlequin ducks that feed and stage here before breeding, since they are not known to cross the highway to the pipeline alignment. Indirect habitat effects associated with siltation have been avoided by no instream activity, scheduling construction activities in this area during fall and outside of May 15-June 30, when the harlequin ducks may be present.

Clearing activities in upland forest and grassland habitats will alter the habitat structure for forest and grassland birds. Operation of the pipeline will also require permanent clearing of the pipeline alignment, resulting in a long-term conversion of forest habitat to earlier seral stages (herb and shrub stages) until the pipeline is abandoned and the lands along the alignment are reclaimed. This will affect the bird species composition along the pipeline alignment. Clearing may also require the removal of potential nest trees (trees with stick nests or wildlife trees with cavities). To avoid disturbing breeding birds in all habitat types, clearing activities will be undertaken outside of the migratory bird timing constraint (May 1-July 31). Some species breed earlier and, consequently, active nest sites for the following species will not be disturbed during their breeding: owls (February 15-June 1), hawks and eagles (April 1-July 15) and osprey (May 1-August 15). However, pre-clearing of the pipeline alignment will reduce the probability of encountering an active nest for these species during construction.

Migratory birds utilize wetlands for staging areas along their migration routes. Along the Alberta and JNP segments of the Proposed Route, the timing of construction avoids both the spring and fall migration periods. Clearing activities along the Alberta and JNP segments may overlap with bird migration,

November 2005 Page 6-47 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 however, no clearing will occur during the migratory bird timing constraint (breeding) from May 1-July 31. In MRPP, the Proposed Route avoids the most important migratory bird staging areas and no clearing will occur along the MRPP or BC segments during the migratory bird timing constraint (breeding) from May 1- July 31).

Changes in wildlife movement may occur Changes in movements of birds will be most notable in forest and grassland birds, particularly for interior forest birds that may be hesitant to cross linear features. These effects will be most notable during clearing, construction and while the temporary workspace is regenerating. Possible mitigation includes clearing outside the bird breeding season (migratory bird timing constraint of May 1-July 31), and seeding the temporary workspace with native plant species soon after construction.

Wildlife may be displaced during construction due to sensory disturbances During construction, sensory disturbances include an interference of construction noise with the transmission of bird vocalizations (a courtship and breeding-related behaviour), and will affect forest and grassland birds and some wetland associated birds. Most songbirds vocalize most vigorously early in the morning (around dawn) during the spring breeding season. However, clearing and construction activities along the Proposed Route are scheduled outside of the spring bird breeding season.

Many bird species are known to migrate at night and may become disoriented by bright floodlights at construction areas. These potential effects will likely be minor and short in duration.

Wildlife mortality rates may increase Since all clearing activities will be outside the migratory bird breeding season, direct mortality to birds will likely be negligible. Construction activities are not thought to increase mortality due to collisions with vehicles or trains.

Combined Effects on Birds The evaluation of the four potential residual effects noted above when considered together is presented in Table 6.5 for each of the bird VECs, namely wetland birds, forest and grassland birds, harlequin ducks, and migratory birds. In general, the combined residual effect for each of these species is reversible in the short- to long-term and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures and scheduling of construction activities, is of low magnitude. Consequently, the combined effect of the Project on birds is reversible in the short- to long-term and of low magnitude.

Ungulates Ungulate VECs include moose, elk, deer (mule and white-tailed deer), bighorn sheep, mountain goat and woodland caribou.

Wildlife habitat will be altered or lost The Proposed Route crosses winter ranges of moose, elk, deer and bighorn sheep as well as calving, lambing and rutting ranges of elk, moose and bighorn sheep as shown on Table 6.12. The Proposed Route approaches but does not impact mountain goat habitat at Windy Point (KP/KL 342.0-KP/KL 351.0). The Project Footprint is located within the historic range of woodland caribou, but does not cross any current caribou habitat.

Clearing for the pipeline alignment and temporary workspace may cause habitat alteration and loss. Habitat alteration will involve decreased security cover along the alignment, but potentially increased forage. Preventing the introduction and/or spread of non-native and invasive plant species that compromise range quality can maximize forage values along the alignment.

November 2005 Page 6-48 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

TABLE 6.12

UNGULATE RANGES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED ROUTE

Species and Range Type Jurisdiction Location Ungulate (moose, elk, deer) Alberta KP/KL 317.0-KP/KL 325.4 winter range Jasper National KL 330.0-KP/KL 380.0 Park KL 390.0-KP/KL 405.9 Mount Robson KP/KL 405.9-KP/KL 409.7 Provincial Park KP/KL 415.0-KP/KL 437.0 KP/KL 452.0-KP/KL 455.0 KL 455.2-KL 457.5 Elk calving areas Jasper National KP/KL 329.0-KP/KL 358.0 Park KP/KL 365.6-KP/KL 381.5 Moose calving areas Jasper National KL 331.0-KL 337.0 Park KL 381.0-KL 388.0 KP/KL 391.0-KP/KL 405.9 Bighorn sheep rutting, Jasper National KP/KL 342.0-KP/KL 351.0 lambing and winter range Park KP/KL 370.0-KP/KL 373.0

Changes in wildlife movement may occur Changes to movements of ungulates are expected during construction. These changes may be caused by ungulates avoiding the construction area and possibly a physical inability to cross the construction area due to barriers.

Mitigation to improve the mobility of ungulates at the construction sites will involve measures that provide gaps (breaks) in the possible barriers, such as gaps in snowpiles, spoil piles, set-up and welded pipe, and rollback, at major known wildlife trails and installing or maintaining trench plugs across open trenches to allow cross-ditch movements.

Changes to ungulate movements will occur to a lesser extent during the operation of the pipeline. Results of winter wildlife surveys did not suggest animals avoid the existing alignment. Reductions in security cover may balance out increases in available browsing and grazing cover on the alignment. Preventing the introduction and/or spread of invasive species will also ensure the ranges remain of high quality, which will further aid in maintaining current movements of ungulates.

Wildlife may be displaced during construction due to sensory disturbances Sensory disturbances involved with construction, including clearing of the alignment and temporary workspace, and blasting will have potentially high impacts on ungulates. Ungulate winter ranges and rutting, calving and lambing areas outlined in Table 6.12 are areas where ungulates will be particularly sensitive to sensory disturbance during certain times of the year.

Restricting or eliminating activity in these areas during sensitive life history stages can reduce impacts due to sensory disturbances. Sensitive timing for identified elk and moose calving, and bighorn sheep lambing areas is from May 1 to June 30 while bighorn sheep rutting in JNP generally occurs in November. Project activities in the vicinity of these locations will be undertaken outside of these periods.

Wildlife mortality rates may increase Ungulate mortality rates may increase during the construction and operational phases of the Project due to potential increases in collisions with vehicles and trains, and increased predation potential along the alignment.

November 2005 Page 6-49 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

The potential for wildlife vehicle collisions may be higher in areas where the Proposed Route closely follows or crosses a wildlife movement corridor. During construction, ungulates may be displaced by construction activity and move along or across roads, thereby increasing the risk of wildlife-vehicle collision. During operation, the abundant browse and grazing cover may attract ungulates and could induce them toward Highway 16. Table 6.13 outlines areas along the Proposed Route where known wildlife movement corridors are in close proximity to the highway.

The potential for wildlife-train collisions increases in areas where the railway tracks traverse known ungulate winter ranges and the Proposed Route may lead ungulates to the tracks to avoid construction activity. See Table 6.13 for areas along the Proposed Route where this may be a concern. The results of the proposed winter wildlife tracking survey scheduled for winter 2006 (see Section 9.0 of this EA report) will be used to develop detailed plans to avoid displacing ungulates off winter ranges onto the railway grade at the areas identified in Table 6.13.

Project-related mortality of ungulates may be reduced during construction by minimizing the changes to wildlife movement and avoiding sensory disturbances during sensitive periods. During the operation of the pipeline, ungulates may be encouraged to move away from potential high-impact areas by habitat restoration involving the seeding of unpalatable species in areas with these threats (to divert animals away) and palatable species along the alignment in areas that are away from high potential collision areas (to draw animals toward these lower risk areas).

Ungulate mortality may also slightly increase due to higher predation potential. Long, straight sections of the alignment provide increased sightlines for predators, such as wolves, which are known to travel along the existing Trans Mountain alignment. Table 6.14 outlines areas where the Proposed Route may provide sightline benefits to predators, leading to a limited increase in ungulate mortality potential.

By planting shrubs to provide breaks in line of sight and by salvaging and redistributing coarse woody debris for use as a visual barrier where permitted by the appropriate authority, the magnitude of this residual effect will be reduced.

Combined Effects on Ungulates The evaluation of the four potential residual effects noted above when considered together is presented in Table 6.5 for each of the ungulate VECs, namely moose, elk, deer (mule and white-tailed deer), and bighorn sheep. No residual effects on mountain goat were identified. In general, the combined residual effect for each of these species is reversible in the medium-term and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures and scheduling of construction activities, is generally of low magnitude with the exception of bighorn sheep which is of medium magnitude due to proximity of construction activities to rutting areas. Consequently, the combined effect of the Project on ungulates is reversible in the medium-term and of low to medium magnitude.

Since no woodland caribou habitat lies within the LSA, no residual effects on woodland caribou were identified in association with the Project. As a result, the existing caribou recovery plans for Alberta and BC are not applicable.

November 2005 Page 6-50 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

TABLE 6.13

AREAS ALONG THE PROPOSED ROUTE WITH INCREASED POTENTIAL MORTALITY RISK CAUSED BY WILDLIFE-VEHICLE AND WILDLIFE-TRAIN COLLISIONS

Potential Mortality Risk Cause Jurisdiction Location Vehicle Alberta KL 324.0-KL 325.6 Jasper National KL 336.0-KL 337.0 Park KP/KL 370.5-KP/KL 381.0 KL 388.1-KL 391.5 KP/KL 394.3-KP/KL 395.5 Mount Robson KP/KL 406.0-KP/KL 407.5 Provincial Park KP/KL 408.7-KP/KL 414.9 KL 431.5-KL 434.1 Train Jasper National KP/KL 366.0-KL 382.0 Park KP/KL 391.5-KP/KL 395.5 KL 404.0-KL 405.6

TABLE 6.14

AREAS ALONG THE PROPOSED ROUTE WITH INCREASED PREDATION POTENTIAL ON UNGULATES RELATED TO CLEARING (SIGHTLINE IMPACTS)

Jurisdiction Location Jasper National KL 336.2-KL 339.0 Park KP/KL 344.0-KP/KL 345.7 KP/KL 355.5-KP/KL 357.6 KP/KL 359.1-KP/KL 361.5 KP/KL 367.0-KP/KL 369.1 KP/KL 384.8-KP/KL 388.1 KL 402.7-KL 405.6 Mount Robson KL 423.0-KL 424.4 Provincial Park KL 425.0-KL 426.5 KL 429.7-KL 430.8 KP/KL 463.0-KP/KL 466.5

Bears Following is a summary of the potential residual effects of construction and operation of the Project on grizzly and black bears. Both species are considered together.

Wildlife habitat will be altered or lost The TMX - Anchor Loop crosses a number of habitats that are seasonally important to bears. Clearing for the pipeline alignment, temporary workspaces, and access roads will alter habitats both positively and negatively for bears, however, rarely will habitat be permanently lost to bears.

November 2005 Page 6-51 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

For example, a road surface may reduce forage availability for bears, however, road sides and ditches may have increased forage availability in the future depending on how they regenerate or are re- vegetated. A road bed also may be used by bears for easier travel, depending on human traffic volume, duration and pattern. Although access roads may be of some benefit to bears for foraging or travel, use of roads frequently increases a bear’s vulnerability to human-caused mortality such as hunting, poaching or road kill. Similarly, clearing of the pipeline alignment and workspaces will temporarily reduce forage availability for bears. However, these areas may have increased forage availability when they regenerate or are revegetated due to the presence of early seral vegetation or greater berry productivity at the edge of clearings. As with roads, the Proposed Route also will be an easy travel route for bears. However, alteration that increases the overall forage availability of habitats may increase bear activity and movement on the valley bottom, and lead to increased vehicle or train collisions on nearby roads or rail lines.

During pipeline operation, bears will be discouraged from foraging along or near the Proposed Route in areas near transportation corridors or high human activity through regeneration or revegetation of less palatable native vegetation and by active control of invasive non-native but palatable species, such as clover and dandelion. Conversely, bears will be encouraged to forage on or near the Proposed Route in areas well away from transportation corridors and with minimal human activity through regeneration or revegetation of palatable natural plant species. If bear activity and movement increase on or across valley bottoms due to increased habitat capability associated with the Project, despite the above actions, there may be some residual effect through increased vehicle and train collisions, particularly if there is a simultaneous increase in traffic volume on Highway 16.

Changes in wildlife movement may occur Barriers to bear movement can reduce habitat availability within a bear’s home range (habitat fragmentation) or, if they are substantial or permanent, act as a population level barrier to dispersal and mating (population fragmentation).

The TMX - Anchor Loop may result in some changes to bear movement from:

• human activity and noise that causes bears to avoid areas of clearing and construction; or

• a bear’s reluctance or inability to cross the Project Footprint because of a physical barrier or reduction in security cover.

Once construction is complete, it is unlikely that the Proposed Route will be a substantial barrier to bear movement. In fact, where not disturbed by ongoing human activity, the Proposed Route may be used as a travel route and forage area by bears.

Movement barriers potentially leading to habitat and population fragmentation are more of an issue when the TMX - Anchor Loop is considered in the context of other human activity and development in the valley bottoms of the montane ecoregion, most notably, Highway 16, the CN Railway lines, and Jasper town site. Collectively, these human activities likely cause some fragmentation of habitat within bear home ranges that span the valley bottom. Recent genetic analysis suggests that development on the valley bottoms along Highway 16 already is a partial barrier to population level movement of bears. The operation of the pipeline loop alone is not likely to substantially increase habitat or population fragmentation. However, the Proposed Route may increase the barrier effect of other transportation corridors, particularly Highway 16, if a substantial expanse of security cover is lost adjacent to the corridor. This barrier effect may be exacerbated by future increases in traffic volume on Highway 16. Conversely, some bears may decide that increased forage available along the Proposed Route adjacent to transportation corridors or towns outweighs the cost of leaving security cover, thereby increasing their vulnerability to human-caused mortality, such as vehicle or train collision or poaching. The site-specific attractiveness of the Proposed Route for foraging will depend on how it regenerates or is revegetated.

Scheduling construction during late fall through early spring will minimize effects on bear movement in many areas since most bears will be denned high above the valley bottom during that time. Long-term mitigation to improve bear movement across the valley bottom and among habitats will involve:

November 2005 Page 6-52 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

• minimizing the clearing of vegetation adjacent to transportation corridors as much as possible; and

• replanting with natural shrub species to speed up the recovery of potential security cover.

Bears will be discouraged from foraging along or near the Proposed Route when it is adjacent to transportation corridors or areas of high human activity through regeneration or revegetation of less palatable natural vegetation and by active control of invasive non-natural but palatable species, such as clover and dandelion.

Wildlife may be displaced during construction due to sensory disturbances Human activity and noise associated with clearing and construction activities may disrupt foraging and cause some bears to use less productive habitats, and may temporarily displace bears from a zone of influence around the Project Footprint.

Scheduling construction during late fall through early spring will substantially reduce the likelihood of displacing bears in many areas since most bears will be denned high above the valley bottom during that time. Other mitigation actions for minimizing displacement will include:

• minimizing human activity and noise, where feasible, in areas outside the active clearing or construction zone(s); and

• restricting the timing and duration of the amount of human movement to and from active clearing or construction zone(s) through the implementation of the Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Wildlife mortality rates may increase Bears risk of mortality may increase during construction and operation of the Project for three main reasons.

• Increased human access that results in negative bear–human interaction or leads to increased hunting or poaching kills on provincial lands.

• The presence of non-natural attractants, such as human food, garbage, grey water or wastewater, sewage and petroleum-based products, which lead bears into conflict with humans.

• Habitat alteration, such as the presence of early seral vegetation on the Project Footprint or greater berry productivity at the edge of the pipeline easement, which leads to increased vehicle or train collisions on nearby roads or rail lines.

The planning and management of human use of access roads and the Project Footprint will be an important mitigation tool for minimizing bear mortality during clearing, construction and operation. Access management also can help reduce bear displacement or alienation from potentially valuable habitat. There will be a number of actions oriented to proactively reducing the potential for bears to acquire non- natural attractants and to reduce the chance of bear–human conflict, including facility location and design, bear awareness and safety training, development of a bear response plan, and the availability and use of bear detection and deterrent systems. If these actions are instituted and adhered to by all Project personnel, there should be minimal chance of bear–human conflict and minimal direct impact on bears or people. Typically, the biggest challenge is ensuring that Project personnel continually adhere to these actions since they may require some extra personal effort. The proactive actions to reduce the chance of bear-human conflict will be emphasized during the environmental education program for all personnel and during regular tail gate meetings held throughout the construction period (see Section 8.0 of this EA report). Impacts of habitat alteration will be mitigated as discussed in the subsections on habitat alteration and changes in movement. Nevertheless, if bear activity and movement increase on or across valley bottoms due to increased habitat capability associated with the Project, despite these mitigation actions, there may be some residual effect on bears through increased vehicle and train collisions, particularly if there is a simultaneous increase in traffic volume on Highway 16.

November 2005 Page 6-53 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Combined Effects on Bears Of the four residual effects described above, the potential effect of the Project on mortality rates is considered to be of importance for bears and, consequently, the evaluation for significance of this effect is presented in Table 6.5 for each of the bear VECs, namely grizzly and black bears. Anticipated residual effects on mortality rates are reversible in the short- to medium-term for black bears due to their larger population and in the medium to long-term for grizzly bears. By adopting the proposed mitigation measures and scheduling of construction activities, the magnitude of the combined residual effect on both species is low. The probability of bear mortality as a consequence of construction and operations is low. Consequently, the combined effect of the Project on bear is reversible in the short- to long-term and of low magnitude.

Large Ranging Carnivores Large-ranging carnivore VECs include wolf, cougar, lynx, wolverine and fisher.

Wildlife habitat will be altered or lost Potential residual effects related to loss or alteration of habitat of large-ranging carnivores are concentrated around dens or other important seasonal habitats. The Proposed Route is close to wolf dens at KL 336.0-KL 337.6 and KL 339.0-KL 344.0 in JNP and KL 406.0-KL 407.5 in MRPP. Route planning and the location of the Project Footprint avoid direct disturbance to the wolf dens. Clearing and construction activity within 200 m of active wolf dens and rendezvous sites will be avoided from March 15 - June 15 along all segments of the Proposed Route.

Changes in wildlife movement may occur Changes to movements of large ranging carnivores will be most notable during construction, since large- ranging carnivores are known to be wary of human activity. These changes to movement will be most notable near known wildlife movement corridors (see Table 6.15).

TABLE 6.15

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED ROUTE

Jurisdiction Corridor Name Location Jasper KP/KL 325.0-KP/KL 329.0 Fiddle River – Athabasca River Wildlife Movement Corridor National Park KL 336.0-KL 337.5 Rocky River – Athabasca River Wildlife Movement Corridor KP/KL 345.7-KP/KL 350.8 Windy Point – Athabasca River Wildlife Movement Corridor KP/KL 359.1-KP/KL 369.1 Snaring River – Athabasca River Wildlife Movement Corridor KP/KL 365.0-KP/KL 370.0 Pallisades-Athabasca River Wildlife Movement Corridor KP/KL 370.5-KP/KL 372.0 Transfer Station Wildlife Movement Corridor KP/KL 374.0-KP/KL 375.0 Cottonwood Wildlife Movement Corridor KP/KL 380.0-KP/KL 381.5 Lower Miette and Whistlers Wildlife Movement Corridors KL 387.0-KL 405.0 Upper Miette Wildlife Movement Corridor KP/KL 394.3-KP/KL 395.5 Clairvaux Creek Wildlife Movement Corridor Mount KP/KL 405.6-KP/KL 410.0 Yellowhead Pass Wildlife Movement Corridor Robson KL 432.0-KL 434.0 Moose River to Fraser River Lowlands Wildlife Movement Corridor Provincial KP/KL 446.0-KP/KL 450.0 Red Pass-West Moose Lake Wildlife Movement Corridor Park

Large-ranging carnivores are generally crepuscular or nocturnal, which reduces some of the conflicts with construction activities. By providing gaps for wildlife crossing of worksites at major known wildlife

November 2005 Page 6-54 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 movement corridors and installing or maintaining trench plugs across open trenches, large carnivores will be able to move across the construction areas.

After construction and until the temporary workspace can regenerate, the width of the alignment may reduce movements by some species that prefer dense cover. This will mitigated by the salvage and redistribution of coarse woody debris in suitable habitats with permission of the appropriate authority.

Some species, such as wolves, are known to utilize linear corridors with low human use to increase their mobility around the landscape. After construction, wolves are expected to utilize most parts of the alignment for movements to different parts of their home range. Although seemingly advantageous to wolves, this may affect their prey species, which have decreased security cover on the alignment. To minimize effects on such predator-prey relationships, coarse woody debris in appropriate habitats will be restored with permission of the appropriate authority.

Wildlife may be displaced during construction due to sensory disturbances Impacts to large ranging carnivores due to sensory disturbances caused by clearing and construction activities are concentrated in areas and habitats that provide key life-cycle requisites, such as dens or movement corridors (Table 6.15). The large home ranges of these species will decrease the chances of individuals encountering the construction area. Nonetheless, large ranging carnivores are likely to avoid human activity.

Wildlife mortality rates may increase Mortality rates of large-ranging carnivores could increase during the construction and operational phases of this Project due to potential increases in collisions with vehicles and trains.

The potential for wildlife-vehicle collisions may be higher in areas where the Proposed Route closely follows or crosses a wildlife movement corridor. During construction, carnivores will likely avoid the construction areas but could be displaced to higher collision risk areas. Table 6.13 outlines areas along the Proposed Route where known wildlife movement corridors are in close proximity to the highway.

The potential for wildlife-train collisions increases in areas where the train tracks traverse known ungulate winter ranges, and the presence of the ungulates may attract carnivores, leading them toward the rail line. See Table 6.13 for areas along the Proposed Route where this may be a concern.

Minimizing the changes to wildlife movement patterns will reduce the potential effects on large-carnivore mortality.

Combined Effects on Large-Ranging Carnivores The evaluation of the four potential residual effects noted above when considered together is presented in Table 6.5 for the following large-ranging carnivore VECs, namely cougar, wolverine and lynx. The combined residual effect for each of these species is reversible in the short- to long-term and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures and scheduling of construction activities, is of low magnitude. Similar to bears, the potential effect of the Project on mortality rates is considered to be of importance for wolves, wolverine and fisher. As noted in Table 6.5, this effect on these populations is reversible in the short- to long-term, of low magnitude and of low probability. Consequently, the combined effect of the Project on large-ranging carnivores is reversible in the short- to long-term and of low magnitude.

Small to Medium-sized Mammals Small to medium-sized mammal VECs include carnivores (coyote, river otter, marten, mink and weasels), rodents (beaver, muskrat, porcupine, squirrels, chipmunks, mice and voles), snowshoe hare, bats and shrews. Some of these species are important predators, while others are important prey sources, and their fluctuations drive the populations of predator species (e.g., lynx and snowshoe hare cycle).

November 2005 Page 6-55 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Wildlife habitat will be altered or lost Wildlife habitat alteration and losses will directly result from clearing and construction activities. Clearing of wetland habitats will affect habitats of river otter, beaver, muskrat, mink and shrews. Of particular concern are overwintering structures such as beaver dams and muskrat pushups. River otters have also been observed utilizing beaver dams. Table 6.16 lists segments of the Proposed Route that cross aquatic mammal habitat.

Clearing activities in forested habitats will affect coyote, marten, weasels, porcupine, tree squirrels, chipmunks, mice, voles, snowshoe hare, bats and shrews. Important habitat features to these species include coyote dens, coarse woody debris and abundant ground cover (herbs and shrubs).

Clearing and alteration of grassland habitats may affect ground squirrel colonies, particularly in winter, when the ground squirrels are hibernating.

By minimizing the amount of habitat cleared through aligning the route to follow existing linear disturbances, and restoring appropriate structure to the habitat after construction (i.e., coarse woody debris where permitted by the appropriate authority), the residual effect of habitat alteration to these species will be minimized.

TABLE 6.16

AREAS ALONG THE PROPOSED ROUTE THAT CROSS AQUATIC MAMMAL (RIVER OTTER, BEAVER AND MUSKRAT) HABITAT

Jurisdiction Location Alberta KP/KL 315.5-KP/KL 315.6 KP/KL 317.6-KP/KL 317.7 Jasper National Park KL 331.4-KL 332.3 KL 333.2-KL 334.5 KL 336.2-KL 337.5 KP/KL 352.0-KP/KL 352.1 KP/KL 357.6-KP/KL 357.7 KP/KL 361.5-KP/KL 362.2 KL 382.5 KP/KL 387.2-KP/KL 387.4 KP/KL 395.5-KP/KL 396.4 Mount Robson KL 407.8-KL 408.5 Provincial Park KL 416.1-KL 416.6

Changes in wildlife movement may occur Changes to movements of small to medium-sized mammals will likely affect prey species to a larger degree than the predators, due to increased exposure on the cleared alignment. After clearing and during construction, the alignment may be a complete barrier or filter to movement by interior forest species such as tree squirrels (especially northern flying squirrels), marten, mice and voles. Coyote will likely continue to move along the alignment, driven by their curious and opportunistic nature. The unwillingness of smaller mammals to move across the alignment is driven by decreased availability of security habitat, which will be restored by providing coarse woody debris with permission of the appropriate authority and seeding with native plant species after construction is completed.

During construction, numerous barriers on the alignment may also hamper movements of some species. By leaving gaps in set-up and welded pipe, spoil piles and trenches, wildlife will be able to cross the alignment. Further, by minimizing the amount of time the trench is left open, and working expeditiously along the alignment, the residual effect on small to medium-sized mammal movement caused by construction will be minimized.

November 2005 Page 6-56 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Wildlife may be displaced during construction due to sensory disturbances Displacement of small and medium-sized mammals will be driven more by habitat alteration or loss, and less by sensory disturbances, unless these sensory disturbances are highly invasive (e.g., blasting). Blasting activities will have greatest effects on bats, whose echolocation abilities could be temporarily affected but are of immediate reversibility.

Wildlife mortality rates may increase There is a potential of direct mortality during clearing and construction activities on small mammal species, particularly small rodents (mice, shrews, voles and ground squirrels) that are less mobile than some of the larger species and may be hibernating in the ground during construction activities in frozen conditions along the Alberta and JNP segments. Avoiding ground squirrel colonies reduces the potential for direct mortality.

Increased risk of mortality caused by wildlife-vehicle and wildlife-train collisions may be a larger factor in the more mobile species, such as coyote, river otter and snowshoe hare, for reasons discussed in the large-ranging carnivore and ungulate sections above.

Combined Effects on Small to Medium-Sized Mammals The evaluation of the four potential residual effects noted above when considered together is presented in Table 6.5 for the following small to medium-sized VECs: river otter and marten. The combined residual effect for each of these species is reversible in the short- to long-term and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures and scheduling of construction activities, is of low magnitude. Similar to bears, the potential effect of the Project on mortality rates is considered to be of importance for coyotes. As noted in Table 6.5, this effect is reversible in the medium-term, of low magnitude and of low probability. Consequently, the combined effect of the Project on small to medium-sized mammals is reversible in the short- to long-term and of low magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on wildlife and wildlife habitat for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.9.4 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on wildlife and wildlife habitat within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.9.3 for the overall Project.

The wildlife resources of the productive habitats of the montane ecoregion of JNP are world renown and are symbols of the Canadian wilderness. This area is important for wildlife due to its warmer, drier winters and relatively light snowpack, compared to habitats at higher elevations in the surrounding mountains. The LSA provides important year-round habitat for ungulates such as elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, white-tailed deer and moose. Key movement corridors for wide-ranging carnivores including grizzly bear, black bear, wolf, cougar and wolverine are also located in the LSA. Wetlands, lakes and forested habitats of the montane ecoregion provide important habitats for invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, bird and mammals. The montane ecoregion is also the part of JNP most heavily used by people. Most of the development, transportation and utility corridors that occur in JNP are located within the valley bottoms.

Wildlife is addressed within the JNP Management Plan in Sections 3.6, Biological Diversity and 3.11, Wildlife. By undertaking a wildlife and wildlife habitat survey of wildlife VECs along the Proposed Route, the Project is assisting Parks Canada in evaluating and monitoring the status of species of concern in the park and in their collection of baseline information on little known park species such as amphibians (e.g.,

November 2005 Page 6-57 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 boreal chorus frog, boreal (western) toad and long-toed salamander) and invertebrates (e.g., Whitehouse's emerald dragonfly and Quebec emerald dragonfly) (Key Actions #8 and 11 in Section 3.6). The implementation of mitigative measures to the extent that wildlife VEC park populations will not be placed at risk (i.e., will be maintained) does not impede Parks Canada from working towards their biological diversity objectives of maintaining or restoring viable populations of all native species and protecting, maintaining or restoring rare, vulnerable, threatened or endangered species and biotic communities. In addition, by aligning the Proposed Route to follow existing linear disturbances for most of its length in JNP, potential habitat fragmentation associated with the Project has been greatly reduced. In this way, the Project is consistent with Key Action #6 in Section 3.6. Finally, information gathered from the wildlife and wildlife habitat survey may prove useful for Parks Canada in their preparation of status reports on species within JNP for consideration under federal species at risk legislation (Key Action #10).

Section 3.11 of the JNP Management Plan outlines three objectives in reaching the wildlife strategic goal that populations of native wildlife are viable within the regional ecosystem. With respect to wildlife habitat, the objective of Parks Canada is to maintain and where feasible, restore, habitat quality and connectivity for wildlife in JNP and on surrounding lands. Restoration of habitat disturbed by Project activities will include native species revegetation as approved by Parks Canada while measures to maintain connectivity during construction include leaving gaps in the snow piles, spoil piles, set-up and welded pipe, and rollback at major known wildlife trails and installing trench plugs across open trenches to allow cross-ditch movements and measures to restore connectivity include salvaging coarse woody debris in suitable habitats, and controlling invasive species. Another wildlife objective is to restore long-term patterns of behaviour, distribution and abundance of ungulates. A residual effect of the Project is the conversion of forested habitat into habitat suitable for ungulates. The third wildlife objective is to reduce human-caused mortality that threatens the viability of wildlife populations in JNP and regional ecosystem. Terasen Pipelines is aware of the potential for human-wildlife conflict during the construction of the Project and strategies to be implemented and followed by Project personnel will be emphasized during the environmental education program given to all personnel prior to arriving on the job site. Such strategies include proper disposal of waste, adhering to posted speed limits and bear awareness training. In addition, Terasen Pipelines has agreed to approach CN Railway regarding a reduction of train speed at some locations of ungulate winter range within JNP during construction of the Project. Consequently, it is anticipated that the development of the Project will not hinder Parks Canada's ability to obtain their wildlife objectives nor meet their wildlife goal.

6.2.9.5 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on wildlife and wildlife habitat within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.9.3 for the overall Project.

The wildlife resources of MRPP are diverse, and like the animals in JNP, rely on the productive valley- bottom habitats as reproductive sites, feeding areas, seasonal range and movement corridors. Large- ranging carnivores such as wolves, cougar, wolverine and grizzly bear are present in MRPP. Ungulates, especially moose, elk and deer occur in the LSA year-round. The wetland areas adjacent to the Proposed Route support a variety of invertebrates, amphibians, migratory birds, raptors, forest birds and aquatic mammals such as beaver, muskrat and river otter. These wetland areas are also important foraging areas and thermal cover for wintering ungulates.

The Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park outlines several objectives for wildlife including to maintain and protect the natural diversity of wildlife species and populations and to protect critical habitats. The Project has been aligned to follow existing linear disturbances for most of its length within MRPP, thereby minimizing disturbance to wildlife habitat. The Proposed Route also avoids eight wetland complexes which substantially reduces the wetland area directly impacted by the Project Footprint as compared to the Existing Route (see Section 6.2.7 Wetlands of this EA report). In addition, construction of the Project is scheduled for summer and fall, at a time which is considered preferable to Park officials. Give the above, coupled with mitigation measures to restore wildlife habitat and to reduce human-wildlife conflicts, the Project does not hinder BC MOE's ability to obtain their wildlife objectives for MRPP.

Biodiversity and wildlife habitat are discussed throughout the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan. The most important management objective for wildlife within the Travel Corridor Zone

November 2005 Page 6-58 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 portion of MRPP where the Project is located, is to reduce wildlife mortality on Highway 16 and railway alignments (Part 2, Section 3.4.4). The development of the Project may assist BC MOE in meeting this objective by restoring the Proposed Route alignment in a manner which is attractive to ungulates. By revegetating with palatable nutritive species, the vegetation along the alignment may draw ungulates off of the highway and railway alignments, thereby reducing the risk of a wildlife-vehicle or wildlife-train collision. In terms of biodiversity within the Travel Corridor Zone, a management objective is to determine the extent of rare or endangered plant and animal species. The information gathered during the wildlife surveys conducted for the Project may be of assistance to BC MOE in developing procedures for conserving identified species.

6.2.10 Species at Risk

6.2.10.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project on Species at Risk identified in the TOR include:

• bull trout may be affected by an increase in suspended solid concentration and habitat alteration within the zone-of-influence at High Risk crossings and increased mortality from recreational harvest;

• alteration of wetland habitat used by western (boreal) toads as well as sensory disturbance and potential mortality during construction if mitigative measures cannot protect some boreal toads;

• potential change in movements, displacement and mortality of wolverines during construction; and

• alteration of habitat, potential displacement and mortality of grizzly bear during construction.

As outlined in Table 6.2, no residual effects were identified for boreal moonwort, Canada anemone, purple-leaved willowherb, meadow willow, Haller's apple moss or mountain caribou.

Bull Trout Bull trout were present in 7 of 64 waterbodies crossed by the Proposed Route in JNP and 1 in MRPP; they are reported to occur in several additional waterbodies along the Proposed Route. Potential effects on bull trout and their habitat have been avoided or reduced by the mitigation and restoration measures summarized in Table 6.2, and further defined in the Stream Atlas and EPP prepared for the Project. Terasen Pipelines will emphasize research on and restoration of bull trout habitat integrity (along with other native species) when developing watershed-scale compensation measures with DFO, Parks Canada and BC MOE. Proposed mitigation and compensation will be designed to result in neutral to positive effects for this species.

Western (Boreal) Toad Western (boreal) toads were found within wetlands along the Alberta, JNP and MRPP segments of the Proposed Route. Although wetland habitat will be altered over the short-term due to construction activities, scheduling of Project activities during winter will minimize the effect on western toads along the Alberta and most of the JNP segments of the Proposed Route. Where the Proposed Route is near wetlands, amphibian movement corridors will be maintained during construction by providing regular breaks in movement barriers and escape routes from the trenches (regularly placing trench plugs). During segments to be constructed in summer and fall, the Environmental Inspector will move any western toads found during a sweep of the Project Footprint at locations adjacent to or within a wetland used by western toads to nearby forested habitat. Sensory disturbances in terms of toad vocalizations is avoided in Alberta and in most of JNP by scheduling construction during winter and is minimized in MRPP by scheduling construction in summer and fall. Maximizing work in areas where soil has previously been compacted (i.e., previous disturbance such as the CNA Railway grade and highway fills) will minimize western toad

November 2005 Page 6-59 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 mortality. Consequently, the combined residual effect of the Project on western toad populations is reversible in the medium- to long-term and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, is of low magnitude.

Wolverine Although wolverine have been reported in JNP and in MRPP, no wolverine, wolverine tracks or den sites were identified within the LSA of the Proposed Route during 2005 field surveys. Results of the winter wildlife snow tracking survey to be conducted in January and February 2006 between KP/KL 380.0 to KP/KL 406 and at KP/KL 437.0 may provide additional information on this species which could be used to develop site-specific mitigation, if warranted. Nevertheless, measures to maintain habitat connectivity for wolverines during construction include providing gaps for wildlife crossing of worksites at major known wildlife movement corridors and installing or maintaining trench plugs across open trenches. During construction, wolverines will likely avoid the construction areas but could be displaced to higher collision risk areas. However, the probability of a wolverine fatality as a result of construction or operation of the Project is low. Given the above, the combined residual effect of the Project on wolverine populations is reversible in the short- to medium-term, and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, is of low magnitude.

Grizzly Bear Although grizzly bears are found within JNP and MRPP, no grizzly bears were observed or recorded by the wildlife camera in the LSA during the 2004 - 2005 field seasons nor were any bear dens found along the Project Footprint during the course of the field program. However, grizzly bear tracks were found in several locations along the Proposed Route in JNP and MRPP. As noted in Section 6.2.9.3, mortality of grizzly bears during construction and operation of the pipeline is considered to be of importance. Actions to reduce the risk of bear mortality include the following. Bears will be discouraged from foraging along or near the Proposed Route in areas near transportation corridors or high human activity through regeneration or revegetation of less palatable native vegetation and by active control of invasive non- native but palatable species, such as clover and dandelion. Conversely, bears will be encouraged to forage on or near the Proposed Route in areas well away from transportation corridors and with minimal human activity through regeneration or revegetation of palatable natural plant species. There will be a number of actions oriented to proactively reducing the potential for bears to acquire non-natural attractants and to reduce the chance of bear–human conflict, including facility location and design, bear awareness and safety training, development of a bear response plan, and the availability and use of bear detection and deterrent systems. If these actions are instituted and adhered to by all Project personnel, there should be minimal chance of bear–human conflict and minimal direct impact on bears or people. Typically, the biggest challenge is ensuring that Project personnel continually adhere to these actions since they may require some extra personal effort. The proactive actions to reduce the chance of bear- human conflict will be emphasized during the environmental education program for all personnel and during regular tail gate meetings held throughout the construction period (see Section 8.0 of this EA report). Consequently, the potential residual effect of altered bear mortality rates on grizzly bear populations is reversible in the medium- to long-term. By adopting the proposed mitigation measures and scheduling of construction activities, the magnitude of the combined residual effect on grizzly bear is low. The probability of bear mortality during construction and operations is low.

6.2.10.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on species at risk within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.10.1 for the overall Project.

Species at risk which could potentially be affected by the TMX - Anchor Loop Project in JNP include bull trout, western toad, wolverine and grizzly bear. Woodland caribou, another federally listed species and of concern in JNP, will not be affected by the Project.

November 2005 Page 6-60 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Discussions of these species at risk in relation to the Project and the JNP Management Plan are presented in Sections 6.2.7.4 and 6.2.9.4. Through the aquatic compensation program which includes bull trout and the implementation of mitigative measures to the extent that species at risk VEC park populations will not be placed at risk (i.e., will be maintained), the Project does not hinder Parks Canada's ability to meet objectives and goals in Sections 3.6, 3.9 and 3.11 of the JNP Management Plan.

6.2.10.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on species at risk within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.10.1 for the overall Project.

Similar to JNP, species at risk which could potentially be affected by the TMX - Anchor Loop Project in MRPP include bull trout, western toad, wolverine and grizzly bear.

Discussions of these species at risk in relation to the Project and the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park and the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan are presented in Sections 6.2.7.5 and 6.2.9.5. Through the implementation of the mitigative measures, including compensation, the construction of the Project does not hinder BC MOE's ability to achieve their objective of conserving viable natural fish populations while providing opportunities for viewing and limited recreational fishing outlined in the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park. In addition, routing of the pipeline, the schedule of construction activities and measures to restore wildlife habitat and to reduce human-wildlife conflicts do not hinder BC MOE's ability to obtain their wildlife objectives for MRPP.

6.2.11 Heritage Resources

6.2.11.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on heritage resources includes:

• identified surface and buried heritage resource sites within JNP will be disturbed;

• identified surface site at KL 458.3 in MRPP may be disturbed;

• previously unidentified buried heritage resource sites may be disturbed during construction;

• if a trenchless crossing is not feasible, a decrease in the quality of the experience along the Canada Heritage River at the Fraser River crossing at KL 458.1 will occur; and

• monitoring and collection of samples during construction will contribute to the palaeontological knowledge of the area in Alberta and JNP.

Disturbance of Heritage Resource Sites Heritage resources provide a window into past human experiences and by their very nature, are non- renewable and once disturbed, the resource may be altered or even lost. Consequently, the primary mitigative measure in protecting heritage resources is avoidance. Yet, to further the understanding of the past, disturbing the cultural resources through excavations is an acceptable practice for archaeologists and, in many cases, the only method to collect in situ information to add to the archaeological record. Regardless of whether the excavation of the site is for academic or development purposes, the loss of heritage resource sites is generally offset by the recovery of knowledge about the site gained through meticulous identifying, cataloguing, and preserving of artifacts and features.

Several previously identified and newly discovered heritage resource sites have been identified along the JNP segment of the Proposed Route. Some sites have been avoided during the route selection process,

November 2005 Page 6-61 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 while other sites will be avoided by utilizing existing disturbances or fencing off the feature. However, construction of the Project will result in the disturbance of approximately 23 sites within the Project Footprint. Through such compensation measures as thoroughly documenting surface and buried sites as per the rigorous Parks Canada protocol, the magnitude of the loss of these heritage sites is low. Furthermore, the knowledge gained from such documentation is viewed as adequately compensating for impacts to heritage resources.

Similarly, although not protected under the BC Heritage Conservation Act, Terasen Pipelines will attempt to avoid the historical cabins, particularly the building features, located at the Fraser River crossing at KL 458.0. If avoidance is not feasible, a site-specific mitigation plan to preserve the site will be developed thereby reducing the magnitude of the loss of this site to low. In addition, the knowledge gained through these efforts is viewed as adequately compensating for impacts to heritage resources.

Should any previously unidentified buried sites be encountered during construction of the Project, activity at that site will be stopped and the Heritage Resource Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP will be implemented. Since knowledge of the site will be recovered prior to resumption of construction activity, the addition of information to the archaeological record is viewed as generally compensating for the loss of heritage resources and magnitude is considered to be low.

Canadian Heritage River Terasen Pipelines intends to HDD the Fraser River crossing at KL 458.0, if geotechnically feasible. Should a trenched crossing of the Fraser River be necessary, the quality of the experience of this Canadian Heritage River at this location may decrease, particularly during construction. However, the limited crossing construction period is scheduled at a time which minimizes impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, and, since salmon do not occur upstream of Rearguard Falls, the crossing will not affect salmon, a resource identified as an important component of the natural heritage of the river (Canadian Heritage Rivers System n.d.). The human heritage aspect of this river at this location will be protected by avoiding the historic cabins on the north bank of the river or conserving the site through the development of a site-specific mitigation plan. By adopting the proposed mitigation measures, the impacts on the quality of the Canadian Heritage River experience are minimized and the residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude.

Palaeontological Monitoring The palaeontological report for the Project identifies two areas of potential interest, namely along the Alberta segment from KP/KL 312 to KP/KL 318 for potential Upper Cretaceous fossils, and along the JNP segment at Windy Point (KP/KL 349 to KP/KL 351) for potential Devonian Carboniferous fossils (Hills 2005). Results of the field work along these segments of the Proposed Route indicated that despite the presence of fossils in the outcrops of the Banff Formation from KP/KL 349 to KP/KL 351, no fossils were found that required removal prior to construction.

Nevertheless, the construction of the Project allows for the unique opportunity to advance the understanding of the palaeontological history of the area through monitoring of trenching activities along these two segments of the route. The segment of the route from KP/KL 312 to KP/KL 318 is underlain by Upper Cretaceous Brazeau - Coalspur formations which elsewhere is rich in plant macrofossils and is known to yield diverse vertebrate, invertebrate and plant macrofossil assemblages (Hills 2005). Should the palaeontologist monitor discover palaeontological resources during trenching activities along this segment, work at that location will cease and samples will be taken under the direction of the palaeontologist, after which, trenching activities will resume. This segment of the route has the potential to add to the knowledge base in a substantive way if palaeontological resources are identified and samples recovered during construction for data analysis.

Similarly, monitoring trenching and blasting activities along the segment from (KP/KL 349 to KP/KL 351) and the collection of large display samples could yield important new data on the stratigraphic relationships and duration of the unconformity between the Palliser and Banff formations (Hills 2005). Extensive lithological samples collected during pipeline construction could provide lithological and

November 2005 Page 6-62 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 palaeontological samples for further researchers, thereby furthering understanding of this resource in the Project area.

Supplemental work in 2006 will likely enhance the knowledge of Ediacaran fauna in the Miette Group strata along portions of the Proposed Route in MRPP from KP/KL 412 to KP/KL 416 and from KP/KL 436 to KP/KL 441.

The potential to contribute to the understanding of the regional palaeontological resources as a result of the construction of the Project is a positive residual effect and, consequently, does not require an evaluation of significance.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on heritage resources for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.11.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on heritage resources within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.11.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

Parks Canada defines a cultural resource as a human work, or a place that gives evidence of human activity or has spiritual or cultural meaning, and that has been determined to be of historic value in their Cultural Resource Management Policy (Parks Canada 1994). This policy governs the administration of cultural resources in national parks and establishes the following five principles by which they will be managed: value; public benefit; understanding; respect; and integrity. The principles are embedded within the key actions, objectives and strategic goals outlined in Section 4.0, A Place of Historical and Cultural Significance of the JNP Management Plan.

Section 4.0 of the JNP Management Plan describes the park as being a place of historical and cultural significance. There are five national historic sites, approximately 500 known archaeological sites, one Heritage Railway Station, 38 federal heritage buildings and one Canadian Heritage River (the Athabasca River) located within JNP. By aligning the Proposed Route adjacent to the southern boundary of the existing Trans Mountain alignment, the Summit City Level 1 Yellowhead Pass National Historic Site is avoided, thereby not hindering Parks Canada’s efforts to meet their objective of ensuring the commemorative integrity of all designated national historic sites in JNP. It is understood that Parks Canada is considering other features for inclusion within this Level I site. The crossing of the Athabasca River along the Proposed Route at KL 337.4 is located outside of the reach of the river designated as a Canadian Heritage River and, therefore, does not impede Parks Canada's plans to increase awareness of this feature. In addition, the inventory of 22 archaeological sites along the Proposed Route will add considerable information to the park's resource base, some of which could be used in the presentation of cultural resources to the public. With the development of the Project, Parks Canada will receive valuable cultural resource information which otherwise would not likely have been documented. Consequently, by supporting the key actions identified in Section 4.0 and by not hindering Parks Canada's ability to meet their cultural resource objectives and strategic goals for JNP, the development of the Project is consistent with the principles of cultural resource management as outlined in Parks Canada (1994).

Section 3.8 of the JNP Management Plan outlines the strategic goal, objectives and key actions associated with geology and landforms. Monitoring of trenching activities from KP/KL 349 to KP/KL 351 may provide samples of palaeontological interest which could be displayed to the public to further their understanding of the geological history of the park. In this way, the Project is consistent with Key Action #4.

November 2005 Page 6-63 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2.11.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on heritage resources within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.11.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.7. Although no heritage resources were identified within MRPP which require protection under the BC Heritage Conservation Act, historic cabins were identified on the north side of the Fraser River crossing at KL 458.0. The avoidance of this site or, if avoidance is not feasible, the development of a site- specific mitigation plan meets one of the objectives of cultural resources outlined in the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park, namely, preserving the cultural resource values which relate to the rich history of the park.

Although the Canadian Heritage Rivers System has no legislative authority, Terasen Pipelines acknowledges the importance of the natural and cultural heritage of the Fraser River. By utilizing crossing techniques approved by those agencies with jurisdiction and by avoiding the historic cabins on the north bank of the river or conserving the site through the development of a site-specific mitigation plan, Terasen Pipelines meets the spirit and intent of the Canadian Heritage Rivers program through responsible stewardship of the river.

Palaeontological resources of MRPP along portions of the Proposed Route from KP/KL 412 to KP/KL 416 and from KP/KL 436 to KP/KL 441 will be investigated in summer 2006 for Ediacaran fauna in the Miette Group strata. Although palaeontological resources are not specifically referred to in the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park, the undertaking of such an investigation is supportive of the cultural resources objectives of MRPP.

6.2.12 Traditional Land and Resource Use

6.2.12.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project on traditional land and resource use of the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation (AWN) of Canada, Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada and the Simpcw First Nation include:

• alteration of vegetation used for trade, medicinal purposes and gathering by Aboriginal groups;

• some minor disturbance of Aboriginal hunting activities during construction;

• minor alteration of wetland habitat supporting plant and animal species deemed of higher value to Aboriginal groups;

• incremental alteration of the existing viewshed within the LSA attributed to the Project; and

• minor reduction in surface quality of some waterbodies during construction.

Alteration of Vegetation All Aboriginal groups cited routing of the pipeline to follow existing disturbances such as roads, railways or existing pipelines as a means to minimize disturbance to vegetation used for medicinal purposes and berry picking. The TMX - Anchor Loop Project follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of its length. In addition, Aboriginal groups noted that revegetation of the alignment with native species was desirable. As outlined in Section 6.2.8.2, native species will be used to restore areas disturbed by the Project where natural generation is not recommended. Consequently, the residual effect of the Project on the alteration of vegetation used by Aboriginal groups is reversible in the medium- to long-term and, by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, is of low magnitude.

November 2005 Page 6-64 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Disruption of Hunting Activities Most Aboriginal hunting within the LSA occurs outside of JNP and MRPP although the Simpcw have negotiated a right to hunt moose and elk in MRPP. Aboriginal hunters along the Alberta, MRPP and BC segments of the Proposed Route may experience some minor disturbance of their activities during the short-term construction period. The effect of the Project on hunting activities along the MRPP and BC segments will be negligible considering the summer construction schedule and the proximity of the Proposed Route to existing infrastructure. Along the Alberta segment, proximity of portions of the Proposed Route to Highway 16, local roads and existing infrastructure (e.g., Hinton Pump Station) precludes hunting activities. Nevertheless, advanced notification of construction activities will lessen the effects to Aboriginal hunters. In addition, Terasen Pipelines will compensate land users for any demonstrated economic loss as a result of the construction of the Project. The residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of negligible to low magnitude.

Alteration of Wetlands All Aboriginal groups expressed their desire for the pipeline to be routed in upland areas to avoid wetlands which support plant and animal species considered to be of higher value. The Proposed Route, while not solely confined to upland areas, avoids 11 large wetland complexes encountered along the Existing Route and reduces the wetland area directly affected by the Project Footprint by 141.7 ha. A discussion of the residual effects of the Project on wetland habitat function, wetland hydrologic function and wetland quality function is presented in Section 6.2.7.2 of this EA report. The residual effect of the Project on wetlands is reversible in the short- to medium-term and of low magnitude.

Alteration of Viewshed Some Aboriginal groups expressed visual impact concerns within the LSA as a result of the Project. A detailed viewshed modelling analysis of 10 observer viewpoints in JNP and MRPP was undertaken by TERA/Westland. Results of the analysis indicate that the subtle alteration of the existing viewsheds at these locations will not lower the visual quality objective (see Section 6.2.13.1 of this EA report for further information regarding this viewshed analysis). Consequently, the residual effect of the Project on the existing viewshed is of low magnitude.

Water Quality and Quantity Protection of water quality and quantity during construction and operation was cited as a concern to Aboriginal groups. Measures to minimize potential impacts to water quality and flow during construction and operation are outlined in Table 6.2 and the residual effects of the Project on water quality and quantity are provided in Sections 6.2.3.1 (Water Quality and Quantity), 6.2.6.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat), 6.2.7.2 (Wetlands) and 6.2.18.1 (Accidents and Malfunctions) of this EA report. The alteration of water quality during construction is reversible in the immediate to short-term and of low to high magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on traditional land and resource use for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.12.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on traditional land and resource use within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.12.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

November 2005 Page 6-65 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Section 4.0 of the JNP Management Plan describes the Park as being a place of historical and cultural significance. Some of the key actions, objectives and goals outlined in this section of the management plan pertain to working collaboratively with Aboriginal groups to identify, protect and present Aboriginal heritage in JNP. No site-specific features were identified along the Proposed Route which require protection. However, information presented in the traditional land and resource use study undertaken as part of the TMX - Anchor Loop will likely assist Parks Canada in moving towards their objectives and goals regarding the integrity of cultural resources.

6.2.12.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on traditional land and resource use within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.12.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.7.

The traditional land and resource use study undertaken for the TMX - Anchor Loop Project provides a means by which BC MOE will gain additional information regarding traditional use of MRPP from local Aboriginal groups. No site-specific features were identified along the Proposed Route which require protection. Consequently, the Project does not hinder BC MOE's ability to meet one of the objectives of cultural resources outlined in the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park, namely, preserving the cultural resource values which relate to the rich history of the park. In addition, the information contained with the study may be used by BC MOE in their heritage education programs.

6.2.13 Human Occupancy and Resource Use

6.2.13.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on human occupancy and resource use include:

• minor disruption of grazing activities may occur during construction;

• a very small number of local trappers and guide outfitters may experience some minor disturbance of their activities during construction;

• the navigability of some watercourses along the Proposed Route may be affected during construction;

• incremental alteration of viewsheds at some locations in JNP and MRPP will occur;

• a decrease in the quality of the wilderness experience will occur during construction;

• some tourism accommodations may experience temporary noise and visual disturbances during construction;

• a decrease in the quality of the recreational experience along some trails or disruption of trail use in JNP and MRPP will occur during construction; and

• a decrease in the quality of other recreational experiences may occur during construction such as winter activities in JNP, and fishing, kayaking, canoeing, rafting and use of roadside pull-outs for wildlife viewing, photography and picnicking in MRPP.

Disruption of Grazing Activities Ranchers along the Alberta and BC portions of the Proposed Route may experience minor disruptions to their activities during the short-term duration of Project construction. Scheduling of the Project during fall and winter will lessen the effects to ranchers in Alberta. Furthermore, advanced notification of Project

November 2005 Page 6-66 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 activity schedule to all affected ranchers will further minimize these effects. It is anticipated that the construction of the Project will not affect the sustainability of ranching activities in the vicinity of the pipeline loop nor the livelihood of the local rancher. The residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude.

Disturbance of Trapping and Guide Outfitting Activities Local trappers and guide outfitters along the Alberta and BC portions of the Proposed Route may experience some minor disturbance of their activities during the short-term duration of construction. The effect of the Project on trapping and hunting activities along the short BC segment will be negligible considering the summer construction schedule and the proximity of the Proposed Route to existing infrastructure. Along the Alberta segment, proximity of portions of the route segment to Highway 16, local roads and existing infrastructure (e.g., Hinton Pump Station) precludes hunting activities. Nevertheless, advanced notification of construction activities and provision of Project route maps will lessen the effects to local trappers and guide outfitters. In addition, Terasen Pipelines will compensate land users for any demonstrated economic loss as a result of the construction of the Project. The residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of negligible to low magnitude.

Navigable Waters In September 2005, the TMX - Anchor Loop team asked Transport Canada to identify those watercourses crossed by the Proposed Route that are considered to be navigable under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Based on Appendix 2 of the Navigable Waters Protection Program Pipeline Crossing Guidelines (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003), the Athabasca River is considered a navigable water. TERA/Westland notes that several other watercourses crossed by the Proposed Route could be deemed navigable. Terasen Pipelines will follow all permit conditions for the Athabasca River and any other watercourses deemed navigable by Transport Canada. Considering that most of the watercourses crossed by the Project originate in JNP and MRPP, use of the watercourses at the locations crossed by the Project is primarily recreational rather than commercial (i.e. transporting of goods). Consequently, scheduling construction at watercourses in JNP and at major watercourses in MRPP during winter at a time when recreational use is nil to low will substantially reduce the effect of construction on recreational water users. Nonetheless, the navigability of some watercourses along the Proposed Route may be affected during construction. With advanced public notification of affected watercourses through the placement of notices in the local and regional newspapers and on radios, along with the installation of signs at boat launches and measures to be implemented instream during construction, the residual effect on recreational use of navigable waters is immediately reversible and of negligible to low magnitude.

Alteration of Existing Viewsheds in JNP and MRPP Given the Project setting in JNP and MRPP, where the existing viewsheds make important positive contributions to the park user’s experience, a viewshed analysis of 10 representative viewsheds was undertaken using viewshed modelling by TERA/Westland (2005e). A viewshed consists of foreground, middle ground and background views. Middle and background views are often more dramatic than foreground views, and are most often associated by visitors with a positive park experience. Foreground viewsheds at the selected observer viewpoints (OVs) are for the most part, already degraded. Although changes to the visual resource were computed at the fore, middle and backgrounds at each site, due to the accuracy and resolution of the data used in the viewshed modelling analysis, specifically the digital elevation model and the vegetation data, the results reflect the combined changes in views at a aggregate viewshed scale.

Table 6.18 (located at the end of Section 6.7 of this EA report) provides a summary of the viewshed modelling analysis for each of the 10 OVs, 7 in JNP and 3 in MRPP. Of the 10 OVs where viewshed modeling was conducted, the post-construction area of the viewsheds ranged from 1,309 ha to 46,470 ha. In these viewsheds, the area and percentage of each viewshed that was disturbed ranged from 11.6 ha (0.9%) to 796.4 ha (1.7%). The incremental disturbance caused by the Project ranged from 1.2 ha to 21.8 ha. The post-construction viewshed modelling indicates that although there are incremental disturbances at all the sites considered, these changes are subtle and do not result in any site being

November 2005 Page 6-67 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 downgraded to a lower Visual Quality Objective (VQO) category (TERA/Westland 2005e). At two viewsheds, modelling indicates that the view will be improved. Consequently, the magnitude of the effect of the Project on the existing viewsheds from all OVs (including those at Old Fort Trail and Jasper Tramway in JNP and the Miette River wetlands in MRPP), is low and, as a result, will unlikely affect the park visitor's visual experience.

With regard to OV2, an explanation of modelling results is deemed warranted. OV2 is located along Highway 16 between Edna and Talbot lakes. Since no clearing is proposed along Highway 16 at this OV, there is no change in the foreground viewshed at this location. In the background, incremental clearing near Windy Point (KP/KL 349.3 to KP/KL 350.3) results in an increase of 11.7 ha of the background viewshed having visible anthropogenic disturbances. While the incremental changes in disturbance will be visible from the Highway 16 corridor, it will more directly affect the viewscape of this area when viewed from the Celestine Lake Road. The post-construction visual quality condition will not change from the existing Preservation VQO. Innovative restoration measures along the Proposed Route at these sites will further reduce the effect of the Project on the existing viewshed. Consequently, the magnitude of the effect of the Project on the existing viewshed from OV2 is low and will unlikely affect the park visitor's visual experience.

Wilderness Experience For some visitors desiring the wilderness experience that JNP and MRPP offer, the presence of construction equipment in these parks may lessen the visitor's overall level of enjoyment. Project planning has attempted to avoid high use areas such as popular trails, campgrounds, and the Highway 16 corridor to the extent feasible to reduce the level of visitor disturbance. In JNP, construction has been scheduled outside of the summer peak tourist season to reduce the effect of construction activity for park visitors. The Project will also be confined to the existing linear corridor, zoned as Outdoor Recreation (Zone IV) in JNP, and Intensive Recreation Zone in MRPP. These zones include Highway 16, CN Railway line(s), the Jasper townsite and the ATCO pipeline. The Project will be constructed outside of designated wilderness zones, and are unlikely to lessen the wilderness experience of those visitors using back-country facilities. The residual effect is reversible in the immediate to short-term and of medium magnitude.

Sensory Disturbance at Tourist Accommodations Since the Proposed Route is located outside of Jasper townsite and is separated from the townsite tourism accommodations by the heavily used CN Railway line and siding, no residual effects arising from construction activities are anticipated for these accommodations.

Some existing tourism accommodations such as the Pocahontas Bungalows (KL 332.8) and Pine Bungalows (KP/KL 375.5) in JNP, and the Mount Robson Ranch (KP/KL 466.4) in BC, may experience temporary noise and visual disturbances during construction. The operating season for Pocahontas Bungalows ends after the Thanksgiving weekend in October, while Pine Bungalows closes for the season in mid-September. Therefore, considering that clearing activities are anticipated to commence in JNP in mid-September, there will be minimal overlap of Project construction activities and use of these existing tourism accommodations. However, given the proximity of the Mount Robson Ranch to the Proposed Route and the proposed summer construction schedule at this location, guests of the ranch may experience short-term sensory disturbances. Proposed mitigation measures will restrict the amount of dust and noise associated with the Project. Terasen Pipelines will consult with owners of affected accommodation facilities to determine and resolve any potential concerns. This residual effect is of low magnitude and reversible in the immediate to short-term.

Hiking Experience Hikers using trails in the vicinity of the Proposed Route in JNP and MRPP may experience a decrease in their recreational experience due to auditory and/or visual disturbances relating to construction activities over the short-term. Scheduling of construction activities during winter at a time of lower trail usage when compared to summer trail use levels will minimize effects on hiker experiences in JNP. Hiking trails in the vicinity of the Project in MRPP are generally at least 200 m from the Proposed Route, and therefore,

November 2005 Page 6-68 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 sensory disturbances to hikers will be minimal. In addition, proposed mitigation measures will restrict the amount of dust and noise associated with the Project in JNP and MRPP. The residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of low to medium magnitude.

Given their proximity to the Proposed Route, some trails within JNP and MRPP will be temporarily closed over the short-term to hiking activity due to construction activities. This unavoidable effect is in the best interest of public safety at these locations. Parks officials will be made aware of the location and timing of planned trail closures and Terasen Pipelines will notify the public of these closures through the installation of signs at access points and trailheads. The magnitude of this residual effect is low in JNP since construction through the Park will be conducted outside of the peak tourist season and during a time of low usage. In MRPP, the Mount Fitzwilliam Trail and the Moose River Route will be affected by construction activities. The Mount Fitzwilliam Trail receives moderate levels of use, while use of the Moose River route is generally low. The residual effect of trail closure is of medium magnitude because the closure coincides with the summer tourist season.

The operation of the Project will not affect the use of trails or the hiking experience on trails that are near to, or crossed by, the Proposed Route in JNP or MRPP once construction is complete.

Other Recreational Experiences Several other recreational experiences may be affected by noise and visual disturbances associated with the construction of the Project in JNP and MRPP. Fishing and water sports such as kayaking, canoeing and rafting in MRPP, and winter activities such as cross country skiing, snowshoeing and walking in JNP may be affected. The proposed mitigation measures will restrict the amount of dust and noise associated with the Project. This residual effect is of low to medium magnitude and is immediately reversible.

For winter activities in JNP along the Loop Trail (KL 332.8), Celestine Lake Road (KP/KL 360 to KP/KL 363), near Snaring Campground (KP/KL 366), Wynd Road (KL 379 to KP/KL 383) and the existing pipeline trail (KP/KL 383 to KP/KL 388), use of these trail and roads will be closed to the public during the short-term construction period for safety reasons. Parks Canada will be made aware of closure of these trails or local roads and Terasen Pipelines will notify the public of these closures through newspaper notices, and the installation of signs at access points and trailheads. The residual effect is of immediate reversibility and of low to medium magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on human occupancy and resource use for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.13.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on human occupancy and resource use in JNP are as described in Section 6.2.13.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

The JNP Management Plan does not make specific reference to the types of residual effects identified under human occupancy and resource use.

6.2.13.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on the acoustic environment within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.13.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.7.

November 2005 Page 6-69 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Neither the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park nor the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan makes specific references to the types of residual effects under human occupancy and resource use with the exception of visual resources. The Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park refers to the important role the park visual resources play in enhancing the quality of park experience for visitors travelling the Highway 16 corridor. Results of the viewshed modelling undertaken for the Project in MRPP demonstrates that at an aggregate viewshed scale, the predicted post- construction changes in viewscape as a result of the Project where not sufficiently large to change any viewscape from its existing VQO to a lower category. In terms of visual resources, the Project will not likely alter the park experience for travelers of the Highway 16 corridor and the MRPP objective to retain views in and out of the park so that the visual qualities of MRPP are not compromised.

6.2.14 Social and Cultural Well-Being

6.2.14.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effect associated with the construction and operation of the Project on social and cultural well-being is primarily a temporary increase in the local community population resulting from construction of the Project.

The Project is located in a popular year-round tourist destination where the local population of the communities of the RSA (i.e., Hinton, Jasper, Tete Jaune Cache and Valemount) fluctuate throughout the year with the influx of visitors. The estimated 350 person workforce to be accommodated in temporary construction camps and Project RV parks is not anticipated to substantially affect socio-cultural values of the communities, especially of Jasper which receives over 1.5 million visitors annually.

Nevertheless, as part of the Project orientation, construction workers, inspectors and support personnel will receive a presentation on the expectations of working in a national or provincial park. Included in the presentation will be expectations regarding code of conduct for Project workers when using park and community facilities and services (see Section 8.0 of this EA report for more details).

Consequently, the residual effect of the construction of the Project on social and cultural well-being is anticipated to be neutral, and therefore, does not require an evaluation of significance.

6.2.14.2 Jasper National Park

Terasen Pipelines is cognizant of the valued environment in which the Project is located, and that Project workers will be using the facilities and services of Jasper during their short stay in the park during construction of the Project. The environmental education program for all Project workers and visitors to the job site will stress the importance of ecological integrity and how the Project as a whole and the conduct of individual workers can contribute to maintaining ecological integrity and to the principles of environmental stewardship during Project construction. In this way, the Project is consistent with a goal of Section 5.0 of the JNP Management Plan: A Place for People. The goal states: Canadians and their international guests appreciate and understand the nature and history of JNP and the role the park plays in Canada’s national parks system and the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage Site.

6.2.14.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

As with Parks Canada for JNP, BC MOE encourages visitors to develop a sense of stewardship for MRPP and the features it protects in the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park. The orientation of Project workers will explain how the Project as a whole and workers on an individual level can work on the Project and use MRPP facilities in ways that maintain or restore natural and cultural values for future generations.

November 2005 Page 6-70 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

6.2.15 Human Health

6.2.15.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project on human health include:

• short-term increase in nuisance air emissions (e.g., dust, vehicle exhaust) during construction; and

• short-term increase in nuisance noise during construction.

The evaluation of significance for nuisance air emissions is discussed in Section 6.2.4.1 under Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality while construction noise is evaluated in Section 6.2.5.1 under Acoustic Environment.

6.2.16 Infrastructure and Services

6.2.16.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on infrastructure and services include:

• traffic on Highway 16 will be temporarily affected by nearby construction activities;

• increase in traffic on Highway 16 and other access routes during construction will occur;

• temporary increase in waste flow to regional landfill and transfer station sites will occur;

• some local or regional tourist accommodations may be temporarily occupied by Project workers; and

• despite best intentions and work practices, incidents arising during construction may warrant the use of some emergency services.

Traffic on Highway 16 Highway 16 is a major commercial and recreational transportation route linking Alberta to points west in BC and linking BC to points east. It is one of two major roads used by visitors in JNP, and the only highway through MRPP. Alteration of traffic patterns, movements and volumes during construction along Highway 16 is an unavoidable residual effect of the Project.

During construction of the Project, despite the use of multi-passenger vehicles to transport workers to and from the job site, and the use of rail cars to transport construction equipment and materials, highway travellers may notice increased traffic volume on Highway 16 related to the Project. Heavy machinery and trucks with long loads may slow traffic on the highway, especially at junctures with roads to be used for Project access. Users of the highway will be well informed of construction activities and of equipment turning onto and off of Highway 16 through the use of signs at park entrances, and at selected access point locations along the highway. Website, TV, radio announcements, and newspaper notices will also be used to distribute information to the public. Drivers of Project-related trucks, vehicles and equipment will be mindful of sharing the road with other vehicles, and will be directed to obey all traffic, road-use and safety laws.

Where the Project is constructed in close proximity to Highway 16 in JNP and MRPP, some temporary lane closures or narrowing of a lane of traffic may occur. If blasting occurs in proximity to Highway 16, a brief closure of traffic along the highway will likely be required to ensure the safety of highway users. The

November 2005 Page 6-71 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2 potential for brief delays will be coordinated with the agency responsible for the highway and will be publicized to park officials and the general public.

The construction of the Project outside of the July-August peak traffic period in JNP, will reduce effects of the Project on traffic patterns along Highway 16.

Based on the construction period and the proposed mitigation measures, the residual effects of alteration of traffic patterns and increased traffic volume on Highway 16 as a result of Project construction is of immediate reversibility and of medium magnitude.

Temporary Increase in Waste Flow Terasen Pipelines will reduce waste quantities to the lowest levels practical through Project design and the implementation of a Waste Management Plan during construction. All waste generated from the Project during construction will be hauled to the appropriate landfill sites or transfer stations in the RSA or SRSA depending on the type of waste. Receptacles for recycling various products (e.g., paper, cardboard, glass, tin, etc.) will be available at the work camps and will be hauled to appropriate recycling depots. This residual effect is of immediate to short-term reversibility and of low to medium magnitude.

Use of Local and Regional Tourist Accommodations Through the provision of Project construction work camps and RV parks, most of the estimated 350 person construction workforce will be accommodated by Terasen Pipelines. Some regulatory inspectors and company personnel will require lodgings in Jasper or the RSA (e.g., Hinton or Valemount) during the construction of the Project which might have otherwise been utilized by tourists.

Construction of the Alberta and JNP segments of the Project is scheduled for late fall and winter, outside of the peak tourist season. This schedule should allow for the use of local accommodations while minimizing the displacement of tourists. Advanced bookings of lodging for regulatory inspectors and company personnel during the summer and fall construction period in MRPP and BC will ensure that people associated with the Project are accommodated and will allow tourists to pursue other readily available accommodations.

Consequently, this residual effect is of immediate to short-term reversibility and of low magnitude. Off- season use of local accommodation and services is likely to be considered a positive benefit.

Usage of Emergency Services Terasen Pipelines is committed to constructing the Project in a safe and responsible manner. There are several contingency plans, management plans, and systems either in place or that will be in place to prevent accidents and minimize risk of injury to workers during construction. The plans include the Emergency Response, Spill Contingency, Fire Contingency, Construction Traffic Management, and Railway Management plans. All workers and visitors to the job site will have to participate in a safety orientation, and upon successful completion, display the valid safety sticker on their hardhat before permission to access the job site is granted. Safety issues will be discussed onsite daily during tailgate meetings.

Despite these measures and best intentions, incidents during Project construction may arise in which emergency services are warranted (e.g., ambulance, fire, police, hospital). The communities in the LSA and RSA (i.e., Jasper, Hinton and Valemount) have sufficient services to respond to the emergency situations that may arise during construction of the Project. Given the proximity of the Project to these communities and to Highway 16, it is conservatively estimated that response to an emergency would likely take no longer than 2 hours from any point along the Proposed Route. The residual effect of potentially using emergency services during the short-term construction period is of low magnitude and low probability.

November 2005 Page 6-72 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on infrastructure and services for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.16.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on infrastructure and services in JNP are as described in Section 6.2.16.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

Section 9.0 of the JNP Management Plan describes the park as a place for environmental stewardship. A goal of environmental stewardship is that visitors and residents contribute to the principles of environmental stewardship and sustainability. Terasen Pipelines considers workers associated with the construction of the Project to be visitors in the park who share in Parks Canada's environmental stewardship goal. One objective of Section 9.0 is to determine the most appropriate location and method for disposing of solid waste. Through the safe storage of petroleum products, the safe and environmentally responsible management of hazardous goods as outlined in the Waste Management Plan, and the efforts to reduce construction waste from the planning to construction phases, the Project is consistent with Key Actions #1, 3 and 13 of Section 9.0. Consequently, the Project does not hinder Parks Canada's ability to meet their waste objective and their environmental stewardship goal.

6.2.16.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on infrastructure and services in MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.16.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.7.

Neither the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park nor the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan makes specific references to the types of residual effects under infrastructure and services.

6.2.17 Employment and Economy

6.2.17.1 Overall Project

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project on employment and economy include:

• local businesses, residents and Aboriginal groups will benefit from the Project through employment opportunities; and

• the Project will generate revenue in the LSA and RSA for workers and businesses as well as for municipal, provincial and federal governments.

An economic impact analysis of the Project was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005d). Estimates were prepared for the following impact metrics:

• Output – the total of all expenditures attributable to construction of the Project,

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the value added (i.e., revenues less the value of purchased inputs) to the economy attributable to construction of the Project,

November 2005 Page 6-73 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

• Employment – measured in terms of “full-time equivalent” person-years by summing the number of person-months of employment generated by construction of the Project and dividing by 12 (therefore, a total of 12 person-months represents 1 full-time equivalent person-year of employment),

• Labour Income – amount of income accruing to households because of employment generated by construction of the Project,

• Federal Government Revenues – the BC Input-Output Model provided estimates of federal personal income taxes and commodity taxes such as GST, excise taxes and duties; the Alberta Input-Output Model also provided estimates of federal corporate taxes,

• Provincial Government Revenues – personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and commodity taxes such as Provincial Sales Tax (PST) (in BC) and gas tax,

• Municipal Government Revenues – includes licences, fees, permits and business taxes paid to local government,

• Where data permitted, values are presented in terms of direct, indirect and induced impacts,

• Direct impacts include the firms that expand production to satisfy the increased demand caused by the Project,

• Indirect impacts are the ripple effects of the direct expenditures, as firms purchase additional inputs from other firms; and

• Induced impacts are the ripple effects caused by the spending and re-spending of increased household income.

For economic activity, data were assessed spatially at the provincial level (BC and Alberta). For tax revenues, results were studied at the regional, provincial, and national levels. The duration of these impacts will extend from pre-construction (site selection, planning and design) through completion of construction.

Results Construction expenditures for the Project are expected to total $328.9 million (in 2005 Canadian dollars), as shown in Table 6.19. Of this total, $122.2 million (37%) will be spent in BC, $145.0 million (44%) in Alberta and $61.7 million (19%) elsewhere.

TABLE 6.19

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS (2005 - $000)

Goods and Area Services Labour Land Total British Columbia 55, 296 65,958 904 122,158 Alberta 74,628 70,319 67 145,014 Other 61,712 0 0 61,712 Total 191,636 136,277 971 328,884

Table 6.20 presents the results of the economic analysis of the Project for a variety of parameters including provincial output, GDP, employment, labour income and tax revenues.

November 2005 Page 6-74 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

TABLE 6.20

PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO PROVINCIAL OUTPUT, GDP AND PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR INCOME, TAX REVENUES (2005 - $000)

Area Direct Effects Indirect Effects Induced Effects Total Effects Project Contribution to Provincial Output British Columbia 121,300 59,600 52,800 233,700 Alberta 104,000 37,900 144,500 286,400 Total 225,300 97,500 197,300 520,100 Project Contribution to Provincial GDP British Columbia 49,300 25,500 28,800 103,600 Alberta 68,900 16,600 34,100 119,600 Total 118,200 42,100 62,900 223,200 Full-Time Equivalent Person Years of Employment British Columbia 857 579 524 1,960 Alberta 769 184 428 1,381 Total 1,626 763 952 3,341 Labour Income British Columbia 49,300 18,700 18,700 86,700 Alberta 59,800 8,600 18,800 87,200 Total 109,100 27,300 37,500 173,900 Federal Tax Revenues British Columbia 5,300 1,600 3,700 10,600 Alberta 9,300 2.100 5,300 17,400 Total 14,600 4,400 9,000 28,000 Provincial Tax Revenues British Columbia 6,200 1,700 4,500 12,400 Alberta 4,700 2,800 3,100 9,900 Total 10,900 3,800 7,600 22,300 Municipal Tax Revenues British Columbia 0 300 1,100 1,400 Alberta 300 300 700 1,300 Total 300 600 1,800 2,700

Output is the total of all expenditures resulting from the Project. The Project is estimated to generate $520.1 million of output in the two provinces including $233.7 million in BC and $286.4 million in Alberta.

GDP is the value of goods and services produced (measured in value added terms) as a result of the Project construction. Construction of the Project will generate $223.2 million in GDP, of which $103.6 million will be generated in BC and $119.6 million will be generated in Alberta.

Employment is measured in Full-time Equivalents (FTEs), the number of person-years of work generated by construction of the Project. The estimate of direct impact includes employment generated by expenditures on wages and salaries for construction crews, management and professional services (e.g., environmental consultants) plus employment generated by the first round of spending. The equivalent of 3,341 FTEs will be generated by construction of the Project of which 1,960 FTEs will be generated in BC and 1,381 person-years in Alberta. After the completion of construction, operation of the Project is estimated to generate 3 FTEs of employment annually including 2 for operation of the pipeline and 1 for operation of the pumping stations.

Construction of the Project is estimated to generate $173.9 million in labour income of which, $86.7 million will be generated in BC and $87.2 million will be generated in Alberta.

November 2005 Page 6-75 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Construction of the Project is estimated to generate $28.0 million in federal tax revenues in BC and Alberta. These revenues comprise personal and commodity taxes (e.g., GST, duties and excise taxes); for Alberta, the amount also includes corporate taxes. An estimated $10.6 million in federal taxes will be generated in BC (excluding corporate income tax) and $17.4 million will be generated in Alberta.

Construction of the Project is estimated to generate $22.3 million in provincial tax revenues in BC and Alberta. These revenues comprise personal and corporate income tax, PST and other taxes. Approximately $12.4 million of provincial taxes will be generated in BC and $9.9 million will be generated in Alberta.

Construction of the Project is estimated to generate $2.7 million in total municipal tax revenues of which $1.4 million will be generated in BC and $1.3 million in Alberta. These revenues comprise licences, fees and business taxes. Terasen Pipelines estimates that the Project will result in an increase in annual municipal property tax payments of $1.21 million in BC and $0.47 million annually in Alberta; however, if the existing Trans Mountain pipeline is suspended after completion of this Project, the increases in annual property taxes in BC will be lower - $0.51 million.

At present, for the year 2005, Terasen Pipelines pays property taxes for the existing pipeline and pumping stations of approximately $20.3 million, of which $18.2 million is paid to municipal governments in BC and $2.1 million is paid to municipal governments in Alberta. Upon completion of the Project, these amounts would increase by $1.8 million for the first year: by approximately $1.5 million in BC and $0.3 million in Alberta. When the existing 24-inch pipeline is suspended, property taxes in BC will drop to $0.5 million over present levels.

Summary The economic analysis undertaken for the Project demonstrates the effects of the Project on employment, provincial output, provincial GDP, labour income and tax revenues, all of which are considered to be positive residual effects on employment and economy, and, consequently, do not require an evaluation of significance.

6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunction

6.2.18.1 Overall Project

The following potential residual effects could occur as a result of accidental events during construction of the pipeline:

• spot spills, once remediated, will have little adverse residual effect, although other resources could be affected or lost as a result of the accident;

• despite vigilance, fires may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, and in very rare situations affect wildlife and adjacent property;

• rupture of water, sewage or gas lines could lead to interruption of services, contamination of soil and water depending on the location and severity of the rupture, and fires in the case of gas while cable damage can lead to interrupted service of the utility to communities and local residences;

• depending on the proximity to the detonated area, fly rock from blasting may cause injury to wildlife or people, while unintentional detonation of explosives could affect wildlife, aquatic ecosystems and people;

• a transportation accident may cause injury to people or wildlife or may result in fire or contamination of lands and water depending on the location and severity of the accident;

• release of drilling mud on land, once cleaned-up and reclaimed, will have little residual effect;

November 2005 Page 6-76 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

• depending on the volume and location of the release, a release of drilling mud into a watercourse may affect aquatic ecosystems in the short- to medium-term; and

• a pipeline failure may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, wildlife habitat and aquatic ecosystems.

While substantial adverse effects could occur as a result of an accident during the construction of the pipeline, Terasen Pipelines will implement the best available technology and safety measures to minimize the probability of accidents occurring. Therefore, the potential is low for an accident to occur during construction that would have substantial adverse effects. Minor accidents or spills have a higher probability of occurrence during construction but will have a low magnitude effect and are generally readily mitigated (see Table 6.5).

Spills of Hazardous Materials During Construction Terrestrial spills during construction will generally be very small and localized within the Project Footprint. Since light oil (i.e., diesel and hydraulic oils) tends to disperse readily and break down, the duration of the potential adverse residual effects is short-term and reversible.

A spill on an ice-covered waterbody will generally be localized and readily remediated through scraping of the contaminated ice surface. However, spills which occur under the ice are more difficult to contain and clean-up given the presence of the ice cover. The adverse residual effects associated with a large spill under the ice of a waterbody could be considered significant, however, the probability of a significant adverse residual effect is low.

In the event of a large spill such as a fuel truck rollover in a stream, the adverse residual effects could be of high magnitude with longer lasting ramifications to the health of the stream. Although spill contingency and clean-up measures would reduce the magnitude and reversibility of the residual effects, such an incident could be considered significant due to the adverse residual effects in a highly sensitive environment. Since events such as this rarely occur within the Project Footprint and even more rarely occur instream, the probability of a significant adverse residual effect is low.

Fire During Construction The significance of a fire will depend greatly on the size and what it consumes. Since small fires within the Project Footprint and off of the Project Footprint are of minor and moderate concern respectively, and can be extinguished quickly, they are not likely to cause a significant adverse residual effect. Large fires that spread off the Project Footprint and result in loss of resources and property are likely to be considered a significant adverse residual effect. The likelihood of large fires developing is extremely low since most of the pipeline will be constructed during low fire hazard in Alberta and JNP (i.e., fall/winter), the construction crews will have firefighting equipment and training, and most of the Project is in close proximity to fire fighting services.

Rupture of or Damage to Foreign Lines, Trans Mountain Pipeline and Cables During Construction Rupture of a water line, buried cable or telephone line along the route may be inconvenient but the adverse residual effects would likely be of low magnitude, and reversible in the immediate to short-term since repair would be relatively easy. Rupture of a sewer line would firstly, be an inconvenience and secondly, could contaminate the soils and trench in the vicinity of the rupture. Contamination of the soils and trench could be remedied relatively quickly with minimal to no residual effect.

In the event of a rupture of a high-pressure gas line (e.g., ATCO), the risk of explosion and risk to human health could be considered significant. Since high pressure pipelines are easily located (as opposed to some low-pressure plastic distribution lines) and are of sufficient size and strength that rupture is extremely unlikely, the probability of a significant adverse effect resulting from an explosion of the existing ATCO gas pipeline is low.

November 2005 Page 6-77 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

The rupture of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline during construction of the TMX - Anchor Loop resulting in severe contamination to lands or water could be considered a significant adverse effect. Since Terasen Pipelines will be adhering to industry standards, regulatory regulations and company protocols, and have implemented additional mitigative measures to minimize the risk of a rupture of the existing pipeline, the probability of a significant adverse effect resulting from working in the vicinity of the Trans Mountain pipeline is low.

Use of Explosives During Construction Fly rock from the detonation of explosives during blasting will generally not result in a significant adverse residual effect if safety measures and protocols are adhered to. Noise associated with general construction activity in the vicinity of the blasting area coupled with the warning calls prior to detonation will likely displace wildlife from the fly rock zone. If required for public safety, traffic will be controlled within the fly rock zone where blasting is conducted in proximity to Highway 16 and safety procedures will be reviewed with all construction workers working in the vicinity of the blasting area so that the risk to human health is negligible within the fly rock zone. While a serious injury or loss of life resulting from fly rock during blasting are likely to be considered a significant adverse residual effect, the probability of such occurrences is low.

The significance of an unintentional detonation of explosives will depend on the location of the detonation and its proximity to sensitive wildlife, sensitive aquatic ecosystems and people. An accidental detonation of explosives involving severe injury or loss of human life would likely be considered a significant adverse residual effect. However, detonation of explosives in areas devoid of fish-bearing watercourses and habitat for wildlife species at risk are not likely to cause a significant adverse residual effect. Given the proper implementation of mitigative measures during the transport, storage and handling of explosives, the probability of an unintentional detonation of explosives is low.

The use of explosives during blasting along the Proposed Route will not affect the operation or integrity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline given that there is adequate distance between the two pipelines where blasting is required.

Transportation Accidents A transportation accident arising from increased traffic on major roads associated with construction of the Project would likely be considered a significant adverse residual effect if the accident resulted in serious injury to humans, death to a wildlife species of concern, damage to property or critical habitat from a fire or severe contamination of lands or water.

Information regarding the traffic volume and reported motor vehicle accidents within JNP and MRPP was sought to determine the probability of a traffic accident during construction. Traffic count information within JNP (2000-2003) was obtained from Parks Canada. Motor vehicle accident statistics recorded within JNP from 2000 to 2003 were based on data provided by Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. No motor vehicle accident statistics were available for MRPP.

Recorded wildlife and vehicle traffic incident data in JNP were recorded between 2000 and 2003. The following assessment of vehicle traffic was collected for two-way traffic at both east and west Park gates. There is potential for the number of wildlife or vehicle incidences to be under estimated since traffic moving through the Park (i.e., transportation vehicles, private vehicles) may be counted twice. However, if one assumes that all two-way traffic recorded at both east and west gates is counted twice and divides the annual traffic totals by half, an inflated scenario of traffic incidents for both wildlife and vehicles may be obtained. The percentage chance of a wildlife or vehicle incident was calculated to provide an inflated percentage chance of an incident occurring. Between 2000 and 2003, the percentage chance of a wildlife incident varied between 0.008% and 0.016%, while the percentage chance of a vehicle incident varied between 0.006% and 0.014%. Traffic volumes remained relatively constant throughout 2000 and 2003 at both east and west gates. Although these estimates do not provide an exact probability of occurrence for activities associated with the Project, they do provide an inflated estimate of annual incident occurrences based upon historical data within the Project area. Consequently, the probability of a wildlife or vehicle accident in JNP during construction of the Project, and by extrapolation, to the remainder of the Project area, is low.

November 2005 Page 6-78 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

TABLE 6.21

INFLATED PERCENT ESTIMATES OF WILDLIFE AND TRAFFIC INCIDENTS IN JASPER NATIONAL PARK

Annual Traffic Annual Annual Wildlife Annual Annual Vehicle Volume Wildlife/ Incidents (%) Vehicle/ Incidents (%) Vehicle Vehicle East Gate West Gate Year East Gate West Gate Accidents East Gate West Gate Accidents1 2003 1,253,648 876,554 59 0.008 0.012 49 0.006 0.010 2002 1,245,361 886,299 72 0.010 0.016 68 0.010 0.014 2001 1,287,484 918,800 47 0.008 0.010 62 0.010 0.008 2000 1,206,854 851,615 63 0.010 0.014 62 0.010 0.014

A transportation accident involving Project line patrol aircraft which resulted in injury or loss of life, a large- scale fire or contamination of important aquatic ecosystems or critical terrestrial habitat would likely be considered a significant adverse residual effect. Terasen Pipelines has conducted regular aerial patrols of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline at least once a month over the past 50 years. During this time, there has been only one accident involving aerial patrol aircraft which occurred outside of the Project area. Consequently, the probability of an aircraft accident within JNP or MRPP is considered to be low.

Release of Drilling Mud During Horizontal Directional Drilling The release of drilling mud during HDD of a watercourse is not uncommon and, in most cases, is relatively benign since the mud is inert and can often be cleaned-up and the areas reclaimed. The introduction of a clay based drilling mud into the environment will have variable effects depending on the location, volume released and the level of clean-up that is possible, monitoring programs throughout a HDD program allow a release of drilling mud to be detected soon after a release occurs. The ability to stop the flow of mud quickly also aids in limiting the total volume of drilling muds. Since the total volumes of drilling mud released during an inadvertent release are generally limited, drilling mud released into a watercourse will be dissipated into a watercourse in a short period. Schmidt et al. (2001) evaluated the effect of a release of mud during HDD on wetlands at five sites and determined that none displayed significant long-term impacts as a result of bentonite discharge and further noted that the level of observed impact was in part related to the nature of clean-up procedures. The reversibility of the adverse residual effect to the riparian area will depend on the length of time it takes for vegetation to recolonize the area disturbed by the mud and clean-up activities but is likely to be short- to medium-term.

Pipeline Failure During Operations The significance of a failure of the pipeline system will depend greatly on type of product spilled, the volume of product spilled and the sensitivity of location of the failure. For example, if the incident was contained within a bermed pump station, the residual effect of the release would likely be considered not significant whereas, if the released product affected important wildlife habitat during critical life stages and sensitive aquatic ecosystems, the residual effect would likely be considered significant. The following discusses the probability of a pipeline failure resulting in a significance adverse residual effect.

Pipelines are the safest and most efficient method of transporting large volumes of crude oil and other liquid petroleum products over long distances. Since commencing operations in 1953, the Trans Mountain system has experienced approximately 270 incidents that resulted in, or had the potential to result in, the release of hydrocarbons to the environment. Most occurred at fixed facilities, such as terminals, pump stations or tank farms, which typically have earthen or concrete dykes to contain any releases, however, 69 of these incidents happened along the pipeline right-of-way.

Of these 69 incidents, 49 involved spills of liquid petroleum products, 13 involved spills of oily water and 7 did not involve the loss of any material. The eight right-of-way incidents that occurred between KP 310.1 and KP 468.0 (the extent of the Project) are listed in Table 6.22.

November 2005 Page 6-79 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

TABLE 6.22

HISTORICAL SPILLS ALONG THE EXISTING TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE FROM KP 310.1 TO KP 468

Material Estimated Date Location Released Volume (L) Additional Details 15-Nov-1954 KP 382, Crude oil 12,720 Spills during river crossing repairs (JNP). KP 387 and KP 389 27-July-1965 KP 382 Oily water 795,000 Rupture during hydrostatic test (JNP). 13-Oct-1965 KP 382 Oily water Unknown Rupture during hydrostatic test (JNP). 15-Oct-1965 KP 397 Oily water Unknown Rupture during hydrostatic test (JNP). 29-Apr-1966 KP 384 Crude oil 1,112,880 Rock thrown by blasting hit pipe (JNP). Likely caused by third-party. 24-Jun-1973 KP 331 Crude oil 127,190 Pipe damaged during construction (JNP). Likely caused by third-party. 14-Sep-1984 KP 460 Oily water 10,000 Rupture during hydrostatic test (MRPP). 01-Oct-2001 KP 370 Crude & 1,500 Perforation in pipe discovered during routine refined anomaly investigation (JNP).

Most of the incidents noted above occurred 20 or more years ago and company records with the details of each event are limited. Also, half of the incidents were ruptures that resulted from hydrostatic testing, a practice done to verify the operational integrity of the pipeline. This is one component of a rigorous program that Terasen Pipelines has in place to prevent petroleum spills from its operations (see Section 8.7.2 of this EA report).

Over the last few decades, the pipeline industry in North America has substantially improved its performance in terms of reducing the total number of spills as well as reducing the total volume of material spilled. The performance of the Trans Mountain system has mirrored this industry wide trend. Of the 49 incidents along the system right-of-way that resulted in petroleum spills, only 33 of these were the result of line failures during regular pipeline operations, while the remaining 16 incidents were typically caused by third-party damage or poor practices during maintenance activities. These 33 incidents are presented in Figure 6.2 to illustrate how improved integrity management has dramatically reduced the number and frequency of line failures occurring on the Trans Mountain system (Oil Pipeline Safety 2000).

This highlights the effectiveness of the integrity management programs in improving the overall operational performance of the pipeline system. While the capacity on the Trans Mountain system has gone from an original design of 120,000 barrels per day (bpd) to a current capacity of 225,000 bpd, the incidence of line pipe failures has declined dramatically. Consequently, the probability of a pipeline failure resulting in a significant adverse environmental effect is low.

November 2005 Page 6-80 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Figure 6.2 Line Pipe Failures on the Trans Mountain System

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects arising from an accident or malfunction during pipeline construction and operation for the overall Project will be not significant.

6.2.18.2 Jasper National Park

The potential residual effects of accidents and malfunctions associated with the Project within JNP are as described in Section 6.2.18.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.6.

Section 9.0 of the JNP Management Plan describes the park as a place for environmental stewardship. As mentioned previously, a goal of environmental stewardship is that visitors and residents contribute to the principles of environmental stewardship and sustainability. As operators of a utility traversing JNP, Terasen Pipelines embraces these principles and will contribute to maintaining ecological integrity and sustainability of the park’s natural resources by ensuring that the pipeline is safely and properly operated and maintained throughout the life of the pipeline. Through the implementation of numerous contingency plans during construction and their Environmental Management System, Pipeline Integrity Management Program and Emergency Response Plans and by being well equipped and having trained personnel prepared in the event of an emergency during operations, Terasen Pipelines is committed to reducing the risk of an accident or malfunction which may potentially compromise the ecological integrity of JNP.

6.2.18.3 Mount Robson Provincial Park

The potential residual effects of accidents and malfunctions associated with the Project within MRPP are as described in Section 6.2.18.1 for the overall Project and the evaluation of significance is presented in Table 6.7.

November 2005 Page 6-81 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.2

Terasen Pipelines embraces the intent of the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park and the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan which is to maintain or restore natural and cultural values for future generations. Similar to JNP, Terasen Pipelines will contribute to maintaining natural values by ensuring that the pipeline is safely and properly operated and maintained throughout the life of the pipeline. Through the implementation of numerous contingency plans during construction and their Environmental Management System, Pipeline Integrity Management Program and Emergency Response Plans and by being well equipped and having trained personnel prepared in the event of an emergency during operations, Terasen Pipelines is committed to reducing the risk of an accident or malfunction which may potentially compromise natural or cultural values of MRPP for future generations.

November 2005 Page 6-82 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.3

6.3 Effects Assessment - Facilities Construction and Operation

Using the assessment methodology described in Section 6.1, the following subsection evaluates the potential environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the construction and operation of the various permanent and temporary facilities associated with the Project including:

• line facilities (i.e., block valves, scraper traps);

• pump stations (i.e., Wolf Pump Station (KP 188.0), Chappel Pump Station (KP 555.5));

• temporary facilities (i.e., staging and stockpile sites, off load areas, construction work camps and RV parks, HDD work space, access roads and borrow pits).

In many ways, facility construction and operation affects the environment and many of the biophysical elements in the same way as does pipeline construction and operation. As a result, many of the mitigative measures outlined in Section 6.2 and described in detail in Table 6.2 will also be applied to permanent and temporary facility construction and operation. Rather than restating the effects and mitigation associated with each element, the following subsection provides an assessment summary based on the above facility developments.

Biophysical and socio-economic elements potentially interacting with the various permanent and temporary facilities associated with the Project include:

• physical elements such as physical environment, soil capability, water quality and quantity, GHG and air quality and acoustic environment;

• biological elements such as fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk; and

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, traditional land and resource use, human health, and infrastructure and services; and

• accidents and malfunctions.

Biophysical and socio-economic elements which are not considered to interact with a facility component of the Project are listed and justified in Table 6.23.

The potential environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with the facilities component of the Project as well as the accompanying proposed mitigative measures and resulting residual effects are presented in Table 6.3 Potential Biophysical and Socio-Economic Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects Arising from the Construction and Operations of Permanent and Temporary Facilities located at the end of Section 6.7 of this EA report.

As with the pipeline, significance of the adverse residual effects associated with the permanent and temporary facilities will be evaluated in three spatial contexts, namely the overall Project, JNP and MRPP, where applicable, and are summarized in Tables 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7, respectively.

The effects of the environment on the Project are discussed in Section 6.5 of this EA report.

November 2005 Page 6-83 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.3

TABLE 6.23

ELEMENTS NOT INTERACTING WITH PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY FACILITY COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT

Facility Element Component Justification PHYSICAL Physical Line Facilities The facility component will be undertaken within an area lacking recent Environment Temporary seismic activity, flooding, landslides or permafrost. Therefore, no interaction Facilities between the physical environment and Project activities is anticipated. Greenhouse All Facilities There are no permanent residences within 250 m of the facilities component gases and Air with the to act as receptors to equipment emissions during construction. Project Quality exception of activities will not result in an increase in air emissions over existing levels work camps during operations. Therefore, no interaction between air quality and Project activities is anticipated. GHG emissions are discussed for the Project in Section 6.2.4 of this EA report. BIOLOGICAL Fish and Fish Wolf Pump Project activities will not be undertaken within 30 m of a waterbody Habitat Station supporting fish habitat. Therefore, no interaction between fish and fish Chappel Pump habitat and Project activities is anticipated. Station Line Facilities Temporary Facilities Wetlands Wolf Pump Project activities will not be undertaken within 30 m of a wetland. Therefore, Station no interaction between wetlands and Project activities is anticipated. Chappel Pump Station SOCIO-ECONOMIC Heritage Line Facilities Results of the HRIA and/or AIA indicated that there are no archaeological Resources Wolf Pump concerns associated with the facilities. Therefore, no interaction between Station heritage resources and Project activities is anticipated. Chappel Pump Station Traditional Land All Facilities Extensive consultation with local Aboriginal groups has revealed that the and Resource Project will not affect any traditional land and resource use in the vicinity of Use the Wolf or Chappel pump stations. The Traditional Land and Resource Use Study undertaken for the Project is discussed under Section 6.2.12 of this EA report. Social and Wolf Pump The pump station component of the Project will entail a small local workforce Cultural Well- Station using the services of Edson, Alberta and Valemount and Blue River, BC Being Chappel Pump over a short period. Consequently, the following potential social and cultural Station well-being impacts noted on Table A-5 of the NEB Filing Manual do not apply to these components of the Project: • stresses on family and household cohesion; • alcohol and substance abuse; or • illegal or other potentially disruptive activities. This element is discussed under Section 6.2.14 of this EA report for the remaining line and temporary facilities. Employment and All Facilities An economic impact analysis for the Project, including pump stations, is Economy discussed under Section 6.2.17 of this EA report.

November 2005 Page 6-84 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.3

6.3.1 Line Facilities

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the line facilities includes:

• minor topsoil or root zone material / subsoil mixing may occur (see Section 6.2.2 Soil Capability);

• incremental loss or alteration of native vegetation at scraper trap at KP/KL 468 will occur (see Section 6.2.8 Vegetation);

• weed introduction and/or spreading from disturbance may occur (see Section 6.2.8 Vegetation);

• incremental loss or alteration of potential wildlife habitat will occur (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• short-term displacement of wildlife away from block valves and scraper traps during construction with resultant use of potentially suboptimal habitat during noncritical periods may occur (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• potential for vehicle/wildlife collisions on access routes (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• although the likelihood of such an event is low, a large scale oil release may affect other resources (see Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions); and

• despite vigilance, fires may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, and in very rare situations, affect wildlife and adjacent property (see Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions).

The evaluation of significance of the above potential residual effects is as described in Section 6.2 of this EA report for the construction and operation of the pipeline, particularly since the block valves and most of the scraper trap at KP/KL 468 will be located within the proposed pipeline easement and the scraper trap at KP/KL 317.7 lies within an existing pump station.

6.3.2 Pump Stations

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Wolf and Chappel pump stations includes:

• minor topsoil or root zone material / subsoil mixing may occur (see Section 6.2.2 Soil Capability);

• ambient noise levels at Wolf and Chappel pump stations will increase during operation of the pump stations;

• incremental loss or alteration of native vegetation at the Wolf Pump Station will occur (see Section 6.2.8 Vegetation);

• weed introduction and/or spreading from disturbance may occur (see Section 6.2.8 Vegetation);

• incremental loss or alteration of potential wildlife habitat will occur (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• short-term displacement of wildlife away from permanent and temporary facilities during construction with resultant use of potentially suboptimal habitat during noncritical periods may occur (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• incremental increase in noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the pump stations during operations will likely displace wildlife over the short-term until wildlife are acclimatized to the noise from the facilities;

November 2005 Page 6-85 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.3

• potential for vehicle/wildlife collisions on access routes and at the facility site (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• ranchers may experience short-term disturbances of their activities during construction of the Project at the Wolf Pump Station;

• the installation of the Wolf and Chappel pump stations will alter part of the visual landscape over the long-term;

• spot spills, once remediated, will have little adverse residual effect, although other resources could be affected or lost as a result of the accident (see Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions);

• although the likelihood of such an event is low, a large scale oil release may affect other resources (see Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions); and

• despite vigilance, fires may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, and in very rare situations, affect wildlife and adjacent property (see Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions).

The evaluation of significance of most of the above potential residual effects is as described in Section 6.2 for the construction and operation of the pipeline. A discussion of the potential residual effects pertaining to noise during operations and to the aesthetics of the pump stations is provided below.

Noise During Operations Once the pump stations are constructed and operational, there will be some minor noise associated with the continual operation of the pumps in the buildings at both the Wolf and Chappel pump stations. A noise assessment was undertaken by HFP Acoustical Consultants Corp. (HFP) to determine the potential impact of noise arising from the operation of the pump station to the nearest residences. Based upon the requirements of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) Noise Control Directive, Interim Directive ID 99-8, the Permissible Sound Levels for the nearest residential or potential residential sites were determined to be 50 dBA Leq during the daytime and 40 dBA Leq during night-time (HFP 2005). The predicted sound level contribution of the Wolf and Chappel pump stations at the nearest residential sites (25.8 to 32.0 dBA and 19.1 to 22.6 dBA, respectively) are below the more stringent night-time Permissible Sound Level of 40 dBA (HFP 2005). When combined with the assumed ambient sound levels, the cumulative predicted sound levels range from 35.1 dBA to 45.2 dBA. The incremental increase in sound levels ranges from 0.0 dB to 1.8 dB. In all cases, the incremental increase is less than 2 dB from the proposed pump stations and should not be noticeable by the average listener (HFP 2005). HFP (2005) concludes that a minimum impact scenario would exist and the Project would meet the EUB Directive requirements for nearest residential or potential residential sites. Consequently, the magnitude of this residual effect is low.

Noise arising during the operation of the Wolf and Chappel pump stations are predicted to range from 48.2 to 58.5 dBA and from 46.9 to 59.2 dBA at the fence line, respectively (HFP 2005). Wildlife in the vicinity of the pump stations could be displaced over the short-term until they acclimatize to the sound of the operating facilities. This effect is of lesser magnitude at the Chappel Pump Station where noise arising from traffic on the adjacent Highway 5 attributes to the noise levels at the site. Consequently, the magnitude of this residual effect ranges from low to medium, depending on the pump station site.

Aesthetics The installation of the Wolf and Chappel pump stations will form part of the visual landscape over the long-term. The location of the Wolf Pump Station does not directly affect the viewscape of local residences and is not visible from Highway 16. Similarly, the location of the Chappel pump station approximately 2 km from the nearest residence will not affect the viewscape of local residences. Existing and proposed vegetative buffers will screen the site from users of Highway 5.

In terms of lighting, typical yard lighting will be restricted to wall mounted fixtures on the pump equipment building, electrical building and operators building. On the pump equipment building, a total of 6-10 lights

November 2005 Page 6-86 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.3 around the perimeter is anticipated, including a combination of 100-150 W fixtures with angle reflectors and 400 W floodlights used to illuminate specific areas of the yard including the entrance gate. Lighting on the electrical building and operators building will be limited to doorway/entrance lighting using 100- 150 W fixtures. Based on the low intensity and location of the proposed yard lighting, adverse impacts on either surrounding landowners or wildlife are not anticipated. In the event complaints arise from this level of lighting, switching the floodlights off at times when the site is unoccupied would be considered.

Given the above, the pump station facilities will not substantially alter the local viewscape. The magnitude of this residual effect is low.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pump station construction and operation on the environment will be not significant.

6.3.3 Temporary Facilities

The potential residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the temporary facilities associated with the Project (i.e., stockpile sites, staging areas, off load areas, work camps, RV parks, HDD work space, borrow pits and access roads) includes:

• minor topsoil or root zone material / subsoil mixing may occur (see Section 6.2.2 Soil Capability);

• incremental loss or alteration of native vegetation at various temporary facilities will occur (see Section 6.2.8 Vegetation);

• weed introduction and/or spreading from disturbance may occur (see Section 6.2.8 Vegetation);

• if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some loss or alteration of the Sitka columbine (S2) population on the access road near KP/KL 395.3 and KP/KL 396 may occur;

• if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some loss or alteration of the nootka lupine (S3) population on the access road near KP/KL 395.3 may occur;

• if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some loss or alteration of the mingan grape fern (S2S3) population on the access road near KP/KL 395 may occur;

• alteration to wildlife habitats (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• short-term displacement of wildlife away from temporary facilities during construction with resultant use of potentially suboptimal habitat during noncritical periods may occur (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• potential for vehicle/wildlife collisions on access routes and at the temporary facility site (see Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat);

• potential change in movements of wolverines and potential displacement during construction in both JNP and MRPP (see Section 6.2.10 Species at Risk);

• alteration of habitat used by grizzly bears and potential displacement during construction in both JNP and MRPP (see Section 6.2.10 Species at Risk);

• Site 281R at J-CS 354 in Jasper will be disturbed if site is used as a temporary facility (see Section 6.2.11 Heritage Resources);

November 2005 Page 6-87 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.3

• Site 2202R at the Snaring River stockpile site in Jasper will be disturbed (see Section 6.2.11 Heritage Resources);

• trailhead to Roche Miette located in J-CS 336 stockpile site will be closed during construction (see Section 6.2.13 Human Occupancy and Resource Use);

• some traffic conflicts may arise intermittently between trail users and the construction camp at Dennison Gravel Pit in MRPP (see Section 6.2.13 Human Occupancy and Resource Use);

• Celestine Lake Road widening for safe access to the Proposed Route may alter the visitor experience;

• public use of road leading to the Wildhorse Recreation Area near KP/KL 324 may be intermittently disrupted during construction activities;

• traffic patterns on some local roads in JNP will be temporarily affected by construction activities;

• minor, short-term increase in noise associated with construction camps (see Section 6.2.5 Acoustic Environment);

• spot spills, once remediated, will have little adverse residual effect, although other resources could be affected or lost as a result of the accident (see Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions); and

• despite vigilance, fires may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, and in very rare situations, affect wildlife and adjacent property (see Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions).

The evaluation of significance of most of the above potential residual effects is as described in Section 6.2 for the construction and operation of the pipeline. A discussion of the residual effects pertaining to rare plants, Celestine Lake Road widening, traffic on local roads in JNP associated with the construction or use of temporary facilities is provided below.

Loss or Alteration of Rare Plant Populations The three rare plant species that were found during vegetation surveys of associated facilities are all located along a segment of the abandoned CNA Railway grade north of the Proposed Footprint near KP/KL 395 to KP/KL 396. The CNA Railway grade will be used as access during construction of the Project.

Sitka columbine (S2) was found at two locations along this segment, nootka lupine (S3) was found at one location, and mingan grape fern (S2S3) was found at one location along the abandoned railway. All of the rare plant locations are located on or near the banks of the Miette River.

Depending on site specific conditions, mitigative measures to be implemented before and during construction to minimize the residual effects on these rare vascular plants include one or more of the following:

• fence or flag off the population to ensure no accidental encroachment during construction;

• restrict grading for road preparation in the vicinity of the rare plant population;

• use portable span bridge sections to ramp over the population(s) to avoid impact from traffic; and

• temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads, flex net or swamp mats.

The mitigative measures proposed above have been have been used previously on other access road and pipeline construction projects with good success. Since these rare plant populations are located relatively close to river banks, it is anticipated that the populations can be effectively protected by installing fencing and avoiding grading or traffic encroachment. If some portions of the populations cannot be avoided completely, span bridges or geotextile cover will be implemented to minimize disturbance.

November 2005 Page 6-88 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.3

Consequently, the residual effects of loss or alteration of rare plant populations as a result of Project construction is of medium magnitude.

Widening of Celestine Lake Road In order to provide safe access of construction equipment and construction personnel, Celestine Lake Road will be widened at two locations. At Windy Point (KP/KL 349.3 to KP/KL 350.3), the road will be widened by 10 m through blasting of the existing cut slope. Several factors contribute to determining the magnitude of this visual effect and its affect on visitor experience. First, due to its location off of the Highway 16 high use corridor and the restriction on its use, both seasonal (closed October to April) and, time of day restrictions when it is open, comparatively few JNP visitors use the Celestine Lake Road. In addition, the widening of the road will be in the foreground of the viewshed of the users at this location which is already somewhat degraded with existing road. The middle and background viewsheds, those most attributable to affecting park visitor experience, remain untouched. The road widening will also be visible in the middle or background of viewers from Highway 16. Visual enhancement of the rock cut is proposed to reduce visual effects from Highway 16. The magnitude of the residual effect of widening of the Celestine Lake Road on park visitor experience is considered to be medium.

Traffic on Roads Used for Access Some local roads along the Alberta and JNP segments used by the Project for access to the Proposed Route may have movement patterns that will be affected and/or disrupted during construction. Users of the local roads will be well informed of construction activities and of equipment turning onto and off of the highway through the provision of signs at park entrances and at selected access point locations along the highway as well as through website, TV and radio announcements, and newspaper notices. In addition, the construction of the Project outside of the peak summer use of these roads will further reduce effects of the Project on traffic patterns along local roads in Alberta and in JNP.

Based on the above, the residual effects of alteration or disruption of some traffic patterns on local roads as a result of Project construction is of immediate reversibility and of low to medium in magnitude.

Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of construction and operation of temporary facilities on the environment will be not significant.

November 2005 Page 6-89 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.4

6.4 Effects Assessment - Decommissioning and Abandonment

At some time in the future, Terasen Pipelines will review and consider current options, issues, and regulatory requirements of the day for the decommissioning and abandonment of the Project. Terasen Pipelines’ decommissioning and abandonment plan will comply with the acceptable regulatory standards of the day, and will be developed in consultation with stakeholders holding an interest in the proposed abandonment work. However, contemporary studies by regulators and the pipeline industry do exist that examine the technical, environmental and legal issues related to pipeline decommissioning and abandonment (Pipeline Abandonment Steering Committee 1996, Pipeline Abandonment Legal Working Group 1997). The following briefly outlines how decommissioning and abandonment would be addressed under current practices and procedures. The following are three categories under which pipeline decommissioning and abandonment may fall.

• Pipeline removal: the entire pipeline, including all surface appurtenances, are removed in their entirety and the right-of-way restored to as close to predisturbance condition as is practical;

• Abandonment-in-place: the pipeline is purged, cathodic protection of the pipeline is discontinued and measures (e.g., insertion of concrete, foam or other materials) are taken to maintain the structural integrity of the abandoned pipeline at specific locations such as rail, road and water crossings; surface appurtenances are removed and the right-of-way restored to as close to predisturbance condition as is practical; and

• Combination of abandonment-in-place and pipeline removal: involves use of both options with the choice influenced by present and future land use.

Terasen Pipelines may also remove themselves from association with the proposed pipeline through transfer of ownership for continued service, conversion to different service or recondition for renewed service. Unless complete transfer of ownership is achieved, site-specific issues associated with abandonment will most likely dictate that a combination of pipe removal and abandonment-in-place methods be employed.

Terasen Pipelines' decommissioning and abandonment plan will comply with current and acceptable regulatory standards of the day, and will be developed in consultation with stakeholders holding an interest in the land disposition. Appropriate applications will be filed (e.g., Section 74 of the NEB Act, environmental screening under CEAA). Public safety and environmental protection will be key components of the plan.

Regardless of which of the three current methods of abandonment will be used, the activities associated with the abandonment of the pipeline loop are anticipated to include at a minimum, dismantling and removing of surface facilities, and reclaiming of the sites to as close to predisturbance condition as is practical. Consequently, the biophysical and socio-economic elements interacting with the Project would likely include:

• physical elements such as physical environment (surface erosion), soil capability (admixing of topsoil or root zone material/subsoil), water quality and quantity (sedimentation), air quality (nuisance health effect – dust, vehicle emissions), and acoustic environment (nuisance health effect – noise);

• biological elements such as fish and fish habitat (alteration of habitat, sedimentation), wetlands (alteration of habitat function), vegetation (weed introduction), wildlife (auditory disturbance), species at risk (auditory disturbance); and

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use (tourism and recreational experience), infrastructure and services (transport of workers and supplies); and accidents and malfunctions.

Upon implementation of standard mitigation of the day, it is anticipated that any adverse residual effects would be of similar or lesser magnitude to those which are described above for construction of the pipeline or facility.

November 2005 Page 6-90 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.5

6.5 Effects of the Environment on the Project

Terasen Pipelines has been operating a pipeline system and associated facilities in the Project area for over 50 years and is aware of the normal as well as the range of unusual environmental conditions experienced along the Proposed Route and at the facility sites. This knowledge is reflected in the engineering design and mitigative measures proposed to address these environmental conditions (see the NEB Application). In addition, existing environmental and socio-economic conditions were taken into consideration when developing the construction schedule for the Project. To avoid sensitive nesting, breeding and calving periods for migratory birds and ungulates, and to minimize disruption to visitors to JNP during the summer peak season, clearing activities are scheduled to commence in late September with the remainder of construction activities being completed in fall/winter 2007/2008 along the most of the segment of the route in JNP. Heavy snowfall in MRPP and the western end of JNP precludes construction during winter, however, clearing activities have been scheduled outside of the peak nesting and breeding period for migratory birds and general pipeline construction activities are to commence in early summer, after breeding and calving for other important species within the park.

As alluded to in Section 6.2 of the EA report, environmental conditions may have other impacts on the Project. Where warranted, mitigative measures are identified to eliminate or reduce the severity of these potential adverse effects. The following environmental conditions were considered to have the potential to adversely affect the Project either during construction or operations or both:

• mass wasting (natural processes - slope instability, rock formation instability)

• flooding;

• forest fires;

• changing climatic conditions; and

• severe weather including high wind speeds, heavy/persistent precipitation or extreme temperatures, lightning and temperature inversions.

6.5.1 Mass Wasting

The geotechnical evaluation of the Proposed Route revealed evidence of mass wasting in the form of debris flows, landslides, rockslides and slumps is primarily confined to JNP west of the Jasper townsite, MRPP and the BC portion of the Project (Geo-Engineering (M.S.T.) Ltd. 2005). Although identified rockslides and slumps were inferred to be old and inactive, recent debris flow activity was identified in MRPP. Engineering and design of the pipeline has taken into consideration the potential for mass wasting events along the route. Areas of potential terrain instability will be monitored during regular aerial patrols during operations and remedial action will be promptly undertaken where warranted. Mitigative measures will be implemented where the potential for localized terrain instability exists (see Section 6.2.1.1). Consequently, mass wasting events are unlikely to affect the integrity of the buried pipeline. Above ground facilities such as valves, scraper traps and the pump stations have been located in areas with low potential for mass wasting events. Therefore, the probability of a significant adverse environmental effect on the Project resulting from mass wasting events is low (see Table 6.5).

6.5.2 Flooding

The potential effects of flooding and associated mitigation vary depending upon the timing of the event. A flood event that occurs immediately prior to the commencement of instream construction at a water crossing could delay construction activities and, in extreme cases, threaten the integrity of the temporary vehicle crossing. The duration of use will be considered during the selection of the type of temporary vehicle crossing to be installed while the design and sizing (e.g., culvert diameter) and freeboard (e.g., single span structure) of the vehicle crossing will meet or exceed the requirements identified in the

November 2005 Page 6-91 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.5 applicable provincial and federal regulations. These structures will be designed and installed to handle the anticipated flow conditions during the period of use.

Should flooding occur during construction of a trenched watercourse crossing, the increased flows could exceed the capability of the dams, pumps or flumes used to isolate the construction area or erode onshore spoil piles. In the unlikely event that flooding occurs during instream construction, water quality would likely be somewhat reduced due to an incremental increase in total suspended solids (TSS) over the slightly elevated TSS levels that are commonly associated with instream construction. The Flood and Excessive Flow Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP would be implemented to minimize the impacts of high water levels during instream construction. The risk of a flood occurring during instream construction is considered to be low for watercourses along the Alberta, JNP and MRPP segments of the Project which are scheduled to commence in winter conditions when instream flow is the lowest. Along the remainder of the MRPP segment, the risk of a flood occurring during instream construction is also considered low since the weather forecast applicable to the watershed for the anticipated crossing construction period is routinely reviewed immediately prior to commencement of crossing construction enabling the timely implementation of measures to mitigate any concerns.

The pipeline will be buried deep enough to minimize the potential effects of flooding as well as associated erosion and scouring. Nevertheless, Terasen Pipelines line patrols during operations will pay particular attention to the bed and banks of watercourse crossings following floods to further ensure the integrity of the pipeline and minimize impacts on the aquatic environment. Remedial measures will be taken immediately, where warranted, following receipt of applicable approvals. The proposed pump station sites are located above the high water mark of watercourses in the area. Consequently, the probability of a flood resulting in a significant adverse environmental effect is low (see Table 6.5).

6.5.3 Forest Fires

The construction of the Project within JNP is scheduled during fall and winter at a time when prescribed burns by Parks Canada in the vicinity of the Proposed Route will likely not be undertaken. However, prior to initiating construction activities or maintenance activities during operations, Terasen Pipelines will contact Parks Canada to discuss the timing of any prescribed burns in the area of the activity and will work with Parks Canada to resolve potential conflict. Similarly, within MRPP, construction activities along the segment from KL 421 to KL 431 may be affected by the Yellowhead West prescribed burn scheduled for 2007/2008 if the burn is to be undertaken in August. Terasen Pipelines will work with BC MOE representatives to resolve this potential conflict. In addition, Terasen Pipelines will contact BC MOE to determine the location and schedule of any prescribed burns in proximity to the Project prior to initiating maintenance activities. Consequently, prescribed burns may have an effect on the construction or operation of the Project is considered to be of low to medium magnitude.

A wildfire in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Route or near one of the proposed pump stations during the construction phase could delay construction activities along the affected portions of the route or at the pump station. Construction activities and/or construction-related traffic would be suspended if conditions were considered to be unsafe by Terasen Pipelines' Construction Supervisor or if requested by the appropriate authority (e.g., ASRD, Parks Canada, BC MOFR, or BC MOE). The delay of construction activities due to wildfire generally would be considered as having a minor affect on the Project with the exception of a severe wildfire which could affect large portions of the route and could delay the resumption of construction activities into another season. In this case, Terasen Pipelines would evaluate the situation and, in consultation with the appropriate authority and regulators, determine the appropriate course of action for the completion of the Project. However, the probability of a wildfire substantially affecting the Project construction schedule is low.

During the operations phase, forest fires are unlikely to adversely affect the buried pipeline. The proposed pump stations are located in either a thinned out or previously cleared area, thereby minimizing the potential for adverse effects as a result of a forest fire. Terasen Pipelines has in place emergency procedures to shutdown and evacuate the pump stations in the event of immediate forest fire risk. Terasen Pipelines will contact Parks Canada and BC MOE prior to undertaking maintenance activities within areas designated for fuel treatments.

November 2005 Page 6-92 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.5

An assessment of the effects arising from construction activities is provided in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 while contingency measures identified in the Fire Contingency Plan of the EPP have been prepared to ensure that appropriate and effective procedures and materials are in place in the event of a fire accidentally caused during construction of the Project. As described in Section 6.2.18.1, the probability of a fire resulting in a significant adverse environmental effect is low (see Table 6.5).

6.5.4 Climate Change

Changes to climatic conditions during operations of the Project may manifest in several ways. Increases in snow pack in winter and warmer temperatures during spring may extend and intensify runoff and alter hydrologic regimes within watercourses including timing and duration of peak flows. Warmer winter temperatures coupled with increases in snow which act as insulation against colder temperatures may facilitate large outbreaks of MPB into areas previously unaffected by the pest. Changes in summer temperatures and rainfall patterns could lead to an increase in wildfires. During operations of the Project, Terasen Pipelines will be adaptive in their management of the pipeline and schedule maintenance activities to accommodate local environmental conditions (e.g., conducting activity in the riparian area during periods of low flow and least risk) and implement the appropriate protection measures to suit local environmental conditions (e.g., regulatory measures regarding disposal of MPB infested vegetation) so as to minimize the potential environmental impact. By utilizing adaptive management practices which are responsive to changing conditions, no adverse effects on the Project are anticipated.

6.5.5 Severe Weather

High Winds High winds could result in the suspension of some construction activities such as topsoil or root zone material handling, clearing, slash burning and welding. The buried pipeline will not be adversely affected by high winds and above ground facilities such as valves and scraper traps will be designed to withstand anticipated wind loads. New pump station buildings and associated structures will be designed and built in accordance with provincial and National Building Codes, and, consequently, no adverse effects on facility structures are anticipated due to wind, regardless of the wind direction.

Inclement Weather Heavy or persistent precipitation could result in the delay of the Project if topsoil or root zone material salvage operations have not been completed or if wet soil conditions create safety or trafficability problems. This potential effect pertains to those segments of the Proposed Route which are to be constructed during nonfrozen conditions.

During the operations phase, heavy or persistent precipitation or extreme temperatures are not anticipated to adversely affect the pipeline (when buried) or above ground facilities. New buildings will house sensitive instruments and equipment as well as provide shelter to Terasen Pipelines personnel. Equipment, instruments, piping and structures not located within buildings will be constructed of materials suitable for low temperature service and will be insulated and/or heat traced. As a result, no adverse effects on the Project are anticipated to result from inclement weather.

Lightning Since lightning has the potential to affect the power supply and damage equipment, buildings and, where warranted, above ground equipment, will be equipped with lightning arrestors or lightning rods in accordance with provincial and National Building Codes to minimize the risk of damage due to lightning. Consequently, no adverse environmental effects on the Project are anticipated to result from lightning.

November 2005 Page 6-93 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.6

6.6 Net Gain Initiatives

The TMX - Anchor Loop Project team has identified opportunities to enhance ecological and commemorative integrity in JNP and MRPP. The construction phase provides economic synergies because the scope or extent of Project-specific mitigation, restoration, and enhancement measures can be practically extended to accommodate these ‘net gain initiatives’.

Table 6.24 lists the initiatives proposed or being considered by Terasen Pipelines to restore or enhance valued ecological, heritage, and cultural resources in JNP and MRPP. Many of these net gain initiatives will be subject to refinement and approval from the appropriate authority or require further site-specific evaluation as well as acceptance by appropriate authorities. Section 10.0 of this EA report describes how these initiatives help enhance ecological and commemorative integrity, conserve biological diversity, and contribute to sustainable development.

TABLE 6.24

NET GAIN INITIATIVES PROPOSED OR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN JASPER NATIONAL PARK AND MOUNT ROBSON PROVINCIAL PARK

Applicable Initiative to be Management Considered Location Description Plan Stabilization and Jasper National Information gained through reclamation trials and JNPMP revegetation of Park monitoring to develop specialized methods to Section 3.6 calcium-rich surface stabilize and revegetate soils that are strongly to Biological soils extremely calcareous at the surface will benefit Diversity, Key resource managers and others working with these Action #1 soils elsewhere in JNP and the Yellowhead Corridor. Restoration of Jasper National Old railway grade causeway has impeded surface JNPMP wetland function in Park water along the existing Trans Mountain right-of-way. Section 3.9 the Fiddle- KP 328.0 - During construction of the Proposed Route, this will Aquatic Athabasca wetland KP 329.4 be remedied by installation of culverts or bridges Ecosystems, complex subject to approval by Parks Canada and other Key Action #6 affected parties. Documentation of Jasper National Knowledge gained through monitoring the changes in JNPMP changes in wetland Park, wetland function during the 2-year post-construction Section 3.9 function Mount Robson monitoring program may assist Parks Canada and Aquatic Provincial Park BC MOE in managing wetland resources in all areas Ecosystems, of the Parks and understanding natural resiliency and Key Action #6 recovery times. MPMRPP Water Restoration of Jasper National Field studies could be extended into a study and JNPMP vegetative cover in Park, management program to restore vegetative cover in Section 3.9 wetlands Mount Robson wetlands along the existing Trans Mountain right-of- Aquatic Provincial Park way. The same experiences could be applied to other Ecosystems, disturbances elsewhere in the Parks. Key Action #6 MPMRPP Water Enhancement of Jasper National Where the Proposed Route abuts the existing Trans JNPMP bank and riparian Park, Mountain right-of-way, bank and riparian restoration Section 3.9 stability and habitat Mount Robson measures could be extended to include the existing Aquatic Provincial Park crossing. Ecosystems, Key Action #1 MPMRPP Vegetation

November 2005 Page 6-94 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.6

TABLE 6.24 Cont'd

Applicable Initiative to be Management Considered Location Description Plan Fish habitat Jasper National Compensation program will emphasize riparian JNPMP compensation Park, habitat and native fish at the watershed scale. Section 3.9 Mount Robson Aquatic Provincial Park Ecosystems, Key Action #4 MPMRPP Fish Installation of new Jasper National Consider installing a new pipeline in a common JNPMP pipeline at the Park trench with the Anchor Loop across the Athabasca Section 3.9 Athabasca River KL 337.4 River so that the existing pipeline can be abandoned. Aquatic crossing Ecosystems, Key Action #1 Creation of visual Jasper National Visual screens of shrubs or trees could be used at JNPMP screens at road Park, the edge of the ditch at road crossings to benefit Section 3.11 crossings Mount Robson wildlife movements and minimize visual impacts to Wildlife, Provincial Park travellers, where this does not increase wildlife Objective #1 mortality. MPMRPP Visual Resources MRPPEMP Part 2; Section 3.4.4 Restoration of native Jasper National On segments of the existing Trans Mountain right-of- JNPMP vegetation and Park, way that abut the Proposed Route, all temporary Section 3.6 invasive species Mount Robson construction facilities and temporary workspace, Biological control Provincial Park species regeneration and invasive species control will Diversity, Key be undertaken on as part of construction of the Action #7 Anchor Loop. Subject to receipt of appropriate Section 3.10 permits, Terasen Pipelines could collect seed and Vegetation, Key cuttings of native plants from the Project Footprint Action #11 nearby MPMRPP Vegetation MRPPEMP Part 2; Section 3.4.4 Invasive species Jasper National Invasive species control and native species JNPMP control and native Park, revegetation will be considered segments of the Section 3.6 revegetation Mount Robson existing Trans Mountain right-of-way that do not abut Biological Provincial Park the Proposed Route. Diversity, Key Action #7 Section 3.10 Vegetation, Key Action #18 MPMRPP Vegetation MRPPEMP Part 2; Section 3.4.4

November 2005 Page 6-95 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.6

TABLE 6.24 Cont'd

Applicable Initiative to be Management Considered Location Description Plan Reduction of wildlife Jasper National Revegetation with palatable native plant species JNPMP mortality Park, could be used in designated segments along the Section 3.6 Mount Robson Proposed Route and the existing Trans Mountain Biological Provincial Park right-of-way (e.g., KP/KL 396.3 to KL 405.4) to attract Diversity, Key wildlife away from known mortality sources (highway Action #7 and railway). Section 3.10 Vegetation, Key Action #18 MPMRPP Wildlife MRPPEMP Part 2; Section 3.4.4 Visual enhancement Jasper National Visual enhancement of Windy Point using a not applicable of Windy Point Park biodegradable paint applied to the rock cut along the KP/KL 349.3 - existing Trans Mountain right-of-way and Celestine KP/KL 350.3 Lake Road to reduce the impact of this visible scar of KP/KL 347.9 the pipeline and Celestine Lake Road from Highway 16. Excavations of Jasper National Sixteen Stage 1 excavations ranging in area from not applicable heritage sites Park 2m2 to 40 m2 will be undertaken on the Proposed Route to recover valuable cultural knowledge. Excavations of Jasper National Several Stage I excavations could be undertaken at JNPMP heritage sites Park identified heritage sites that abut the Proposed Route Section 4.0 to recover valuable cultural knowledge about the Park's past. Delineation of Jasper National The areal extent of the Summit City heritage site JNPMP Summit City heritage Park/Mount which straddles JNP and MRPP could be delineated Section 4.0 site Robson and mapped as part of the proposed mitigation MPMRPP Provincial Park strategy. This data recovery would contribute to Cultural KL 405.6 to cultural knowledge of this heritage site. Resources KL 406.2

Note: JNPMP = Jasper National Park Management Plan MPMRPP = Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park MRPPEMP = Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan

November 2005 Page 6-96 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.7

6.7 Summary of Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment

6.7.1 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment

The environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the construction and operation of the TMX - Anchor Loop Project are not unlike those routinely encountered during pipeline and associated facility construction in a forested setting despite the unique location predominately within a national and provincial park.

Numerous potential environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the Project were identified through: consultation with the federal and provincial government representatives, Aboriginal people, other stakeholders and the general public; review of existing literature; field studies; and the professional judgement of the assessment team. These potential effects were related to biophysical and socio- economic elements including:

• physical elements such as physical environment, soil capability, water quality and quantity, GHG and air quality, and acoustic environment;

• biological elements such as fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk;

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, traditional land and resource use, social and cultural well-being, human health, infrastructure and services, and employment and economy; and

• accidents and malfunctions.

Several mitigative strategies have been employed to avoid or minimize the impacts of the Project including: avoidance through route selection; scheduling of activities to avoid sensitive periods; development of detailed, practical and effective mitigative measures to address numerous site-specific and general issues; development of compensation programs to address those issues which cannot be technically or economically mitigated; inspection during construction to ensure that planned mitigation is implemented and effective; continuing the maintenance and operation of the pipeline system with a high standard of environmental excellence; and the development of a Restoration Plan to ensure that the overall Project will maintain or enhance ecological and commemorative integrity in JNP and MRPP.

Of the species at risk identified in the TOR, those species or their habitat encountered along the Proposed Route include bull trout, western toad, wolverine and grizzly bear. Given the mitigative measures identified above, the residual effect of the construction and operation of the Project on wildlife species is considered to be of low magnitude and not significant. Effects on bull trout are considered to be neutral to positive following compensation.

Through the implementation of the mitigative strategies, the residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline and associated facilities on the other biophysical and socio- economic elements were considered to be in each case not significant for the overall Project, within JNP and within MRPP.

The development of the portion of the TMX - Anchor Loop Project in JNP and MRPP were evaluated with respect to the actions, objectives and goals of the JNP Management Plan and the Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park and the Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan, respectively. In many instances, the planning, design, construction or operation of the Project were consistent with key actions or objectives of the Park plan. In addition, for each element, it was shown that the Project does not hinder either Parks Canada's ability to fulfill their management goals or BC MOE to fulfill their management objectives.

November 2005 Page 6-97 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.7

6.7.2 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project

Environmental conditions such as mass wasting (natural processes - slope instability, rock formation instability); flooding; forest fires; changing climatic conditions; and severe weather including high wind speeds, heavy/persistent precipitation or extreme temperatures, lightning and temperature inversions were considered to have the potential to adversely affect the Project either during construction or operations or both. However, through routing of the pipeline, implementation of contingency plans, and burial of the pipe, the potential impacts of the environment on the construction or operation of Project are minimized and considered to be not significant.

6.7.3 Net Gain in Ecological and Commemorative Integrity

The TMX - Anchor Loop Project team has identified opportunities to enhance ecological and commemorative integrity in JNP and MRPP. These initiatives, relating to soils, wetlands, fish and fish habitat, vegetation, wildlife, visual resources and heritage resources, either being proposed or under consideration by Terasen Pipelines, were shown to be consistent with key actions or objectives of the applicable Park plan.

6.7.4 Capacity of Renewable Resources

This assessment has assessed the potential for the Project to have an adverse environmental effect on various components of the environment, including renewable resources. Given that the Project setting is largely within protected areas (i.e., JNP and MRPP) renewable resources are limited to those such as ranching, trapping, guide outfitting/hunting, outdoor recreation and park enjoyment. It is concluded that since the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on any of these components, the capacity of renewable resources to meet the needs of the present and those of the future are not likely to be significantly affected by the Project.

November 2005 Page 6-98 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.8

6.8 References

6.8.1 Personal Communications

Fryer, G. Senior Environmental Planner, Plant Ecologist. TERA Environmental Consultants. Calgary, Alberta.

VanWelzen, W. Area Supervisor, MRPP. Valemount, BC.

6.8.2 Literature Cited

Alberta Environment. 1998. Environmental handbook for pipeline construction. Land Reclamation Division, Regulated Operations Branch. 91 pp.

Alberta Environment. 2001a. Water Act: Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunications Lines Crossing a Water Body. Queen's Printer for Alberta.

Alberta Environment. 2001b. Water Act: Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Queen's Printer for Alberta.

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 2000a. Post-Construction Environmental Report for Spread 5S. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants.

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 2000b. Post-Construction Monitoring Report. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants.

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 2000c. Post-Construction Monitoring Report. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants.

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 2000d. Post-Construction Environmental Report for Spread 8SA. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants.

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 2002. Year 2001 Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the Alliance Pipeline Project. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants.

Anderson, P.G., B.R. Taylor, and G.C. Balch. 1996. Quantifying the effects of sediment release on fish and their habitats. Vancouver, British Columbia and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Eastern B.C. Habitat Unit and Alberta Area Habitat Management Division. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2346.

Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. 2005. TMX - Anchor Loop Project: Fish and Fish Habitat Investigations; Alberta, Jasper National Park, Mount Robson Provincial Park and British Columbia. November 2005.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and David Walker & Associates. 1998. Best Available Methods for Common Leaseholder Activities. Prepared for: Line Leaseholders Working Group, Jasper National Park. January 1998.

B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. 2005. TMX - Anchor Loop Project Forest Health Assessment. September 2005.

Bayley, S., Guimond, J., Majewski, S., and W. Hughson. 1997. Restoration of riparian and floodplain wetlands affected by transportation systems in the Athabasca Valley: First Year Report. Report to Parks Canada, Jasper National Park.

November 2005 Page 6-99 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.8

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1992. Master Plan 1992 for Mount Robson Provincial Park. Prepared by Prince George District, Northern BC Region, BC Parks Division. Prince George, BC. 100 pp.

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 2001. Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan. Occasional Paper No. 6. Parks Division.

BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Reduced Risk Timing Windows and Measurements for the Conservation of Fish and Fish Habitat for the Omineca Region, Effective May 3, 2004. Environmental Stewardship Division.

BC Oil and Gas Commission. 2004. Stream Crossing Planning Guide (Northeast BC), Version 1.0. Oil and Gas Commission.

Berry, D. K. 1994. Alberta's Bull Trout Management and Recovery Plan. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Services, Edmonton, Alberta.

Berry, D.K. 1997. Sport fishing in Alberta 1995; Summary report from the fifth survey of recreational fishing in Canada. Alberta Environment, Natural Resources Service, Fish and Wildlife Management Division, Edmonton, Alberta.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association. 2005. c. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants and Salmo Consulting Inc. Calgary, Alberta.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 1993 Environmental Operating Guidelines for the British Columbia Upstream Petroleum Industry.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 1996. Hydrostatic test water management guidelines.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 1999. Environmental operating practices of the upstream petroleum industry Alberta operations - Pipelines Volume.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 2005. Planning Horizontal Directional Drilling for Pipeline Construction. 62 pp.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1999. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Environment Canada. Hull, PQ.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Parks Canada Agency, National Energy Board, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Transportation Agency and the BC Ministry of Environment (BC Parks). 2005. Scope and Requirements of the Environmental Assessment for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1994. The Authority's Guide to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Canadian Heritage Rivers System. n.d. Website: http://www.chrs.ca/Rivers/Fraser/Fraser_e.htm.

Canadian Pipeline Water Crossing Committee. 1999. Watercourse Crossings Second Edition. Prepared for Canadian Pipeline Water Crossing Committee by TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. and Salmo Consulting Ltd.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 1995. As-Built Environmental Report Capacity Expansion Program. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants

Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office. 1994. A reference guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Addressing cumulative environmental effects. Prepared by the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office. Hull, Quebec. 23 pp.

November 2005 Page 6-100 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.8

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1995. Freshwater intake end-of-pipe fish screen guidelines. Prepared by Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2003. Navigable Waters Protection Program Pipeline Crossing Guidelines. Central & Arctic Region. 4 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004. A Risk Management Framework for Development Projects Impacting Fish Habitat (Background Paper). Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fish Screening Directive. Last updated July 26, 1999.

Fryer, G., G. Dunn and P. Anderson. 2002. Rare plant impact mitigation for the Alliance Pipeline Project. Poster presentation at the 7th International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of- Way Management in Calgary, Alberta, September 9-13. 2002.

Gartman, D.K. 1991. Pipeline construction techniques to minimize wetland impacts. In Wetlands and Pipelines: proceedings of the INGAA Foundation First Annual National Environmental Symposium. October. Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, USA. p.1-24.

Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling, and D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative effects assessment practitioners guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec.

HFP Acoustical Consultants Corp. 2005. Noise Impact Assessment for the Wolf and Chappel Pump Stations Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Project. October 2005.

Hills, L.V. 2005. Palaeontology Overview for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Project. November 2005.

Levey, J.J.B., and R. Williams. 2003. 2000 survey of sportfishing in British Columbia with summary information from the 1985, 1990, and 1995 creel surveys. Prepared for Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria. Website: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/stats/sport_fishing_survey2000.html.

Lynn Ross Consulting. 2005. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. October 2005.

Madrone Environmental Services Ltd. 2005. Archaeological Assessment - British Columbia for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Project. November 2005.

Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd. 2005. Soil Assessment Report for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. November 2005.

National Energy Board. 2004. Filing Manual. Calgary, Alberta.

Newcombe, C.P. 1994. Suspended sediment in aquatic ecosystems: ill effects as a function of concentration and duration of exposure. Victoria, British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11: 72-82.

Parks Canada. 1994. Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Part III Cultural Resource Management Policy.

Parks Canada. 2000. Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 78 pp.

Parks Canada. 2005. Jasper National Park of Canada State of the Park Report, February 2005.

November 2005 Page 6-101 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.8

Post, J.R., and F.D. Johnston. 2002 . Status of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. Alberta Wildlife Status Report 39.

Post, J.R., M. Sullivan, S. Cox, N.P. Lester, C.J. Walters, E.A. Parkinson, A.J. Paul, L. Jackson, and B.J. Shuter. 2002. Canada's recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27(1): 6-17.

R & W Archaeological Consulting Ltd. 2005a. Historical Resources Impact Assessment - Alberta for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. Final Report. Permit 05-259. November 2005.

R & W Archaeological Consulting Ltd. 2005b. Archaeological Assessment - Jasper National Park for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. Final Report Permit. Wa 05- 03. November 2005.

Reid, S. and P.G. Anderson. 2000. Evaluation of Isolated Water Crossings during Winter Construction along the Alliance Pipeline in Northern Alberta. In Goodrich-Mahoney, John W., D.F. Mutrie, and C.A Guild, eds. The Seventh International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of- Way Management, Calgary, Alberta. 735-742.

Santillo, D.J. 1993. Observations on the effects of construction of a natural gas pipeline right-of-way on wetland vegetation and birds. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. September. Montreal, Québec, Canada. (eds) G. J. Doucet, C. Séguin and M. Giguère. p.325-329.

Schmidt, J,C. Tammi, D. Cameron, E. Steel and J. Evans. 2001. Evaluating the effects of muds on wetlands from horizontal directional drilling (HDD) within natural gas transmission line rights-of- way. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights of Way Management. Calgary, Alberta. Sept. 9-13, 2000.

Seacor Environmental Inc. 2005. Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project Environmental Site Assessment 2 Sites, Alberta & British Columbia. September 2005.

Shem, L.M., Zimmerman, R.E., Sellmer, S.D., Van Dyke, G.D. and J.R. Rastorfer. 1993. Regeneration of vegetation on wetland crossings for gas pipeline rights-of-way one year after construction. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. September. Montreal, Québec, Canada. (eds) G. J. Doucet, C. Séguin and M. Giguère. p.183-190.

TERA/Westland and R.U. Kistritz Consultants Ltd. 2005. Wetlands Technical Report for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. November 2005

TERA/Westland. 2005a. Vegetation Technical Report for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Project. November 2005.

TERA/Westland. 2005b. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Report for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Project. November 2005.

TERA/Westland. 2005c. Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. November 2005.

TERA/Westland. 2005d. Socio-Economic Report for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. November 2005.

TERA/Westland. 2005e. Viewshed Modelling Analysis for the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. November 2005.

Trans Mountain Pipe Line Company Ltd. 1994. Environmental Assessment and Protection Plan for Routine Maintenance and Operation in Jasper National Park. Part I - Environmental Assessment.

November 2005 Page 6-102 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6.8

Trettel, J.R., S.A. Compton, and D.J. Santillo. 2000. Methods and Results of A Comprehensive Monitoring Program to Document Turbidity and Suspended Sediment Generated During Pipeline Construction. In Goodrich-Mahoney, John W., D.F. Mutrie, and C.A. Guild, eds. The Seventh International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, Calgary, Alberta. 743-751.

UMA Engineering Ltd. 2005. Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Jasper Highway Twinning Concept Planning Study.

Van dyke, G.D., Shem, L.M., Wilkey, P.L., Zimmerman, R.E. and S.K. Alsum. 1994. Pipeline corridors through wetlands: summary of seventeen plant-community studies at ten wetland crossings. December. Gas Research Institute. GTI 1770. Chicago, IL. 96p.

Zimmerman, R.E. and Wilkey, P.L. 1992. Pipeline corridors through wetlands. Proceedings of the 1992 International Gas Research Conference. November. Orlando, Florida, USA. H.A. Thompson (ed.) p. 478-491.

November 2005 Page 6-103 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

SECTION 6 TABLES

November 2005 Page 6-104 3739

TABLE 6.2

POTENTIAL BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 1. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1.1 degradation of potential JNP Project • Undertake a field examination prior to construction to determine • Degradation of potential thawing permafrost KP/KL 361.9- KP/KL 362.4 Footprint / whether perennially frozen ground is present and will be permafrost area may be Project impacted by the Proposed Route (see Section 9.0 of EA accelerated. Footprint to report). File the results of the field examination with the NEB. LSA • Select appropriate site-specific mitigative measures to minimize impact to the permafrost area, if warranted. 1.2 blasting of trench and JNP Project • Blast bedrock encountered within trench depth only if ripping is • Areas of minor instabilities may grade rock MRPP Footprint / not feasible. occur in fill materials as a result of Project • Ensure that blasting is undertaken by licensed blasters and in blasting. Footprint to accordance with professional practice. • Recontouring of the Proposed Route LSA • Utilize warning sirens, blasting mats, blasting controls and to the pre-construction profile may monitoring to ensure the safety of humans and wildlife. not be feasible at locations where

Page 6-105 Page 6-105 blasting of grade rock has occurred. • Use blasting mats, at a minimum, where inhabited structures are within 50 m of blasting to control fly rock. Implement blasting controls, such as limits on individual blasts, use of delays and buffer blasting within 50 m of any structures which could sustain damage from ground vibration. Where blasting occurs within 20 m of inhabited structures, monitor ground vibrations during blasting. • Monitor all registered or known water wells within 200 m of any blasting before and after the proposed blasting. See Water Quality and Quantity element 3.5. • Dispose of excess blast rock and excavated rock in consultation with the appropriate authority. Appropriately pad or otherwise protect the pipe where blasting or rock hammering has occurred. • Utilize local fill material where warranted. In JNP, use fill material from locations approved by Parks Canada. • Recontour right-of-way as close to preconstruction profile where feasible or to stable angle of repose. • Blasting in or near watercourses is addressed in Fish and Fish Habitat element 6.5 while concerns arising from blasting on Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality, Acoustic Environment, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, Human Occupancy and Resource Use (aesthetics) and Accidents and Malfunctions are discussed in 4.4, 5.1, 9.3(b), 13.1(f) and 18.3 and 18.4, respectively.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 1.3 terrain instability arising AB Project • Geotechnical engineering expertise was engaged during route • Areas of minor terrain instabilities from mass wasting and JNP Footprint / selection to ensure that areas of potential terrain instability were may occur. other natural hazards Project identified and avoided to the extent feasible (Geo-Engineering MRPP • Recontouring of the Proposed Route Footprint to (M.S.T.) Ltd. 2005). BC to the pre-construction profile may LSA • Utilize the following standard mitigation where unstable areas not be feasible at locations where are encountered: slope back right-of-way cuts; maintain or cut slopes cannot be replaced reestablish surface and/or subsurface drainage patterns; install without creation of areas of drainage and erosion controls. instability. • Follow site-specific recommendations of a geotechnical engineer in areas where unstable slopes are anticipated. • Recontour right-of-way as close to preconstruction profile where feasible or to stable angle of repose. Where restoration of the preconstruction grade is not feasible due to risk of failure of fill on slopes or maintenance of an access trail, recontour to grades as directed by Terasen Pipelines' engineer. • Monitor areas of potential terrain instability during the spring and summer following construction. Inspect slope stability during regular aerial patrols and otherwise as required by Page 6-106 Page 6-106 Terasen Pipelines' Geotechnical Hazard Management Program. Undertake remedial work where warranted to protect pipeline integrity. 1.4 disturbance of acid------• No areas of acid-generating rock were identified along the • No residual effect identified. generating rock route. 1.5 loss of depth of cover due AB Project • Construct major watercourse crossings during periods of low • Substantial loss of cover over the to flooding and erosion JNP Footprint / flow (i.e., in JNP during winter and in MRPP, after peak flows) pipeline may occur in isolated areas in order to minimize the risk of encountering high flows and as a result of an extreme flood MRPP Project Footprint to flooded low areas during construction, where feasible. event. BC LSA • Implement the Flooding and Excessive Flow Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if excessive flows are anticipated within the instream construction window of watercourses that are planned to be crossed using an isolation technique or if excessive flow or flood conditions should occur during watercourse crossing construction. • Elevation of pipeline at watercourses has taken into consideration flood events and scouring of the bed so that risk to the integrity of the pipeline due to such events is minimal. • Siltation of watercourses as a result of flooding or excessive flows is discussed under Fish and Fish Habitat element 6.3. • Depth of cover over the pipeline on floodplains and within watercourses shall be monitored as required by Terasen Pipelines' Hydrotechnical Hazard Management Program. Undertake remedial work where warranted to protect pipeline integrity.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 1.6 wildfire AB Project • Ensure appropriate and effective procedures and materials are • Depending on the severity, a wildfire JNP Footprint / in place in the event of a wildfire during construction. Implement may affect the construction Project the Fire Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP. See also Effects schedule. MRPP Footprint to of the Environment on the Project in Section 6.5 of this EA BC LSA report. • See Accidents and Malfunctions element 18.2 for discussion regarding potential fire caused by Project construction activities. • Note that a wildfire is not expected to affect the operation of the buried pipeline. JNP Project • Consult with Parks Canada regarding plans for prescribed • No residual effect identified. Footprint to burns in proximity to the route prior undertaking construction RSA / Project and maintenance activities. Footprint to RSA MRPP Project • Consult with BC MOE regarding plans for prescribed burns in • No residual effect identified. Footprint to proximity to the route prior to undertaking construction and RSA / Project maintenance activities. Footprint to Page 6-107 Page 6-107 RSA 1.7 snow conditions JNP Project • Schedule construction activities outside of winter due to deep • No residual effect identified. KL 397-KP/KL 406 Footprint / snow conditions typically experienced along these segments of MRPP Project the route, where feasible. Subject to approval from the appropriate authority, select construction activities may occur BC Footprint to LSA within the winter period. • Inspect right-of-way during regular aerial patrols after heavy snow melt to identify areas of erosion. See measures in Physical Environment 1.5. • See also Effects of the Environment on the Project in Section 6.5 of this EA report. 1.8 climate change AB Project • Consider the changes to climatic conditions (e.g., snow pack • Depending on the type and severity JNP Footprint to conditions, timing and intensity of runoff and discharge within of the change in climatic conditions, watercourses, amount of rainfall) within the Project area when climate change may affect the MRPP RSA / RSA scheduling maintenance activities along the route. scheduling of maintenance activities. BC • Understand the relationship between climatic parameters and the spread of pests which may affect vegetation such as the mountain pine beetle and undertake appropriate protection measures to dispose of slash during maintenance activities as directed by the appropriate authority. For a discussion on the mountain pine beetle, see Vegetation element 8.13. • See also Effects of the Environment on the Project (Section 6.5 of this EA report) for a discussion on climate change.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 1.9 previous site JNP Project • Consult with representatives of Petro-Canada to determine • No residual effect identified. contamination KL 332.8 Footprint / boundaries of the former gas station as well as the placement Project of the removed storage tanks. Footprint • Develop a site-specific construction plan for safety and environmental protection at KL 332.8. • Dispose of contaminated material in accordance with government regulations. JNP Project • Several historical contaminated sites, including four historical • No residual effect identified. KL 331.2 Footprint / Terasen Pipelines spills, have been identified along the KP/KL 370.0 Project Proposed Route. KP/KL 371.9 Footprint • Ensure that qualified Terasen Pipelines personnel are on site KP/KL 376.0-KP/KL 377.0 during construction at old spill sites identified along the KP/KL 377.0 Proposed Route in the unlikely event that contaminated KP/KL 384.0 substrate is discovered during construction. Company KP/KL 387.0 environmental personnel to initiate standard response procedures as outlined in Terasen Pipelines' internal Environmental Guide: Env. 315 Management of Contaminated Sites based on the degree of contamination. Continue efforts Page 6-108 Page 6-108 until accepted regulatory guidelines are met. • Dispose of contaminated material in accordance with government regulations. 2. SOIL CAPABILITY 2.1 lowering of topsoil or root AB Project • Salvage the total depth of topsoil, where it exists, to a maximum • Minor mixing of topsoil or root zone zone material capability JNP Footprint / depth of 40 cm, using the Environmental Work Sheets as a material and subsoil will likely occur. through topsoil or root Project guide. The Environmental Inspector will provide direction based MRPP zone material/subsoil Footprint on the Soils Assessment Report. BC mixing • Salvage duff and upper root zone material to a maximum depth of 15-20 cm where thin (less than 5 cm) or no topsoil exists using the Environmental Work Sheets as a guide. The Environmental Inspector will provide direction based on the Soils Assessment Report (Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd. 2005). • Salvage topsoil or root zone material from an area at least 1 m wider on both sides of the proposed trench width during nonfrozen and frozen soil conditions. • Salvage, store and subsequently replace separately the topsoil or root zone material from subsoil wherever grading occurs. • Salvage topsoil or root zone material from all areas where root grubbing is necessary. • Grub roots using a brush rake to facilitate salvage of topsoil, duff and upper root material following stump removal.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 2.1 lowering of topsoil or root AB Project • Smooth out the area receiving the spoil material prior to spoil • See above zone material capability JNP Footprint / material being placed on the existing topsoil so that the spoil through topsoil or root Project material can be readily separated and removed from the in-situ MRPP zone material/subsoil Footprint topsoil during final clean-up. BC mixing • Salvage an additional width of topsoil, where present, and store and replace separately at crossings (e.g., road, rail, water and (Cont'd) foreign lines) in order to maintain topsoil/subsoil separation. • Do not salvage topsoil or root zone material in areas of Rock outcrops, Disturbed Land, Braided River Channels, or areas of bouldery Athabasca1 and bouldery Fireside soils. • Do not salvage topsoil or upper root zone material in areas of JNP and MRPP that follow the alignment of historic railway grades. However, if a portion of the adjacent forest is required to construct the pipeline, salvage the surface 15-20 cm of material from undisturbed adjacent areas for replacement. • Store salvaged topsoil or root zone material over the adjacent existing pipeline where the route abuts the existing pipeline.

Page 6-109 Page 6-109 • Store spoil material over the existing Trans Mountain pipeline only under conditions where the spoil can be completely returned during final clean-up. The use of a marker layer of wood chips or weed-free hay may assist in this procedure. 2.2 restricting of natural JNP Project • Salvage the upper 40 cm of peat material from areas of Ghita 2 • No residual effect identified. drainage of peat through KP/KL 361.5-KP/KL 362.0 Footprint / soils and the total depth of peat from areas of peaty Vermilion peat/mineral soil mixing KP/KL 393.0-KL 403.8 Project Lakes 1 and 2 soils during frozen and non-frozen soil conditions MRPP Footprint as per the Soils Assessment Report and the EPP so that the KL 434.0-KP/KL 434.2 peat material rather than the underlying silts remain at the KP/KL 406.9-KL 407.4 surface. KP/KL 465.0-KP/KL 465.2 • Store peat separately from the underlying mineral material and replace separately so that future drainage through the peat material is not restricted.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 2.3 surface water erosion AB Project • Soils occurring on 10-15% slopes have been rated as having a • Minor surface erosion of topsoil or JNP Footprint / Moderate water erosion hazard while those occurring on root zone material can be expected Project greater than 15% slopes have been rated as having a High until a vegetative cover has been MRPP Footprint water erosion hazard. established. BC • Minimize surface disturbance and grading on steep slopes. Cut and fill side slopes to minimize disturbance, where warranted and feasible. • Install trench breakers and subdrains where warranted on steep slopes with high water erosion potential to control subsurface flow. The Environmental Work Sheets identify general locations where breakers may be needed. • Leave breaks in the trench crown at obvious drainages and wherever seepage occurs to minimize interference with natural drainage. Leave frequent breaks in the trench crown where sidehill is encountered. • Recontour drainage channels as close to preconstruction profile where feasible.

Page 6-110 Page 6-110 • Install permanent cross ditches and diversion berms on slopes with moderate to high water erosion hazard to direct surface runoff away from areas where ponding or erosion may occur. The Environmental Work Sheets identify general locations where berms may be needed while exact locations will be determined in the field during recontouring. • Revegetate moderate and steep slopes with a cover crop and an appropriate seed mix given the location. Seed mixes are listed under the Vegetation element 8.13. • Install erosion control materials where warranted (e.g., coco- matting, silt fences, sand bags, etc.) • Rollback slash and nonsalvageable timber and walk down on moderate and steep slopes with permission of the appropriate authority to help reduce surface runoff. Walk down with dozer. • Implement the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP when water erosion of the terrain is of concern. • Monitor the effectiveness of erosion control measures implemented during post-construction monitoring of the right-of- way. Inspect slope stability during regular aerial patrols and otherwise, as required, by Terasen Pipelines’ Geotechnical / Hydrotechnical Hazard Management Program. Undertake remedial work where warranted to protect pipeline integrity.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 2.4 loss of topsoil or root zone AB Project • Since most of the soils along the Proposed Route are sandy • Revegetation of some disturbed material through wind JNP Footprint / textured, most soils have been rated as having a high wind soils with high wind erosion potential erosion Project erosion hazard when the protective vegetation is disturbed. may be difficult. MRPP Footprint BC • Do not salvage topsoil or root zone material under extremely windy conditions. • Apply water, snow or tackifier to the topsoil or root zone material windrow as directed by the Environmental Inspector, and for lands within JNP and MRPP in consultation with Parks Canada and BC MOE, to prevent erosion of topsoil or root zone material piles. Devona and Talbot soils, located in JNP, are particularly vulnerable to wind erosion, especially when the vegetation is disturbed. • Sow a cover crop along with the appropriate seed mix given the location in areas with high erosion hazard. Seed mixes are listed under the Vegetation element 8.13. • Spread woody debris and slash on the right-of-way during clean-up on soils with a high wind erosion potential with permission of the appropriate authority. Page 6-111 Page 6-111 • Implement the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP when wind erosion of the topsoil or root zone material windrow is of concern. • Monitor the effectiveness of erosion control measures implemented during post-construction monitoring of the right-of- way. Inspect areas of high erosion potential during regular aerial patrols and otherwise, as required, by Terasen Pipelines’ Geotechnical Hazard Management Program. Undertake remedial work where warranted to protect pipeline integrity. 2.5 degradation of soil AB Project • Only poorly and very poorly drained Erith, Vermilion Lakes 1, • No residual effect identified. structure and lowering of JNP Footprint / peaty Vermilion Lakes 1, Vermilion Lakes 2, peaty Vermilion soil capability through MRPP Project Lakes 2, and Ghita 2 soils are highly susceptible to soil compaction and rutting and occupy 9.2% of the Proposed compaction and rutting BC Footprint Route. • Schedule construction of wet areas in Alberta and JNP in winter when the soils are frozen to alleviate soil compaction and rutting concerns. • During wet/thawed soil conditions implement the Wet/Thawed Soil Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP. • Minimize construction traffic in poorly drained Gleysolic and Organic soil areas. See Construction Traffic Control Plan in the EPP for further details. • Consider using swamp or rig mats as warranted over long stretches of poorly drained soils.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 2.6 loss of topsoil or root zone AB Project • Many soils along the Proposed Route are susceptible to trench • No residual effect identified. material through trench JNP Footprint / instability. instability during trenching MRPP Project • Store salvaged topsoil or root zone material at a sufficient BC Footprint distance from the trench so that topsoil or root zone material is not lost in the trench, if trench instability occurs. • Strip a wider area of topsoil or root zone material if the trench walls slough into the ditch and the potential for topsoil or root zone material/subsoil mixing exists. Back slope trench walls until stable. Equip hoe with a swamp bucket or equip trenching wheel with slope cutters, if practical, to minimize trench sloughing to protect topsoil or root zone material. 2.7 increased stoniness in AB Project • Stony conditions are associated with stony Hillsdale 1, stony • No residual effect identified. surface horizons JNP Footprint / Lucerne 1, stony Lucerne 2 and stony Woodley soil units. MRPP Project • Prior to topsoil or root zone material replacement, pick from the Footprint BC right-of-way stones which would otherwise reduce the effectiveness of topsoil or root zone material replacement and restoration.

Page 6-112 Page 6-112 • Dispose of stones at locations approved by the appropriate authority. • Monitor the right-of-way during operations for presence of stones at the surface and remediate if stoniness interferes with agricultural practices in BC or with revegetation efforts elsewhere along the route. 2.8 disturbance of soils which AB Project • Hillsdale 1 soils are strongly calcareous at the surface, which • Revegetation of disturbed soils that are calcareous at the Footprint / may restrict species selection. However, the presence of a well are strongly calcareous at the surface Project established topsoil horizon in Brule and Hinton soils may surface may be difficult. Footprint mitigate the strongly to extremely calcareous conditions of these soils. • Seed an appropriate calcareous seed mix given the location. Seed mixes are listed under Vegetation element 8.13. JNP Project • Areas of Devona and Talbot soils are extremely calcareous at • Revegetation of disturbed soils that Footprint / the surface and highly susceptible to wind erosion which may are strongly calcareous at the Project challenge revegetation efforts. Hillsdale 1 soils are also surface may be difficult. Footprint encountered along the Proposed Route in JNP. However, the presence of a well established topsoil horizon in Hinton and Vermilion Lakes 1 soils may mitigate the strongly to extremely calcareous surface conditions of these soils. • Implement site-specific measures from the Restoration Plan for JNP regarding calcareous soils. • Monitor the effectiveness of revegetation efforts during post- construction monitoring of the right-of-way. Inspect areas with extremely calcareous soils at the surface during regular aerial patrols. Undertake remedial work as warranted to protect pipeline integrity.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 2.9 disturbance of previously AB Project • Identify hydrocarbon-impacted soils by odour or visual • See Physical Environment element contaminated soil JNP Footprint / inspection. 1.9 MRPP Project • Determine the appropriate measures for handling and treating BC Footprint of contaminated soils using the results of laboratory analyses and consulting with the Environmental Inspector, and appropriate authority. 2.10 trench subsidence AB Project • Compact backfilled trench to the extent feasible, using suitable • Minor trench subsidence or a JNP Footprint / equipment along the trenchline (e.g., grader, dozer, etc.) in remnant crown may occur. MRPP Project non-frozen conditions. Alternative methods of compaction may Footprint be used if approved by Terasen Pipelines' engineer. BC • Leave a slight crown over the trench to compensate for settlement. A larger crown will be needed in frozen conditions, to compensate for settlement after thawing. 3. WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 3.1 alterations of natural flow AB Project • Note that standard pipeline construction activities are designed • Minor localized alteration of natural patterns JNP Footprint to to avoid circumstances that result in diversion and/or unnatural drainage patterns may occur until retention of water along the right-of-way. trench settlement is complete.

Page 6-113 Page 6-113 LSA / Project MRPP Footprint to BC • Install trench breakers, where warranted, at the edge LSA watercourses to prevent the pipe trench from acting as a drain and prevent unconsolidated organic soils from sloughing into the channel. • Compact backfill to the extent feasible and crown trench to prevent channelized flow along the trench. • Leave breaks in the trench crown at drainages. • Remove swamp mats or geotextile material where used to gain access across localized wet areas as part of final clean-up if the potential exists for interference with natural drainage patterns. • Ensure adequate cross drainage for any ramps left in place. • Restore right-of-way drainage pattern to as close to preconstruction contours as practical during reclamation. Regrade areas with vehicle ruts, erosion gullies or where the trench has settled. • See also Wetlands element 7.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 3.2 locations with high water AB Project • Winter construction of the Alberta and JNP segments will • No residual effect identified. table JNP Footprint to substantially minimize the amount of water encountered during LSA / Project construction. MRPP Footprint to BC • Salvage and store organic soil horizons separately from the LSA underlying mineral material and replace separately so that no clay subsoils are incorporated into the upper soil horizons which could restrict future drainage through the peat material by forming a dyke. • Dewater the trench using sumps and pump where warranted and slope trench walls to maintain stability as necessary. • Use buoyancy controls for the pipe as required. • Remove all mats and ramps used to enable work and travel through wet areas and all bar ditch ramps from areas with mineral soils and where requested by the appropriate authority in order that they do not impede the restoration of natural flow patterns. • Maintain adequate culverts if any ramps or corduroy are left in

Page 6-114 Page 6-114 place with approval from the appropriate authority. • See also Wetlands element 7.2. 3.3 disruption of streamflow AB Project • Prevent the felling of trees into watercourses during clearing. • No residual effect identified. JNP Footprint to Remove any trees that fall across or into watercourses immediately. MRPP LSA / Project Footprint to • Maintain flow during instream construction at all watercourses LSA where water is present and not frozen to the bottom through isolating the work areas (e.g., pump around or flume) or utilizing a trenchless crossing technique (e.g., HDD). Store spoil on banks unless otherwise approved by the appropriate authority. Complete instream construction as quickly as possible. • Install appropriate crossing method for vehicles and construction equipment over watercourses so that flow is not impeded. • Disruption of streamflow and the potential impact to navigability of watercourses are addressed in Human Occupancy and Resource Use element 13.1(d).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 3.4 reduction of surface water AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included • Reduction in surface water quality quality JNP Footprint to minimizing the number and complexity of watercourse due to suspended solids during LSA / Project crossings. For example, there are 13 fewer crossings of very instream construction. MRPP Footprint to large and large watercourses along the Proposed Route as LSA compared to the Existing Route. • Follow the recommended pipeline crossing techniques and vehicle crossing method for each watercourse encountered along the route. Recommended crossing techniques were selected based on the sensitivity of the watercourse to the introduction of silt and to increased potential for sedimentation and turbidity. • Minimize the risk of siltation as a result of erosion of streambanks through runoff control during and immediately after construction (e.g., silt fences) and through an aggressive revegetation program designed to stabilize the streambanks as soon as feasible. Employ soil compaction relief, terrain contour restoration and installation of cross ditches and diversion berms where appropriate to reduce interference with surface water

Page 6-115 Page 6-115 movement. • Adhere to the following spill prevention measures: prohibit fuel storage, refuelling or servicing of equipment near watercourses except where secondary containment is provided; and ensure equipment used for instream construction is well maintained and free of fluid leaks. In the event of a spill, immediately implement measures to stop, control the migration of, and clean-up the spilled substance as outlined in the Spill Contingency Plan in the EPP (see also Accidents and Malfunctions element 18.1). • See also Wetlands element 7.3.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 3.5 reduction of groundwater AB Project • Install cross ditches, trench breakers and/or subdrains where • Although unlikely, the disruption of quality and quantity JNP Footprint to substantial subsurface seepage is encountered at depth on water well flows may occur. MRPP LSA / Project sloping terrain. • Potential minor short-term disruption BC Footprint to • Monitor all registered or known water wells within 200 m of any of groundwater flow where springs LSA blasting before and after blasting. While the probability of are encountered. affecting water wells is considered to be relatively low based on • See Accidents and Malfunctions initial project investigations, discuss any changes in water element 18.5 for discussion of the quality and flow rates, which correlate to Terasen Pipelines' residual effect associated with a blasting, with the well owner. Compensation in the form of release of instream drilling mud. drilling a new well, remediating the existing well and supply of water of equal or better quality and quantity until the well is restored may be required, if damage to water flow is detected. • Locate and flag registered or known water wells within the immediate vicinity of the Project including those at: • KL 331.7 • KL 333 • KP/KL 352.6

Page 6-116 Page 6-116 • KP/KL 370.1 • KP/KL 372 • Locate potential springs ID #442442 (near KP/KL 347.2) and ID #442440 (near KP/KL 348.9). For those springs located downslope of the Project Footprint, monitor flow during trenching to determine groundwater flow is being intercepted. If spring flow has been disrupted, seek and follow geotechnical advice to maintain cross drainage within the trench (e.g., installation of subdrains or trench breakers). Monitor spring flow during post-construction monitoring of the right-of-way. • Adhere to the following spill prevention measures: prohibit fuel storage, refuelling or servicing of equipment near watercourses except where secondary containment is provided; and ensure equipment is well maintained and free of fluid leaks. In the event of a spill, immediately implement measures to stop, control the migration of, and clean-up the spilled substance as outlined in the Spill Contingency Plan in the EPP (see also Accidents and Malfunctions element 18.1). • Implement the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP in the event of a release during instream construction at locations where a horizontal directional drill is to be used (see also Accidents and Malfunctions element 18.5).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 3.6 withdrawal and release of JNP Project • Conduct all testing activities in accordance with federal and • No residual effect identified. hydrostatic test water MRPP Footprint to provincial government agency approvals. LSA / Project • Adhere to approved water sources and withdrawal rates and Footprint to intake screening requirements in accordance with DFO LSA guidelines. • No chemicals or conditioners will be added to the test water. • Return the test water to its source watershed to prevent the inter-basin transfer of organisms. • Collect samples of the release water near the beginning, during the middle and near the end of the release for laboratory testing for the project record. • Use a diffuser to dissipate and reduce the rate of water as it is released and monitor dewater points for potential erosion problems. Use riprap, sheeting, tarpaulins or other comparable measures to protect the ground and vegetation from erosion at dewatering sites. • See Human Occupancy and Resource Use element 13.1(e) for

Page 6-117 Page 6-117 discussion on potential affect of withdrawal of hydrostatic test water on downstream water users. 4. GREENHOUSE GASES AND AIR QUALITY 4.1 Project contribution to ------• Utilize multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to • Incremental increase in the greenhouse gas and from job sites to the extent practical to minimize emissions greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions emissions during construction. associated with the Trans Mountain • Minimize the amount of GHG emissions associated with system will occur. clearing of vegetation by following existing linear disturbances where feasible. 4.2 airborne emissions from AB Project • Use well maintained equipment to minimize emissions. • Short-term increase in vehicle equipment during JNP Footprint to • Minimize unnecessary idling of Project equipment. emissions will occur during construction LSA / Project construction. MRPP • Use multi-passenger vehicles to transport crew to site to the Footprint to extent practical to limit the amount of traffic and accompanying BC LSA emissions. See Construction Traffic Control Plan in the EPP. 4.3 dust during construction AB Project • Apply water to exposed soil piles if wind erosion occurs. Water • Short-term increase in dust arising JNP Footprint to is preferred over chemical dust suppressant applications. from construction traffic on the right- LSA / Project of-way will occur. MRPP • Apply water to the Project Footprint if traffic and wind conditions Footprint to result in pulverized soils and dust problems. BC LSA 4.4 dust from blasting during JNP Project • Use blasting mats to minimize dust associated with blasting in • Short-term increase in dust arising construction MRPP Footprint to areas near residences and roads. from blasting will occur. LSA / Project • Control traffic on Highway 16 in proximity to blasting areas Footprint to during blasting events so that visibility will not be impaired. LSA

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 4.5 smoke during construction JNP Project • Locate burn piles on exposed mineral soils stripped of their • No residual effect identified. Footprint to topsoil or on burning skids. LSA / Project • Unless otherwise approved by the appropriate authority, Footprint to burning will not be undertaken within 100 m of highways, 200 m LSA of named waterbodies or within 500 m of residential areas or occupied campgrounds. • Implement techniques to limit smoke production including limiting pile size, minimizing fuel moisture content, and maintaining loose burning piles free of soil. 4.6 emissions during AB Project • Increase in air emissions during the operation of the pipeline • Slight rise in air emissions will occur operations and JNP Footprint to not expected. during site-specific maintenance maintenance LSA / Project activities. MRPP • Use well maintained equipment during maintenance activities to Footprint to minimize emissions. BC LSA 5. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 5.1 noise from construction AB LSA / LSA • Confine work to between 7 AM and 7 PM in proximity to • Short-term increase in noise will equipment and blasting seasonal and permanent residences (e.g., KP/KL 313.6, occur during construction. Page 6-118 Page 6-118 JNP KL 325.9, Pocahontas Bungalows, warden cabins, Jasper BC townsite, Pine Bungalows, Mount Robson Ranch) unless otherwise approved by the appropriate authority. • Abide by local noise by-laws. • Maintain equipment to minimize unnecessary noise (e.g., mufflers). • No blasting is expected in the vicinity of permanent or seasonal residences. 5.2 noise during operations JNP LSA / LSA • Increase in noise levels over existing levels during the • Slight rise in noise levels will occur and maintenance BC operation of the pipeline not expected. during site-specific maintenance • Confine maintenance work to between 7 AM and 7 PM in activities. proximity to permanent residences and public facilities (e.g., KP/KL 313.6, KL 325.9, Pocahontas Bungalows, warden cabins, Jasper townsite, Pine Bungalows, Mount Robson Ranch) unless otherwise approved by the appropriate authority. • Maintain equipment used to conduct maintenance activities to minimize unnecessary noise (e.g., mufflers).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6. FISH AND FISH HABITAT (VEC) 6.1 riparian loss and alteration of waterbodies 6.1(a) riparian habitat loss and AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included • Clearing or disturbance of riparian alteration in non-fish- JNP Footprint / minimizing the number of waterbody crossings. For example, vegetation associated with non-fish there are 33 fewer crossings of waterbodies along the bearing waterbodies within right-of- bearing waterbodies with MRPP Project fish habitat potential Footprint Proposed Route as compared to the Existing Route, including way and temporary work space will BC 12 non-fish-bearing waterbodies with fish habitat potential. occur. (see locations in Table 6.8) • Implement ‘Standard Crossing Measures’ to be defined in the EPP, including the following: • minimize clearing and ground disturbance within 10 m of the high water mark of all waterbodies to the degree practical (Clearing and Grading PoEs); • maintain or restore natural drainage and channel configurations (Water Management PoE); • contour and stabilize banks and approach slopes and install temporary berms, silt fences, or cross ditches in any Page 6-119 Page 6-119 location where run-off from the right-of-way may flow into a watercourse (Vegetation Clearing and Riparian Planting PoEs); • commence clean-up immediately following backfill and erosion control operations (Riparian Planting PoE); and • inspect approach slopes and banks regularly, especially after heavy rainfalls and spring freshet for two years after construction. Monitoring will be continued at specific locations if chronic erosion occurs, or if riparian vegetation recovery is delayed. 6.1(b) riparian habitat loss and AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included • Clearing or disturbance of riparian alteration in ponds and JNP Footprint / minimizing the number of waterbody crossings. For example, vegetation associated with ponds there are 33 fewer crossings of waterbodies along the and lakes within right-of-way and lakes with fish habitat MRPP Project potential Footprint Proposed Route as compared to the Existing Route, including 6 temporary work space will occur. BC lakes or ponds. (see locations in Table 6.8) • Implement ‘Standard Crossing Measures’ described above for non-fish-bearing waterbodies with fish habitat potential. • Postpone clearing of slopes and banks until immediately prior to construction and leave a temporary uncleared buffer zone extending back from the crest of erosion prone slopes where practical (Clearing PoE). • Where earlier clearing is approved by the appropriate authority, leave the vegetative ground mat and root structure intact. • Seed with an approved native cover crop and seed mix prior to spring freshet wherever possible (Vegetation Clearing and Riparian Planting PoEs).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6.1(c) riparian habitat loss and AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included • Clearing or disturbance of riparian alteration in small to large JNP Footprint / minimizing the number of waterbody crossings. For example, vegetation associated with small to fish bearing watercourses Project there are 33 fewer crossings of waterbodies along the large streams with Moderate to High MRPP with Moderate to High Footprint Proposed Route as compared to the Existing Route, including Sensitivity within right-of-way and Sensitivity (see locations in Table 6.8) 10 smaller watercourses with Moderate to High Sensitivity. temporary work space will occur. • Implement ‘Standard Crossing Measures’ described above for non-fish-bearing waterbodies with habitat potential. • Implement ‘Standard Isolate Measures’ including the following: • postpone clearing of slopes and banks until immediately prior to construction and leave a temporary uncleared buffer zone extending back from the • crest of erosion prone slopes where practical (Clearing PoE); • • where earlier clearing is necessary, leave the vegetative ground mat and root structure intact; • maintain low vegetation or vegetative ground mat within the 10 m buffer of watercourses to the extent practical by

Page 6-120 Page 6-120 walking, storing, and constructing over the undisturbed areas (Clearing PoE); • • dewater the trench onto stable surfaces in a manner that does not cause erosion of soils, sedimentation of watercourses, or where icing will not be a problem (Water Management and Flow PoE); and • • use brush bundles or willow staking in disturbed riparian areas at designated crossings to reduce erosion risk and enhance vegetation recovery (Clearing, Grading, and Riparian Planting PoEs). 6.1(d) riparian habitat loss and AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included • Clearing or disturbance of riparian alteration in very large JNP Footprint / minimizing the number of waterbody crossings. For example, vegetation associated with very watercourses with Project there are 33 fewer crossings of waterbodies along the large watercourses with Moderate to MRPP Moderate to High Footprint Proposed Route as compared to the Existing Route, including 5 High Sensitivity within right-of-way Sensitivity (see locations in Table 6.8) very large watercourses with Moderate to High Sensitivity. and temporary work space will • Implement ‘Standard Crossing Measures’ described above for occur. non-fish-bearing waterbodies, and ‘Standard Isolate Measures’ described above for standing water and Moderate to High Sensitivity watercourses. • Implement ‘Standard Trenchless Measures’ where a trenchless crossing is planned: • Prepare a Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan that identifies procedures for drilling mud frac-out and trenchless crossing failure.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6.2 instream habitat loss and alteration 6.2(a) instream habitat loss AB Project • Proposed Route avoids 33 crossings including 12 non-fish- • No residual effect identified. and alteration in non-fish- JNP Footprint / bearing waterbodies with fish habitat potential. bearing waterbodies with MRPP LSA • Designated vehicle and pipeline crossing method selected to fish habitat potential BC reduce direct and indirect effects on productive fish habitat. (see locations in Table 6.8) • Implement ‘Standard Crossing Measures’ to be defined in the EPP, including the following: • adhere to instream construction windows and limit instream work period to less than one working day wherever practical (In-water activities PoE); • contour and stabilize banks and approach slopes and install temporary berms, silt fences, or cross ditches in any location where run-off from the right-of-way may flow into a watercourse (Vegetation Clearing and Riparian Planting PoEs); and • maintain or restore natural drainage and channel

Page 6-121 Page 6-121 configurations (Water Management PoE). • Isolate construction area where detectable flow is present and implement ‘Standard Isolate Measures’ including the following to reduce sediment input: • water from flumes, pump-arounds, diversions or other methods must not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel (Water and Wastewater Management and Flow PoE); • construct a sump with berms, silt fences or straw bale filters to contain excavated instream spoil so that it does not re-enter the waterbody (Excavation PoE); • dewater the trench onto stable surfaces in a manner that does not cause erosion of soils, sedimentation of watercourses, or where icing will not be a problem (Water Management and Flow PoE); • return salvaged streambed surface material to top layer of backfill, in waterbodies with fine-textured sediments, allow sediment to transport and slough in trench while backfilling; and • return the waterbody bed and bank to their original preconstruction configuration with no realignment of the channel (In-water Activities PoE).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6.2(b) instream habitat loss AB Project • Proposed Route avoids 33 crossings, including 6 ponds and • No residual effect identified. and alteration in ponds JNP Footprint / lakes. and lakes with fish habitat LSA MRPP • Vehicle and pipeline crossing method selected to reduce direct potential BC and indirect effects on productive fish habitat. (see locations in Table 6.8) • Implement ‘Standard Isolate Measures’ described above for non-fish-bearing waterbodies with fish habitat potential as well as the following: • do not use earthen berms to isolate the construction area (In-water Activities PoE); and • return aquatic vegetation and organic debris removed from the construction area following trench backfilling. 6.2(c) instream habitat loss and AB Project • Proposed Route avoids 33 crossings, including 10 Moderate to • Alteration of instream habitat within alteration in small to large JNP Footprint / High Sensitivity waterbodies. zone-of-influence at High Risk crossings will occur. fish bearing watercourses MRPP LSA • Vehicle and pipeline crossing method selected to reduce direct with Moderate to High and indirect effects on productive fish habitat. Sensitivity (see locations in Table 6.8) • Isolate construction area where detectable flow is present to reduce sediment input. Page 6-122 Page 6-122 • Implement ‘Standard Isolate Measures’ described above for non-fish-bearing waterbodies as well as the following: • leave hard ditch plugs at least 3 m wide in place until the crossing has been initiated; and • return salvaged coarse streambed material to top layer of backfill, in waterbodies with fine-textured sediments, allow sediment to transport and slough in trench while backfilling, or where required, backfill with clean coarse material; and • increase bank angle using rip-rap and rock armouring at designated crossings to provide nearshore rearing and holding habitat (Excavation and Riparian Planting PoEs).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6.2(d) instream habitat loss AB Project • Proposed Route avoids 33 crossings, including 5 Moderate to • Alteration of instream habitat within and alteration in very JNP Footprint / High Sensitivity waterbodies zone-of-influence at High Risk large watercourses with LSA crossings will occur. MRPP • The Proposed Route also incorporates better crossing sites Moderate to High (see locations in Table 6.8) compared to the Existing Route on the Fiddle, Miette, and Sensitivity Fraser rivers. • Vehicle and pipeline crossing method selected to reduce direct and indirect effects on productive fish habitat. • Implement ‘‘Standard Isolate Measures’ described above for waterbodies with Moderate to High Sensitivity. • Complete welding, coating, weighting, and where applicable, testing, of the pipe prior to commencement of trenching and ensure that sufficient equipment is available to move long heavy sections of pipe efficiently at long crossings (Excavation PoE). • Implement ‘Standard Trenchless Measures’ to be defined in the EPP, where a trenchless crossing is planned including the following:

Page 6-123 Page 6-123 • implement Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan that identifies procedures for drilling mud frac-out and trenchless crossing failure. See also Accidents and Malfunctions element 18.5.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6.3 increased water column AB Project • Proposed Route avoids 33 waterbody crossings. • Increase in suspended solid suspended sediment JNP Footprint / • Vehicle and pipeline crossing method selected to reduce concentration during instream concentrations LSA construction at Moderate to High MRPP sediment introduction based on waterbody sensitivity. Risk crossings within zone-of- • Crossings of Moderate to High sensitivity watercourses BC influence will occur. generally proposed for winter period when flow is more manageable and fish are less active and sensitive to suspended sediment. • Implement ‘Standard Crossing Measures’ to be defined in the EPP, including the following: • Minimize clearing and ground disturbance within 10 m of the high water mark of all waterbodies to the degree practical (Clearing and Grading PoEs). • Adhere to instream construction windows and limit instream work period to less than one working day wherever practical (In-water activities PoE). • Install a flume until pipe installation where pre-trenching is required in non-fish bearing streams.

Page 6-124 Page 6-124 • Place salvaged surface material above the high water mark in a manner that does not block drainage or runoff (Grading PoE). • Contour and stabilize banks and approach slopes and install temporary berms, silt fences, or cross ditches in any location where run-off from the right-of-way may flow into a watercourse (Vegetation Clearing and Riparian Planting PoEs). • Seed with an approved native cover crop and seed mix prior to spring freshet wherever possible (Vegetation Clearing and Riparian Planting PoEs). • Maintain or restore natural drainage and channel configurations (Water Management PoE). • Isolate construction area where detectable flow is present in waterbodies with fish potential to reduce sediment input. At these sites implement ‘Standard Isolate Measures’ to be defined in the EPP, including the following. • Water from flumes, pump-arounds, diversions or other methods must not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel (Water and Wastewater Management and Flow PoE). • Construct a sump with berms, silt fences or straw bale filters to contain excavated instream spoil so that it does not re-enter the waterbody (Excavation PoE). • Dewater the trench onto stable surfaces in a manner that does not cause erosion of soils, sedimentation of watercourses, or where icing will not be a problem (Water Management and Flow PoE).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6.3 increased water column AB Project • In fish bearing waterbodies, leave hard ditch plugs at least 3 m • See above. suspended sediment JNP Footprint / wide in place until the crossing has been initiated. concentrations LSA MRPP • In fish-bearing waterbodies, postpone clearing of slopes and BC banks until immediately prior to construction and leave a (Cont'd) temporary uncleared buffer zone extending back from the crest of erosion prone slopes where practical (Clearing PoE). • Where earlier clearing is necessary, leave the vegetative ground mat and root structure intact. 6.4 blockage of fish AB Project • Adhere to instream construction windows and limit instream • No residual effect identified. movements JNP Footprint / work period to less than one working day wherever practical (In-water activities PoE). MRPP LSA to RSA BC • Maintain 100% of downstream flow throughout instream activity period in fish-bearing waterbodies (Fish Passage PoE). 6.5 fish mortality from AB Project • Adhere to instream construction windows and limit instream • Increased fish mortality may occur. blasting, dewatering, and JNP Footprint / work period to less than one working day wherever possible (In- water activities PoE). recreational fishing MRPP LSA to RSA BC • Appropriate procedures provided in Guidelines for the Use of Page 6-125 Page 6-125 Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters will be followed if blasting is necessary within 80 m of a fish-bearing watercourse (Blasting PoE). • Use qualified aquatic specialists to salvage fish from isolated instream construction area and any bypass structures prior to dewatering and trenching at designated Moderate to High Sensitivity crossings (Water Extraction PoE). • Pump intakes must not disturb the streambed and must be screened with a maximum mesh size of 2.54 mm and approach velocity of 0.038 m/s (Water Extraction PoE). • Restrict water removal for hydrostatic testing to less than 10% of volume at designated waterbodies (Water Extraction PoE). • Construction in JNP will occur during winter months when most waterbodies are closed to recreational fishing. • Construction personnel will not be allowed to fish on the worksite. 6.6 interbasin transfer of AB Project • Return test water to its source watershed to prevent inter-basin • No residual effect identified. aquatic organisms JNP Footprint / transfer of aquatic organisms (Water Extraction PoE). LSA to RSA MRPP BC

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6.7 contamination from spills AB Project • Pipeline design, including valve location, minimizes operational • Contamination from spills during during construction and JNP Footprint / spill risk and maximum volume that could reach waterbodies. construction and operations may operations LSA occur. MRPP • Specific procedures will be included in the EPP to avoid BC contaminant introduction to waterbodies during construction. • See Accidents and Malfunctions These include the following. element 18.1 and 18.7. • Do not dispose of petroleum products or waste into waterways or on the ground. Prepare contingency plans for fuel and hazardous waste spills and ensure that all fuel and service vehicles carry a spill kit (Industrial Equipment PoE). • Ensure that all hazardous material storage and oil changes, refuelling, and lubrication of industrial equipment occurs more than 100 m from a waterbody except where secondary containment is provided (Use of Industrial Equipment PoE). • Use vegetable-based hydraulic oils in hydraulic systems working near watercourses (Use of Industrial Equipment PoE). 6.8 combined effects on bull AB Project • Bull trout were collected in 8 waterbodies crossed by the • Short-term increase in suspended trout (VEC) JNP Footprint / Proposed Route in JNP and MRPP. solid concentration and habitat

Page 6-126 Page 6-126 alteration within zone-of-influence at MRPP LSA • Vehicle and pipeline crossing method selected to reduce Project specific effects based on ratings that considered bull High Risk crossings and increased trout presence and use. Isolated crossings proposed for all mortality from recreational harvest. waterbodies with potential bull trout habitat where detectable flow is present. • Adhere to instream construction windows and limit instream work period to less than one working day wherever practical (In-water activities PoE). • ‘Standard Isolate Measures’ will be implemented in all waterbodies with potential bull trout habitat. • Enhanced riparian vegetation restoration will be implemented in all waterbodies with potential bull trout habitat. • Zero possession limit has been established by authorities for bull trout recreational fishing in all AB and JNP waters and for streams in MRPP and BC. 6.9 combined effects on AB Project • Northern pike were not collected in any waterbody crossed by • No residual effect identified. northern pike (VEC) JNP Footprint / the Proposed Route, but are known to occur in the upper LSA Athabasca watershed. Northern pike habitat potential and sensitive periods were considered to define proposed instream work windows and select pipeline and vehicle crossing methods for each waterbody. No construction activities will be required outside the proposed least risk window. 6.10 combined effects on lake JNP RSA / RSA • Lake whitefish were not collected in any waterbody crossed by • No residual effect identified. whitefish (VEC) KP/KL 362 the Proposed Route, and have only been reported to occur in the Athabasca River and two lakes in JNP. 6.11 combined effects on JNP RSA • Pygmy whitefish were not collected in any waterbody crossed • No residual effect identified. pygmy whitefish (VEC) by the Proposed Route, but have been reported from the Project area. Least risk periods defined for mountain whitefish are also applicable to this species.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 6.12 combined effects on JNP RSA • Chinook, sockeye, or coho salmon were not collected in any • No residual effect identified. salmon (VEC) waterbody crossed by the Proposed Route, and have only been reported to occur in the Fraser River downstream of the LSA and outside crossing zones-of-influence. 6.13 combined effects on fish AB Project • Proposed Route avoids 33 waterbody crossings. • Short-term increase in suspended and fish habitat JNP Footprint / • Compensation programs will be designed to result in net gain of solid concentration and habitat LSA to RSA alteration within the zone-of- MRPP fish habitat in the Athabasca and Fraser watersheds relative to current conditions. influence at High Risk crossings and BC increased mortality from recreational harvest. 7. WETLANDS 7.1 potential loss or reduction AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included • Minor, short- to medium-term of habitat function (e.g., JNP Footprint / minimizing the number of wetland crossings. For example, alteration of wetland habitat function. there are 11 fewer crossings of weltand complexes along the habitat for wildlife, MRPP Project amphibians, waterfowl Footprint to Proposed Route as compared to the Existing Route. In addition, and vegetation) BC LSA the Proposed Route avoids the Moose Marsh in MRPP. • Schedule construction during frozen ground conditions, if Page 6-127 Page 6-127 feasible. • Install swamp mats or geotextiles for heavy vehicle/equipment crossing through wetland in unfrozen ground conditions. Remove swamp mats or geotextiles immediately after construction activity at that location has been completed. • Use wide-track equipment or conventional equipment operated from swamp mats when working on saturated soils in unfrozen ground conditions. • Minimize the removal of vegetation and the disturbance of soil adjacent to wetlands. • Cut / mow / walkdown shrubs and small diameter deciduous trees at ground level and minimize grubbing in temporary work space. • Minimize the width of grubbing through wet areas during construction to facilitate the restoration of shrub communities. • Install berms, cross ditches and silt fences at the base of approach slopes to wetlands and between the wetland and the disturbed area. • Maintain low vegetation or vegetative ground mat within the 10 m buffer of watercourses to the extent practical by walking, storing, and constructing over the undisturbed ground. • Restrict clearing and construction activities at Sucker Creek (KP/KL 371.9, W020) from May 15 - June 30 to minimize disturbance to harlequin duck pre-nesting staging area. • No clearing activities are to occur within the migratory bird nesting period between May 1 - July 31 unless the area has been pre-logged, pre-brushed or pre-mowed.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 7.1 potential loss or reduction AB Project • Conduct grading adjacent to wetlands away from the wetland to • See above. of habitat function (e.g., JNP Footprint / the extent practical to reduce the risk of sediment and other habitat for wildlife, Project material entering the wetland. MRPP amphibians, waterfowl Footprint to BC • Store excavated material in a manner that does not interfere and vegetation) LSA with natural drainage patterns.

• Restore preconstruction profile in wetlands during reclamation. (Cont'd) • Allow wetland to naturally regenerate following construction. • Where shrubs are present prior to construction, use willow staking along the wetland to stabilize disturbances and reduce sedimentation risk to wetland. • Monitor wetlands for habitat function during the post- construction monitoring program. • Schedule maintenance activities during winter to the extent feasible. Follow above measures for work in wetlands during operations. 7.2 potential loss or reduction AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included • Minor, short term alteration of of hydrologic function Footprint / minimizing the number of wetland crossings. For example, hydrologic function of wetlands will

Page 6-128 Page 6-128 JNP there are 11 fewer crossings of wetland complexes along the occur. MRPP Project Footprint to Proposed Route as compared to the Existing Route. In addition, BC LSA the Proposed Route avoids the Moose Marsh in MRPP. • The following mitigative measure will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • Narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and protect the wetland by using fencing, clearly mark the wetland boundaries using flagging and limit traffic in the vicinity of the flagged area. • Minimize the width of grubbing through wet areas during construction to facilitate the restoration of shrub communities. • Salvage the upper 40 cm of peat material as specified on the Environmental Work Sheets. • If practical, leave an undisturbed organic mat as a buffer zone to limit the potential for sediment to enter wetlands. • Adhere to following alterations of natural flow patterns measures (see Water Quality and Quantity element 3.1). • Install trench breakers, where warranted, at the edge of wetlands to prevent the pipe trench from acting as a drain. • Install berms, cross ditches and/or silt fences at the base of approach slopes to wetlands and between the wetland and the disturbed area.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 7.2 potential loss or reduction AB Project • Adhere to the following spill prevention measures: prohibit fuel • See above. of hydrologic function JNP Footprint / storage, refuelling or servicing of equipment near wetlands Project except where secondary containment is provided; and ensure MRPP equipment used for instream construction is well maintained (Cont'd) Footprint to BC LSA and free of fluid leaks. In the event of a spill, immediately implement measures to stop, control the migration of, and clean-up the spilled substance as outlined in the Spill Contingency Plan in the EPP (see also Accidents and Malfunctions element 18.1). • Restore wetland to preconstruction profile during reclamation. • Monitor wetlands for hydrologic function during the post- construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 7.3 potential loss or reduction AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included • Minor, short term alteration of water of water quality function JNP Footprint / minimizing the number of wetland crossings. For example, quality function in wetlands will there are 11 fewer crossings of wetland complexes along the occur. MRPP Project Footprint to Proposed Route as compared to the Existing Route. In addition, BC LSA the Proposed Route avoids the Moose Marsh in MRPP. Page 6-129 Page 6-129 • The following mitigative measure will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • Narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and protect the wetland by using fencing, clearly mark the wetland boundaries using flagging and limit traffic in the vicinity of the flagged area. • Follow measures outlined for locations with high water table (see Water Quality and Quantity element 3.2). • Conduct grading adjacent to wetlands away from the wetland to the extent feasible to reduce the risk of sediment and other material entering the wetland. • Install berms, cross ditches and/or silt fences at the base of approach slopes to wetlands and between the wetland and the disturbed area. • Adhere to the following spill prevention measures: prohibit . fuel storage, refuelling or servicing of equipment near wetlands except where secondary containment is provided; and ensure equipment used for instream construction is well maintained and free of fluid leaks. In the event of a spill, immediately implement measures to stop, control the migration of, and clean-up the spilled substance as outlined in the Spill Contingency Plan in the EPP (see also Accidents and Malfunctions element 18.1). • Where shrubs are present prior to construction, use staking (e.g., willows) along the wetland to stabilize disturbances and reduce sedimentation risk to wetland.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8. VEGETATION 8.1 disturbance of rare vascular plants (VEC) 8.1(a) disturbance of S1 rare AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If mitigative measures do not vascular plant JNP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby completely protect the site, some minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The loss or alteration of the local populations, COSEWIC MRPP Project species, SARA species Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of population may occur. LSA its length. • Transplanted or propagated • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route specimens may not survive. by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the type and location of S1 rare vascular plant species identified along the Proposed Route. No COSEWIC or SARA species were encountered. • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • realign the pipeline within the Project Footprint to avoid the site if feasible; Page 6-130 Page 6-130 • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments; • propagate rare plants or transplant individual plants off the Project Footprint to equivalent habitat; or • realign the pipeline and Project Footprint around the site; or • bore under the local population on the Project Footprint and fence off the area to restrict traffic from impacting the site. • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S1 species are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S1 rare vascular plants during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.1(b) disturbance of S2 rare AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If mitigative measures do not vascular plant JNP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby completely protect the site, some populations Project minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The loss or alteration of the local Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of population may occur. LSA its length. • Transplanted or propagated • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route specimens may not survive. by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the type and location of S2 rare vascular plant species identified along the Proposed Route. • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • realign the pipeline within the Project Footprint to avoid the site if feasible; • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; ; • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered Page 6-131 Page 6-131 segments; or • propagate rare plants or transplant individual plants off the Project Footprint to equivalent habitat. • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency • Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S2 species are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S2 rare vascular plants during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.1(c) disturbance of S3 rare AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If mitigative measures do not vascular plant JNP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby completely protect the site, some populations Project minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The loss or alteration of the local Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of population may occur. LSA its length. • Transplanted or propagated • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route specimens may not survive. by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the type and location of S3 rare vascular plant species identified along the Proposed Route. • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments; or • propagate rare plants or transplant individual plants off the Page 6-132 Page 6-132 Project Footprint to equivalent habitat. • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S3 species are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S3 rare vascular plants during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 8.2 loss or alteration of nonvascular plants (VEC) 8.2(a) disturbance of S1 rare AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If mitigative measures do not nonvascular plant JNP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby completely protect the site, some populations Project minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The loss or alteration of the local

Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of population may occur. LSA its length. • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the type and location of S1 rare nonvascular plant species identified along the Proposed Route. No COSEWIC or SARA species were encountered.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.2(a) disturbance of S1 rare AB Project • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be • See above. nonvascular plant JNP Footprint / implemented, depending on site specific conditions: populations Project • realign the pipeline within the Project Footprint to avoid the Footprint to site if feasible; LSA (Cont'd) • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments; • realign the pipeline and Project Footprint around the site or • bore under the local population on the Project Footprint and fence off the area to restrict traffic from impacting the site. • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S1 species are found

Page 6-133 Page 6-133 during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S1 rare nonvascular plants during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 8.2(b) disturbance of S2 rare AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If mitigative measures do not nonvascular plant JNP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby completely protect the site, some minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The loss or alteration of the local populations MRPP Project Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of population may occur. BC LSA its length. • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the type and location of S2 rare nonvascular plant species identified along the Proposed Route. • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • realign the pipeline within the Project Footprint to avoid the site if feasible; • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; or • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments. • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S2 species are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S2 rare nonvascular plants during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.2(c) disturbance of S3 rare AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If mitigative measures do not nonvascular plant JNP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby completely protect the site, some populations Project minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The loss or alteration of the local Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of population may occur. LSA its length. • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the type and location of S3 rare nonvascular plant species identified along the Proposed Route. • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; or • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments.

Page 6-134 Page 6-134 • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S3 species are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S3 rare nonvascular plants during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 8.3 loss or alteration of rare plant communities (VEC) 8.3(a) disturbance of S1 rare AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If the community cannot be avoided, plant communities JNP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby then a narrow strip of the community Project minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The will be disturbed resulting in some Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of loss or alteration of the community. LSA its length. • Access restrictions and temporarily • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route covering of the site may not by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the completely protect the community. type and location of S1 plant communities identified along the Proposed Route.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.3(a) disturbance of S1 rare AB Project • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be • See above. plant communities JNP Footprint / implemented, depending on site specific conditions: Project • realign the pipeline within the Project Footprint to avoid the (Cont'd) Footprint to site if feasible; LSA • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments; • realign the pipeline and Project Footprint around the site; or • bore under the community on the Project Footprint and fence off the area to restrict traffic from impacting the site. • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S1 communities are found during supplementary studies in 2006.

Page 6-135 Page 6-135 • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S1 rare pant communities during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 8.3(b) disturbance of S2 rare JNP Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If the community cannot be avoided, plant communities Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby then a narrow strip of the community Project minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The will be disturbed resulting in some Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of loss or alteration of the community. LSA its length. • Access restrictions and temporarily • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route covering of the site may not by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the completely protect the community. type and location of S2 plant communities identified along the Proposed Route. • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; or • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments. • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S2 communities are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S2 rare pant communities during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.3(c) disturbance of S3 rare MRPP Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If the community cannot be avoided, plant communities BC Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby then a narrow strip of the community Project minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The will be disturbed resulting in some Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of loss or alteration of the community. LSA its length. • Access restrictions and temporarily • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route covering of the site may not by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the completely protect the community. type and location of S3 plant communities identified along the Proposed Route. • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; or • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments.

Page 6-136 Page 6-136 • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional S3 communities are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to S3 rare pant communities during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.3(d) disturbance of unique JNP Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • If the community cannot be avoided, plant communities MRPP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby then a narrow strip of the community Project minimizing the amount of disturbance to native vegetation. The will be disturbed resulting in some Footprint to Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for 99% of loss or alteration of the community. LSA its length. • Access restrictions and temporarily • Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route covering of the site may not by TERA/Westland. See Section 5.2.8 of this EA report for the completely protect the community. type and location of unique plant communities identified along the Proposed Route. • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be implemented, depending on site specific conditions: • narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; or • temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restrictions along the covered segments.

Page 6-137 Page 6-137 • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP if any additional unique communities are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts with respect to unique rare pant communities during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 8.4 disturbance to boreal ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. moonwort (Botrychium by TERA/Westland. No boreal moonwort were identified. boreale) (VEC) • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP in the unlikely event that boreal moonwort are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor boreal moonwort populations, if found during supplementary studies, during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 8.5 disturbance to Canada ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. anemone (Anemone by TERA/Westland. No Canada anemone were identified. canadensis) (VEC) • The Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP will be implemented if in the unlikely event that Canada anemone are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor Canada anemone populations, if found during supplementary studies, during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.6 disturbance to purple------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. leaved willowherb by TERA/Westland. No purple-leaved willowherb were (Epilobium ciliatum ssp. identified. watsonii) (VEC) • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP in the unlikely event that purple-leaved willowherb are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor purple-leaved willowherb populations, if found during supplementary studies, during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 8.7 disturbance to meadow ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. willow (Salix petiolaris) by TERA/Westland. No meadow willow were identified. (VEC) • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP in the unlikely event that meadow willow are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor meadow willow populations, if found during supplementary studies, during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

Page 6-138 Page 6-138 8.8 disturbance to Haller's ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. apple moss (Bartramia by TERA/Westland. No Haller's apple moss were identified. halleriana) (VEC) • Implement the Plant Species at Risk Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP in the unlikely event that Haller's apple moss are found during supplementary studies in 2006. • Monitor Haller's apple moss populations, if found during supplementary studies, during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 8.9 alteration of montane AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • Approximately 470 ha of montane habitat (VEC) JNP Footprint / existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby habitat could be altered over the minimizing the amount of disturbance to the montane habitat. long-term. MRPP Project Footprint to The Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances for BC LSA 99% of its length. • Follow detailed restoration measures outlined in the Restoration Plan to be developed for JNP and MRPP and submitted with the NEB application. • Monitor the effectiveness of montane restoration measures during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.10 alteration of Douglas-fir JNP Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • Approximately 5 ha of Douglas-fir savannah (VEC) MRPP Footprint to existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible, thereby savannah habitat in JNP and LSA minimizing the amount of disturbance to the Douglas-fir approximately 1 ha in MRPP could savannah. The Proposed Route follows existing linear be disturbed over the long term. disturbances for 99% of its length. • The following mitigative measure will be implemented, depending on site-specific conditions: • Narrow down the area of disturbance to the extent practical and fence or clearly mark the disturbance boundaries (area to be cleared). • Follow detailed restoration measures outlined in the Restoration Plan to be developed for JNP and MRPP and submitted with the NEB application. • Monitor the effectiveness of restoration measures to the Douglas-fir savannah during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

Page 6-139 Page 6-139 8.11 alteration of mature ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. western redcedar/western by TERA/Westland. No mature western redcedar/western hemlock stands (VEC) hemlock stands were identified within the Project Footprint in MRPP. 8.12 disturbance to mature ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. Douglas-fir stands (VEC) by TERA/Westland. No mature Douglas-fir stands were identified within the Project Footprint in MRPP. 8.13 revegetation of disturbed AB Project • Seed disturbed non-wetland areas of the Project Footprint with • No residual effect identified. areas JNP Footprint / the appropriate native seed mix based on site conditions from Table 6.9. MRPP Project Footprint to BC • Allow peaty Vermilion Lakes 1 and 2 soils, Ghita 2 soils, and LSA wetlands to naturally generate. Do not seed these areas. • Revegetate portions of the right-of-way on moderate and steep slopes and on areas with extremely calcareous surface soils with an appropriate seed mix and approved cover crop to minimize the potential for erosion by quickly re-establishing a vegetative cover. • Anchor mulch by mechanical or chemical means where used to aide in revegetative efforts as approved by the appropriate authority. • Monitor the effectiveness of revegetation efforts during post- construction monitoring of the right-of-way. Inspect moderate and steep slopes as well as areas with extremely calcareous soils during regular aerial patrols. Undertake remedial work where warranted.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.14 weed introduction AB Project • A non-native and invasive species inventory was conducted by • Some weed seeds cleaned from the JNP Footprint / TERA/Westland (2005a) along the Proposed Route. equipment will likely germinate at Project the clean-off sites. MRPP • Follow the Invasive Species Management Plan outlined in the Footprint to BC EPP to minimize the introduction and spread of noxious weeds • Restoration of native vegetation will LSA during Project construction activities. take several years and some weed • Employ standard weed control measures such as cleaning of growth is likely to occur before full equipment of dirt and vegetative debris prior to arrival on the restoration is achieved. right-of-way. • Native grass mulch may contain • Pretreat heavily infested weed areas along the Proposed Route some weed seeds. by chemical, hand or mechanical means prior to construction where directed by the appropriate authority. • Minimize weed spread by cleaning equipment prior to moving from an area of high weed infestation. • Restore native vegetation as quickly as possible. • Native grass mulch or wood fiber mulch will be applied to control areas of high wind erosion potential. • Monitor the right-of-way during post-construction monitoring Page 6-140 Page 6-140 and operations for areas of prolific weed growth. Undertake measures to control weeds at identified locations. 8.15 loss of salvageable timber AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • Salvageable timber will be removed JNP Footprint / existing disturbances to the extent feasible in order to minimize from the forested land base. Project clearing of timber. Approximately 99% of the Proposed Route MRPP Footprint to follows existing disturbances. BC LSA • Approximately 26,805 m3 of salvageable coniferous and deciduous timber is estimated along the Proposed Route from a desktop study (TERA/Westland 2005a). Quantify the type and amount of timber along the Proposed Route prior to construction. • In the context of this Project, salvageable timber will be provided to the appropriate authority who will be responsible for determining the end use. • Follow measures listed in Vegetation element 8.16 with regard to tree removal and hauling in high risk mountain pine beetle areas. 8.16 acceleration of the spread AB Project • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included following • Although mountain pine beetle and of forest health pathogens JNP Footprint to existing disturbances to the extent feasible in order to minimize other forest pathogens (e.g., RSA / Project forest health issues. Approximately 99% of the Proposed Route Armillaria) may extend their range, MRPP Footprint to follows existing disturbances. the Project will not exacerbate forest BC RSA • Conduct a risk assessment of mountain pine beetle along the health issues along the route. route during the timber evaluation prior to construction. Utilize a specialist who is competent in the identification of mountain pine beetle and Armillaria (root rot disease). See Section 9.0 of this EA report for details.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 8.16 acceleration of the spread AB Project • Educate key members of the pipeline construction team in the • See above. of forest health pathogens JNP Footprint to identification of mountain pine beetle and Armillaria during the RSA / Project environmental education program (see Section 8.0 of the EA MRPP report). Consult with a specialist where there is uncertainty in (Cont'd) Footprint to BC RSA identification of specific forest health agents. • From KP/KL 450 to KP/KL 468, undertake tree removal before (May) or after beetle flight (September) but preferably not during the known flight period. Carefully monitor the flight period and adjust tree removal to reflect changes in the flight associated with winter/spring weather anomalies. • If tree removal occurs between May 1st and September 30th when beetle flight is most likely to occur, and logs are to be imported into Alberta, remove all bark from logs prior to transport from the site. Also, remove all bark from logs being transported within BC if there are procedural guidelines that apply within the relevant forest district/s. • Carefully control the movement of woody debris in both JNP and MRPP and follow the specific requirements of provincial Page 6-141 Page 6-141 legislation and regulations. • Minimize woody debris left on the right-of-way to the extent feasible and in accordance with the wishes of the appropriate authority. Do not leave any pine debris on the right-of-way in MRPP. • Minimize damage to residual trees along the right-of-way to limit the infection and spread of forest health pathogens. • Communicate the location and extent of mountain pine beetle infestations encountered along the route to the appropriate authority. In JNP and MRPP, the management of mountain pine beetle and other forest pathogens is the responsibility of Parks Canada and BC MOE, respectively. • Assess forest health along the route during post-construction monitoring, with particular attention being paid to areas of high risk to mountain beetle outbreaks. • Consult with Parks Canada and BC MOE to determine the extent of known mountain pine beetle infestations prior to conducting maintenance activities. Note that changing climatic conditions may facilitate the expansion of outbreaks into areas not previously affected (see also Physical Environment element 1.8 and the Effects of the Environment on the Project). • Ensure that the above transport and disposal measures are implemented where maintenance activities result in removal of infested woody debris.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9. WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT (VEC) 9.1 loss or alteration of wildlife habitat 9.1(a) general AB Project • Pipeline routing and scheduling of construction have • N/A JNP Footprint / contributed substantially in the reduction of potential impacts to Project wildlife and wildlife habitat in the following ways: MRPP Footprint to • the Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances BC LSA for 99% of its length, thereby minimizing the amount of disturbance to wildlife habitat; • the Proposed Route avoids wetlands to the extent feasible and minimizes length within wetland and riparian habitat considered to be an important wildlife habitat type, particularly in MRPP where summer construction is planned; and • construction within Alberta and most of JNP is scheduled during frozen soil conditions when fewer wildlife species (e.g. migratory birds) are present in the LSA. • Educate the workforce by means of compulsory orientations. Page 6-142 Page 6-142 Require all personnel to attend a presentation on project safety, environmental requirements, ecological integrity and environmental stewardship, and emergency response prior to starting work on the site (see Section 8.0 of this EA report). • Record wildlife trees removed for construction. • Conduct a pre-construction survey of wildlife trees along the Proposed Route and replace wildlife trees whenever practical. • Restore effectiveness of wildlife movement corridors and biodiversity by using native plant species for restoration. 9.1(b) clearing for the pipeline JNP Project • Clearing of mature trees has been minimized in designing the • Approximately 335.5 ha of (easement and KP/KL 337.5-KP/KL 339.0 Footprint / Project Footprint. coniferous forest vegetation could workspace) in closed KP/KL 344.0-KP/KL 345.7 Project • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be be altered or lost. canopy coniferous forest KP/KL 355.5-KP/KL 357.6 Footprint to implemented, depending on site specific conditions: LSA KP/KL 359.1-KP/KL 361.5 • Subject to the approval of the appropriate authority, plant KP/KL 367.0-KP/KL 369.1 native coniferous tree seedlings in temporary workspace. KP/KL 383.1-KP/KL 388.1 • Use native plant species or a natural recovery technique as outlined in the Restoration Plan. KL 396.4-KL 401.0 • Monitor the effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts KL 402.7-KL 405.6 during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first MRPP and second years following construction). KL 405.6-KL 408.7 KP/KL 414.9-KP/KL 431.5 KP/KL 435.4-KP/KL 442.9 KP/KL 449.8-KP/KL 455.0 KL 455.2-KP/KL 457.5 KP/KL 463.0-KP/KL 466.5

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.1(c) clearing for pipeline JNP Project • Disturbance to grasslands and open canopy coniferous forest • Approximately 30 ha of grassland (easement and KP/KL 339.0-KP/KL 344.0 Footprint / has been minimized. and open canopy coniferous forest workspace) in grasslands KP/KL 347.7-KP/KL 350.8 Project • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be habitats could be altered or lost. and open canopy KP/KL 353.0-KP/KL 354.0 Footprint to implemented, depending on site specific conditions and will be coniferous forest LSA further described in the Restoration Plan: • avoid clearing of individual or small clumps of trees in temporary workspace by narrowing down temporary workspace where feasible; and • use native plant species or a natural recovery technique as outlined in the Restoration Plan. • Monitor the effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 9.1(d) forest clearing for JNP Project • One or more of the following mitigative measures will be • Approximately 61.7 ha of deciduous pipeline (easement and KL 325.7-KL 326.6 Footprint / implemented, depending on site specific conditions and will be forest habitat could be altered or workspace) in deciduous KL 327.1-KL 327.6 Project further described in the Restoration Plan: lost. forest KL 332.5-KL 333.7 Footprint to • where grading or ground preparation is not necessary, cut

Page 6-143 Page 6-143 LSA deciduous trees at ground level and do not grub temporary KP/KL 351.3-KP/KL 351.7 workspace area to allow for coppicing and to keep root KP/KL 365.2-KP/KL 365.8 systems in tact; KP/KL 366.1-KP/KL 367.0 • plant deciduous shrubs and trees in accordance with the KL 396.3-KL 399.3 regulatory agency approved Restoration Plan; KL 401.9-KL 405.4 • minimize clearing of mature trees and narrow width of MRPP workspace clearing to maintain forest structure; KP/KL 405.9-KP/KL 407.3 • minimize wildlife tree removal where feasible; KL 427.9-KL 431.3 • salvage cut deciduous trees for redistribution on alignment KL 433.3-KL 433.9 post construction as coarse woody debris where permitted KL 452.1-KL 453.6 by the appropriate authority; and • use native plant species or a natural recovery technique as outlined in the Restoration Plan. • Monitor the effectiveness of habitat restoration during the post- construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.1(e) wetland alteration, loss AB Project • Minimize removal of vegetation and the disturbance of soil • Approximately 90.4 ha of wetland and/or sedimentation KP/KL 314.0-KP/KL 314.2 Footprint / adjacent to wetlands and watercourses leading to wetlands. and riparian forest habitat could be KP/KL 315.5-KP/KL 315.6 Project • No clearing activities are to occur within the migratory bird altered. KP/KL 317.6-KP/KL 317.7 Footprint to nesting period between May 1 - July 31 unless the area has LSA KP/KL 324.0 been pre-logged, pre-brushed or pre-mowed. JNP • Restrict clearing and construction activities at Sucker Creek KL 330.1 (KP/KL 371.9) from May 15-June 30 to minimize disturbance to harlequin duck pre-nesting staging area. KL 331.4-KL 332.3 • Monitor the effectiveness of habitat restoration during the post- KL 333.2-KL 334.5 construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years KP/KL 352.0-KP/KL 352.1 following construction). KP/KL 354.1-KP/KL 354.2 • See also Wetlands element 7.1. KP/KL 357.6-KP/KL 357.8 KP/KL 361.8-KP/KL 362.4 KP/KL 371.6-KP/KL 371.9 KL 382.5 KP/KL 384.1-KP/KL 384.3 Page 6-144 Page 6-144 KP/KL 387.2-KP/KL 387.4 KP/KL 387.6 KP/KL 391.5-KP/KL 394.4 KP/KL 395.9-KP/KL 399.4 KL 401.4-KL 402.0 MRPP KL 407.8-KL 408.5 KP/KL 413.3-KP/KL 413.9 KP/KL 414.9-KP/KL 415.1

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.1(f) loss or alteration of Ungulate (moose, elk, Project • Disturbance to grasslands and open canopy coniferous forest • Alteration or loss to seasonably important seasonal deer) winter ranges Footprint / has been minimized. important habitats. habitats (i.e. winter range) AB Project • Provide gaps (breaks) for wildlife crossing of the worksite at KP/KL 317.0-KP/KL 325.4 Footprint to major known wildlife trails (e.g., gaps in snowpiles, spoil pile, JNP LSA set-up and welded pipe and rollback). KL 330.0-KP/KL 380.0 • No construction disturbance to elk calving areas between KL 390.0-KP/KL 405.6 May 1-June 30. MRPP • No construction disturbance to bighorn sheep lambing areas KP/KL 405.6-KP/KL 409.7 between May 1-June 30 and bighorn sheep rutting areas from KP/KL 415.0-KP/KL 437.0 November 1-30. KP/KL 452.0-KP/KL 455.0 • Use multi-passenger vehicles to transport workers to the work site, to the extent practical, and convoy vehicles to minimize the KL 455.2-KL 457.5 number of passes by Windy Point (KP/KL 349.3-KP/KL 350.3). Elk calving areas • No construction disturbance to moose calving areas between JNP May 1-June 30. KP/KL 329.0- KP/KL 358.0 • Construction activities restricted within 200 m of active wolf KP/KL 365.6-KP/KL 381.5 dens and rendezvous sites between March 15-June 15.

Page 6-145 Page 6-145 Moose calving areas • No beaver dams will be removed without regulatory JNP agency/trapper approval. KL 331.0-KL 337.0 • See mitigation outlined for wetlands (Wildlife element 9.1(e)) for KL 381.0-KL 388.0 aquatic mammal habitat protection. KP/KL 391.0-KP/KL 405.6 • Clearing and construction activities at Sucker Creek Bighorn sheep rutting, (KP/KL 371.9) to be restricted from May 15-June 30 to minimize lambing and winter range disturbance to harlequin duck pre-nesting staging area. JNP • No clearing activities are to occur within the migratory bird KP/KL 342.0-KP/KL 351.0 nesting period between May 1 - July 31 unless the area has KP/KL 370.0-KP/KL 373.0 been pre-logged, pre-brushed or pre-mowed. • Use native plant species to maintain biodiversity, reduce weed cover and help create wildlife movement corridors as described in the Restoration Plan.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.1(g) loss or alteration of Wolf dens and rendezvous Project • See above. • See above. important seasonal sites Footprint / habitats (i.e. winter range) JNP Project (Cont'd) KL 336.0-KL 337.6 Footprint to KL 339.0-KL 344.0 LSA MRPP KL 406.0-KL 407.5 Aquatic mammal (river otter, beaver and muskrat) habitat AB KP/KL 315.5-KP/KL 315.6 KP/KL 317.6-KP/KL 317.7 JNP KL 331.4-KL 332.3 KL 333.2-KL 334.5 KL 336.2-KL 337.5 Page 6-146 Page 6-146 KP/KL 352.0-KP/KL 352.1 KP/KL 357.6-KP/KL 357.7 KP/KL 361.5-KP/KL 362.5 KL 382.5 KP/KL 387.2-KP/KL 387.4 KP/KL 395.5-KP/KL 396.4 MRPP KL 407.8-KL 408.5 KL 416.1-KL 416.6 Harlequin duck feeding and staging JNP KP/KL 371.9 (Sucker Creek) Waterfowl nesting and feeding area JNP KL 331.4-KL 332.3 KL 333.6-KL 335.0 KP/KL 361.8-KP/KL 362.4 KP/KL 395.9-KP/KL 399.4 9.1(h) reduction in habitat JNP Project • A non-native and invasive species inventory was conducted by • Reduction in habitat quality due to quality due to invasive KP/KL 339.0-KP/KL 344.0 Footprint / TERA/Westland (2005a) along the Proposed Route. increased cover of invasive plant plant species KP/KL 347.7-KP/KL 350.8 Project • See measures under Vegetation element 8.14. species. KP/KL 353.0-KP/KL 354.0 Footprint to RSA

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.2 changes to habitat JNP Project • Work expeditiously to maintain a tight construction spread (i.e., • Changes to habitat connectivity and connectivity KP/KL 325.0-KP/KL 329.0 Footprint / interval between front end work activities such as grading and wildlife movements will occur. (Fiddle River-Athabasca RSA back end activities such as clean-up) to minimize potential River Wildlife Movement barriers and hazards to wildlife. Corridor [WMC]) • Leave gaps in set-up and welded pipe, spoil piles and trench to KL 336.0-KL 337.5 allow wildlife to cross the right-of-way. Locate gaps at obvious (Rocky River-Athabasca game trails. Coincide breaks in pipe with gaps in topsoil or root River WMC) zone material, spoil, snow (if present) and rollback (if present) KP/KL 359.1-KP/KL 369.1 windrows. (Snaring River-Athabasca • Install or maintain trench plugs across open trench to allow the River WMC) cross-ditch movement of ungulates to and from the seasonal KP/KL 365.0-KP/KL 370.0 ranges along designated wildlife movement corridors and to (Pallisades- Athabasca River special habitat features such as mineral licks. WMC) • Minimize the length of open trench (to generally less than 1 km KP/KL 345.7-KP/KL 350.8 in winter) and reduce the time the trench will be left open (to (Windy Point-Athabasca generally one day in winter) to limit the amount of interference River WMC) with wildlife. KP/KL 370.5-KP/KL 372.0 • Salvage and redistribute coarse woody debris in suitable Page 6-147 Page 6-147 (Transfer Station WMC) habitat types for use by small mammals and other wildlife KP/KL 374.0-KP/KL 475.0 species as permitted by the appropriate authority. (Cottonwood WMC) • Use native plant species to maintain biodiversity, reduce weed KP/KL 380.0-KP/KL 381.5 cover and help create wildlife movement corridors as outlined in (Lower Miette and Whistlers the Restoration Plan. WMCs) KL 387.0-405.0 (Upper Miette WMC) KP/KL 394.3-KP/KL 395.5 (Clairvaux Creek WMC) MRPP KP/KL 405.6-KP/KL 410.0 (Yellowhead Pass WMC) KL 432.0-KL 434.0 (Moose River to Fraser River Lowlands WMC) KP/KL 446.0-KL/KP 450.0 (Red Pass-West Moose Lake WMC)

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.3 sensory disturbance of wildlife 9.3(a) general AB Project • Pipeline routing and scheduling of construction have • No residual effect identified. JNP Footprint / contributed substantially in the reduction of potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat in the following ways: MRPP Project Footprint to • the Proposed Route follows existing linear disturbances BC LSA for 99% of its length, thereby minimizing the amount of disturbance to wildlife; and • construction within Alberta and JNP is scheduled during frozen soil conditions when fewer wildlife species (e.g. migratory birds) are present in the LSA. • Educate the workforce by means of compulsory orientations, which will include bear safety information and environmental requirements, prior to starting work on the site (see Section 8.0 of this EA report). • Wildlife will not be harmed, harassed or fed. • Prohibit Project personnel from having pets or firearms while on

Page 6-148 Page 6-148 the construction site. • Prohibit the recreational use of all terrain vehicles and snowmobiles by construction personnel on the work site. • Establish construction traffic speed limits and posting speed limits on access roads to reduce the risk of collisions with wildlife (see also the Construction Traffic Management Plan in the EPP). • Work expeditiously to maintain a tight construction spread when working in important wildlife habitats (i.e., seasonal habitats such as winter ranges, rutting areas and lambing areas).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.3(b) sensory disturbance Wolf dens Project • Avoid drilling and blasting during rutting periods for elk and • Wildlife may be displaced during during key life-cycle JNP Footprint / bighorn sheep, and bighorn sheep lambing area. construction due to noise and visual stages KL 336.0-KL 337.6 LSA • Leave gaps in set-up and welded pipe, spoil piles and trench to disturbances. KL 339.0-KL 344.0 allow wildlife to cross the right-of-way. Locate gaps at obvious MRPP game trails. Coincide breaks in pipe with gaps in topsoil or root KL 406.0-KL 407.5 zone material, spoil, snow (if present) and rollback (if present) windrows. Bear dens • No construction disturbance to elk calving areas between No locations defined May 1-June 30. Bird nesting • No construction disturbance to bighorn sheep lambing areas Entire project area including between May 1-June 30 and bighorn sheep rutting areas from construction, access roads November 1-30. and facilities (AB, JNP, • Use multi-passenger vehicles to transport workers to the work MRPP and BC) site, to the extent practical, and convoy vehicles to minimize the Rutting number of passes by Windy Point (KP/KL 349.3-KP/KL 350.3). JNP • No construction disturbance to moose calving areas between KP/KL 342.0-KP/KL 351.0 May 1-June 30.

Page 6-149 Page 6-149 KP/KL 370.0-KP/KL 373.0 • Restrict construction activities within 200 m of active wolf dens Elk calving areas and rendezvous sites between March 15-June 15. JNP • Remove beaver dams only with approval from the appropriate KP/KL 329.0- KP/KL 358.0 authority and trapper. KP/KL 365.6-KP/KL 381.5 • See mitigation outlined for wetlands (Wildlife element 9.1(e)) for Moose calving areas aquatic mammal habitat protection. JNP • Restrict clearing and construction activities at Sucker Creek KL 331.0-KL 337.0 (KP/KL 371.9) from May 15-June 30 to minimize disturbance to KL 381.0-KL 388.0 harlequin duck pre-nesting staging area. KP/KL 391.0-KP/KL 405.6 • No clearing activities are to occur within the migratory bird Bighorn sheep lambing nesting period between May 1 - July 31 unless the area has areas been pre-logged, pre-brushed or pre-mowed. JNP KP/KL 342.0-KP/KL 351.0 KP/KL 370.0-KP/KL 373.0 Short-term food resource availability JNP KP/KL 371.9 (Sucker Creek - harlequin duck)

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.4 direct and indirect mortality 9.4(a) general AB Project • Report any incidents or collisions with wildlife to the • N/A JNP Footprint / Environmental Inspector, who will notify local wildlife authorities and the police as appropriate. MRPP Project Footprint to BC • Remove trapped animals from the trench at the start of each RSA day before conducting construction activities which may have the potential to harm an animal in the trench. • Remove shrub and tree vegetation and mow grass from the pipeline easement and temporary work space prior to the nesting season of forest birds. • Collect garbage daily in bear-proof containers and dispose of in approved locations. • Implement the Wildlife Encounter Contingency Plan located in the EPP in the event of an encounter with wildlife occurring during construction, either at the site or on the commute to and from the construction site.

Page 6-150 Page 6-150 9.4(b) wildlife-vehicle collisions AB Project • Do not use seed mixtures that will attract ungulates to • Wildlife mortality rates may increase along roads and Highway Drystone Creek Footprint to segments of the pipeline route areas that are adjacent to the during construction as a result of 16 during construction (KL 324.0-KL 325.6) LSA / RSA highway. wildlife-vehicle collisions. JNP • Use seed mixtures that will attract ungulates to segments of the Roche Miette pipeline route that are away from the highway and railway as (KL 336.0-KL 337.0) approved by the appropriate authority. Three Valley Confluence • Minimize construction vehicles traveling to and from worksite (KL/KP 370.5-KL/KP 381.0) (e.g., use multi-passenger vehicles to transport workers). See Miette Valley the Construction Traffic Management Plan outlined in the EPP. (KL 388.1-KL 391.5) Clairvaux Creek (KL/KP 394.3-KL/KP 395.5) MRPP Yellowhead Pass (KL/KP 406.0-KL/KP 407.5) Yellowhead Lake (KL/KP 408.7-KL/KP 414.9) Moose River (KL 431.5-KL 434.1)

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 9.4(c) potential for wildlife JNP LSA / RSA • In conjunction with Parks Canada, consult with CN Rail and • Wildlife mortality may increase as a displaced by construction KP/KL 366.0-KL 382.0 request that during pipeline construction, train speed be result of wildlife-train collisions. to use adjacent railway KP/KL 391.5-KP/KL 395.5 reduced along selected portions of the pipeline route adjacent to CN Rail (e.g., east of Jasper townsite and upper Miette River KL 404.0-KL 405.6 Valley) while elk and moose are on winter ranges adjacent to railway and pipeline route. • Use the results of the winter wildlife snow tracking survey to be conducted in January and February 2006 to locate temporary pipeline crossing sites and develop detailed plans to minimize displacement of ungulates off winter ranges onto the railway grade thus avoiding wildlife-train collisions. 9.4(d) increased predation JNP Project • Leave gaps in set-up and welded pipe, spoil piles and trench to • Wildlife mortality may increase as a potential on ungulates KL 336.2-KL 339.0 Footprint / allow wildlife to cross the right-of-way. Locate gaps at obvious result of increased predation. and small mammals KP/KL 344.0-KP/KL 345.7 LSA game trails. Coincide breaks in pipe with gaps in topsoil or root zone material, spoil, snow (if present) and rollback (if present) related to clearing (sight- KP/KL 355.5-KP/KL 357.6 line impacts) windrows. KP/KL 359.1-KP/KL 361.5 • Salvage and redistribute coarse woody debris for use by small KP/KL 367.0-KP/KL 369.1 mammals and other wildlife species and as a visual barrier for Page 6-151 Page 6-151 KP/KL 384.8-KP/KL 388.1 predators as permitted by the appropriate authority. KL 402.7-KL 405.6 • Plant shrubs to provide breaks in line of sight. MRPP KL 423.0-KL 424.4 KL 425.0-KL 426.5 KL 429.7-KL 430.8 KL/KP 463.0-KL/KP 466.5 10. SPECIES AT RISK 10.1 combined effects on bull AB Project • Bull trout were collected in 8 waterbodies crossed by the • •Short-term increase in suspended trout (VEC) JNP Footprint / Proposed Route in JNP and MRPP. solid concentration and habitat alteration within the zone-of- MRPP LSA • See Fish and Fish Habitat element 6.8. influence at High Risk crossings and increased mortality from recreational harvest. 10.2 disturbance to boreal ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. moonwort (Botrychium by TERA/Westland. No boreal moonwort were identified (see boreale) (VEC) Vegetation element 8.4). 10.3 disturbance to Canada ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. anemone (Anemone by TERA/Westland. No Canada anemone were identified (see canadensis) (VEC) Vegetation element 8.5). 10.4 disturbance to purple------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. leaved willowherb by TERA/Westland. No purple-leaved willowherb were (Epilobium ciliatum ssp. identified (see Vegetation element 8.6). watsonii) (VEC) 10.5 disturbance to meadow ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. willow (Salix petiolaris) by TERA/Westland. No meadow willow were identified (see (VEC) Vegetation element 8.7).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 10.6 disturbance to Haller's ------• Vegetation surveys were undertaken along the Proposed Route • No residual effect identified. apple moss (Bartramia by TERA/Westland. No Haller's apple moss were identified (see halleriana) (VEC) Vegetation element 8.8). 10.7 disturbance to western AB Project • A wildlife survey was undertaken along the Proposed Route by • Alteration of wetland habitat as well (boreal) toad (Bufo JNP Footprint / TERA/Westland. Western (boreal) toads were identified in as sensory disturbance and potential numerous wetlands along segments of the route in Alberta, mortality during construction if boreas) (VEC) MRPP Project Footprint to JNP and MRPP. mitigative measures cannot protect LSA • Install or maintain trench plugs across open trench near some western toads. wetlands to allow the cross-ditch movement of western toads. • Prior to summer construction activity at locations where the Project Footprint is adjacent to a wetland used by western toads, the Environmental Inspector is to conduct a sweep of the Project Footprint for this VEC. If found, the Environmental Inspector will move the western toad off the Project Footprint to nearby forested habitat. 10.8 disturbance to mountain ------• The wildlife survey undertaken along the Proposed Route by • No residual effect identified. caribou (Rangifer TERA/Westland determined that no mountain caribou ranges tarandus caribou) (VEC) are located within the LSA and, consequently, caribou habitat Page 6-152 Page 6-152 will not be traversed by the Proposed Route. 10.9 disturbance to wolverine AB Project • Use the results of the winter wildlife snow tracking survey to be • Potential change in movements and (Gulo gulo) (VEC) JNP Footprint / conducted in January and February 2006 to develop site- displacement of wolverines during KP/KL 380.0 to KPKL 406 Project specific mitigation for wolverine, if warranted. construction. MRPP Footprint to • Implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Contingency Plan LSA KP/KL 437.0 outlined in the EPP in the event that wolverine is encountered BC during construction. The plan will address measures to be undertaken by the Environmental Inspector including notifying applicable regulatory agencies and determining appropriate mitigative measures in consultation with the appropriate authority.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 10.10 combined effects on AB Project • Pipeline has been aligned along valley bottoms and outside of • Alteration of habitat, potential grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) JNP Footprint / grizzly bear denning areas located high above the valley floor. displacement and mortality of grizzly (VEC) Project bear during construction. MRPP • Discourage bears from foraging along or near the pipeline Footprint to BC easement in areas near transportation corridors or high human LSA activity through regeneration or revegetation of less palatable natural vegetation (see Restoration Plan). • Minimize the clearing of vegetation adjacent to transportation corridors to the extent feasible and replant disturbed areas with natural shrub species to speed up the recovery of potential security cover to improve bear movement across the valley bottom and among habitats. • Late fall and winter construction schedule will reduce the likelihood of displacing bears along Alberta and most of the JNP segments. • Other measures to minimize the potential for displacement during construction include limit the duration and amount of human movement to and from job sites to the extent feasible.

Page 6-153 Page 6-153 • Include bear awareness and safety training in the environmental education program, develop a bear response plan, and consider the availability and use of bear detection and deterrent systems (see Section 8.0 of this EA report) to minimize human-bear conflicts. • Implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP in the event that grizzly bear are encountered during construction. The plan will address measures to be undertaken by the Environmental Inspector including notifying applicable regulatory agencies and determining appropriate mitigative measures in consultation with the appropriate authority. 11. HERITAGE RESOURCES (VEC) 11.1 disturbance of identified AB Project • The Project follows existing linear disturbances such as the • No residual effect identified. heritage resource sites Footprint / Trans Mountain pipeline, existing ATCO gas pipeline, during construction in AB Project powerline, and fibre optics cable, thereby minimizing the Footprint to potential for encountering heritage resources. LSA • An Historical Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) was undertaken by R&W Archaeological Consulting Ltd. (2005a) along lands within Alberta outside of JNP. All 104 shovel tests and 6 deep tests proved negative for cultural materials. No further work was recommended for this portion of the Project.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 11.2 disturbance of identified JNP Project • The Project follows existing linear disturbances such as the • Identified surface and buried sites surface heritage resource (see locations in Table 6.17) Footprint / Trans Mountain pipeline, existing ATCO gas pipeline, within JNP will be disturbed during sites during construction Project powerline, and fibre optics cable to the extent feasible, thereby construction. in JNP Footprint to minimizing the potential for encountering heritage resources. LSA • An Archaeological Assessment was undertaken by R&W Archaeological Consulting Ltd. (2005b) along Project lands within JNP. Heritage resources were identified at 38 sites within the Project Footprint (see Table 6.17). No further work was identified at eight locations. • Verify site in proximity to the Project Footprint to determine whether site requires the recommended mitigation as indicated on Table 6.17). • Where appropriate, avoid identified heritage sites to the extent practical through utilizing existing disturbance, and/or fencing off the site. • Avoid Site 2206R at KL 331.2 by routing pipeline around site. • Avoid Site 1984R from KL 405.5 to KP/KL 406 by routing the

Page 6-154 Page 6-154 pipeline adjacent to the southern boundary of the existing pipeline alignment. • Avoid Site 1183R at KL 402.5 by rerouting around site and monitor this site during construction activities. • Compensate for disturbance of identified surface heritage sites by sketching, photographing, core sampling, collecting representative sample and/or mapping in accordance with Parks Canada protocols (see Table 6.17). • Compensate for disturbance of buried heritage sites by undertaking a Stage 1 mitigative excavation in accordance with Parks Canada protocols (see Table 6.17).

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 11.3 disturbance of identified MRPP Project • The Project follows existing linear disturbances such as the • Identified surface site at KL 458.3 surface heritage resource BC Footprint / Trans Mountain pipeline and old rail beds, thereby minimizing within MRPP may be disturbed sites during construction Project the potential for encountering heritage resources. during construction if a trenched in MRPP/BC Footprint to • An Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) was undertaken crossing of the Fraser River is LSA by Madrone Environmental Services Ltd. (2005) along lands utilized. within MRPP and BC. No evidence of past land use and occupation of the area by First Nations people was found neither was evidence of archaeological features or sites that might fall under the protective measures of the BC Heritage Conservation Act. • Three incidences of cultural modified trees (CMT) features were recorded within or in close proximity to the Project Footprint. However, none of these features pre-date the year 1846, as required for automatic protection under the Act. No mitigation is required for CMTs. • Avoid the poorly preserved remains of the pre-Second World War historic cabins located at KL 458.0. If avoidance is not feasible, develop a site-specific mitigation plan to conserve the Page 6-155 Page 6-155 site. • 11.4 disturbance of previously AB Project • Implement the Heritage Resources Discovery Contingency Plan • Previously unidentified buried unidentified heritage JNP Footprint / located in the EPP in the event that previously unidentified heritage resources may be disturbed archaeological or historical finds are discovered during during construction. resource sites during MRPP Project construction Footprint construction activities. BC • Suspend work at that location and notify appropriate regulatory agencies. • Resume work once permission has been granted from the appropriate regulatory agencies. 11.5 crossing of a Canadian MRPP Project • Two rivers crossed by the Proposed Route have been • No residual effect identified. Heritage River KL 458.1 Footprint / designated as Canadian Heritage Rivers, namely the LSA Athabasca River in JNP and the Fraser River in MRPP. The proposed crossing of the Athabasca River at KL 377.3 does not lie within the reach of the river designated as a heritage river. • Pipeline routing criteria applied to the Project included minimizing the number Fraser River crossings. There are four fewer crossings of the Fraser River along the Proposed Route as compared to the Existing Route. • Utilize a trenchless crossing technique on the Fraser River at KL 458.1, if feasible, to minimize disturbance of riparian and fish habitat as well as to avoid disruption of recreational activity on the river and minimize the effect on aesthetic values near this location.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 11.6 disturbance of AB Project • A palaeontological investigation of the Proposed Route was • Monitoring and collection of samples palaeontological JNP Footprint / undertaken by L.V. Hills (2005). Fossils were observed in the during construction will contribute to resources Project bedrock between KP/KL349 and KP/KL 351. However, no the palaeontological knowledge of MRPP Footprint fossils were found that require removal prior to construction. the area. BC • Undertake palaeontological work in MRPP from KP/KL 412 to KP/KL 416 and from KP/KL 436 to KP/KL 441 (see Section 9.0 of this EA report). • Monitor trenching activities from KP/KL 312 to KP/KL 318 to assess the palaeontological potential. Palaeontologist to collect samples where warranted. • Monitor trenching activities from KP/KL 349 to KP/KL 351. Palaeontologist to collect large samples for future lithological and palaeontological analysis as well as to collect macrofossils from the talus created by road and pipeline construction. 12. TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE 12.1 general ------• A traditional land and resource use study was conducted for the • N/A Project by TERA/Westland (2005c). Each affected Aboriginal Page 6-156 Page 6-156 group provided input into the study, reviewed the report and approved of the content of the report. 12.2 Aseniwuche Winewak KP/KL 310-KP/KL 468 --- • N/A • N/A Nation (AWN) of Canada 12.2(a) potential disturbance of AB Project • Route pipeline to follow existing disturbed linear features, such • Vegetation traditionally used by medicinal plants and JNP Footprint / as roads, railways, or existing pipelines to minimize disturbance AWN may be altered. berries LSA to vegetation. MRPP BC • Revegetate alignment using native species. See also Vegetation element 8.13. 12.2(b) potential disturbance of AB Project • Route pipeline to avoid wetland habitat that support important • Minor alteration of wetland habitat wetland habitat supporting JNP Footprint / plants and moose populations. function. moose MRPP LSA • See also Wetlands element 7.1. BC 12.2(c) potential disturbance of AB Project • No historic settlements, encampments or ceremonial sites were • No residual effect identified. historic settlements, JNP Footprint / identified within the Project Footprint. encampments or LSA MRPP • In the event any cultural or historical site is discovered on the ceremonial sites BC Proposed Route, notify the AWN, protect the site and conduct an assessment of cultural and historical interests by a government agency or person qualified under a Historical Resource Permit. See also Heritage Resources element 11.4. 12.3 Nakcowinewak Nation of KP/KL 310-KP/KL 467 --- • N/A • N/A Canada 12.3(a) potential disturbance of AB Project • Route pipeline to follow existing disturbed linear features, such • Vegetation traditionally used by medicinal plants and JNP Footprint / as roads, railways, or existing pipelines to minimize disturbance Nakcowinewak may be altered. to vegetation. berries MRPP LSA BC • Revegetate alignment using native species. See also Vegetation element 8.13.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 12.3(b) potential disturbance of AB Project • Route pipeline to avoid wetland habitats that support plant and • Minor alteration of wetland habitat wetland habitat JNP Footprint / animal species deemed by the Nakcowinewak as being of function. LSA higher value than upland species. MRPP BC • See also Wetlands element 7.1. 12.3(c) potential disruption of AB LSA / LSA • Notify the Nakcowinewak of the proposed construction • Nakcowinewak members may hunting schedule prior to commencement of Project activities. experience some minor disturbance • Compensate land users for any demonstrated economic loss of their deer hunting activities during associated with Project activities. construction. 12.4 Simpcw First Nation KP/KL 325-KP/KL 468 --- • N/A • N/A 12.4(a) potential disturbance of JNP Project • Route pipeline to follow existing disturbed linear features, such • Vegetation traditionally used by plants used for trade, MRPP Footprint / as roads, railways, or existing pipelines to minimize disturbance Simpcw may be altered. to vegetation. medicinal purposes and BC LSA gathering • Revegetate alignment using native species. See also Vegetation element 8.13. 12.4(b) potential disruption of MRPP LSA / LSA • Simpcw representatives have negotiated a right to hunt moose • Simpcw members may experience hunting BC and elk in MRPP. These species are also hunted in the LSA some minor disturbance of their

Page 6-157 Page 6-157 outside of the parks, along with sheep, goats, and caribou. hunting activities during • Notify the Simpcw of the proposed construction schedule prior construction. to commencement of Project activities. • Compensate land users for any demonstrated economic loss associated with Project activities. 12.4(c) potential visual JNP LSA / LSA • Route pipeline to follow existing linear disturbances thereby • An incremental increase in alteration concerns in LSA MRPP minimizing effects to existing viewsheds. of the existing viewshed attributed to the Project. BC • Minimize effects on existing viewsheds by extending road bores where feasible (see Human Occupancy and Resource Use element 13.3), and through restoration of the alignment. • Viewshed modelling of ten observer viewpoints in JNP and MRPP was conducted by TERA/Westland (2005e). Alterations to the existing viewsheds at all locations were subtle and will reduce visual quality (see Human Occupancy and Resource Use element 13.3 and Section 6.2.13 of this EA report). 12.4(d) potential alteration JNP LSA / LSA • Protect water quality and quantity by appropriate siting and • Minor reduction in surface quality of water quality and riparian MRPP stream crossing techniques, and by diligent leak detection some waterbodies during vegetation during pipeline operation. construction. BC • See measures identified under Water Quality and Quantity element 3, Fish and Fish Habitat element 6, Wetlands element 7, and Accidents and Malfunctions element 18. 12.4(e) potential access to JNP LSA / LSA • Pipeline has been aligned to follow existing disturbances for • No residual effect identified. Aboriginal sites MRPP approximately 99% of its length. Consequently, the Project does not alter present accessibility to lands along the route. BC

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 12.5 potential employment or ------• Terasen Pipelines has entered into agreements with Aboriginal • See Section 6.2.17.1 Employment economic opportunities groups to facilitate their involvement in project planning and and Economy. assessment. • The involved Aboriginal groups have expressed an interest in gaining economic benefits for their communities through involvement in major projects. Terasen Pipelines supports aboriginal economic development initiatives and has entered into agreements with Aboriginal groups. • Terasen Pipelines is committed to a procurement program that actively promotes local opportunity and targeting, in part, of Aboriginal businesses. • See also Aboriginal Engagement under Section 4.0 of this EA report. 13. HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE

13.1 resource use 13.1(a) disruption of grazing AB Project • Provide advanced notification of route, site locations and • Minor disruption of grazing activities Page 6-158 Page 6-158 activities during BC Footprint / construction schedule to all affected landowners. This will may occur during construction. construction Project provide an opportunity to relocate livestock to pastures away Footprint to from the route prior to construction, if warranted. If alternative LSA pastures are not available and livestock cannot be moved, keep all gates to the pastures and grazing areas closed. In the event that the pipeline trench separates the livestock from their water supply, leave or install trench plugs in the trench. If the livestock are reluctant to cross the trench, make arrangements to provide a temporary water supply (trucked in water and troughs) in the area of the pasture where the livestock are located. Leave gaps in the trench and strung pipe, where requested by landowners, to allow farm equipment to cross the right-of-way. • Compensate ranchers for property damage incurred during construction. • Employ standard weed control measures such as cleaning of equipment of dirt and vegetative debris prior to arrival on the right-of-way. • Properly brace fences prior to cutting to minimize damage during construction. Repair fences and replace temporary gates with permanent fences or gates of equal or better quality, unless otherwise requested by the landowner.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 13.1(b) disruption forestry and AB Project • Notify the holder of the Forest Management Agreement, the • No residual effect identified. other natural resources BC Footprint / holder of forest rights in the BC Timber Supply Area and all extraction and industrial Project other permit holders prior to construction. use during construction Footprint to • Coordinate the recovery of salvageable wood removed for the LSA Project with the appropriate regulatory agencies and local forest company. • Notify all energy companies with dispositions crossed by the route prior to construction and provide Project route maps and construction schedules. • Notify mineral tenure, coal lease, and aggregate tenure holders prior to pipeline construction and provide Project route maps and construction schedules. 13.1(c) disruption of hunting AB Project • Notify local trappers and guide outfitters of the Project and • Local trappers and guide outfitters and trapping activities BC Footprint to construction schedule prior to commencement of Project may experience some minor during construction RSA/ Project activities. disturbance of their activities during Footprint to • Compensate land users for any demonstrated economic loss construction. RSA associated with Project activities.

Page 6-159 Page 6-159 • Ensure that Project personnel are aware that trapped animals and trapper equipment are not to be disturbed. 13.1(d) interference with AB Project • Schedule construction activities at watercourses during fall and • The navigability of some navigation on JNP Footprint to winter, where feasible. watercourses along the Proposed Route may be affected during watercourses (VEC) MRPP LSA / Project • Obtain approval prior to construction from Transport Canada - Footprint to Navigable Waters for those watercourses crossed along the construction. LSA Proposed Route deemed navigable by Transport Canada - Navigable Waters. A letter to Transport Canada - Navigable Waters requesting determination of navigable waters has been submitted. • Follow conditions of the Navigable Waters Approval, and at a minimum, implement the following measures: • Notify recreational boaters on the navigable watercourses of construction; • Place warning signs up and downstream of the crossing. Signs are to be legible at a distance of 50 m; and • Where warranted, place signs at boat launches, place notices in local and regional newspapers and on radio programs, place lights on banks and assign picket boats with bull horns. • The navigability of watercourses along the Proposed Route will not be affected by the Project during operations since the pipeline will be buried under the watercourse and all temporary bridges used during construction will be removed.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 13.1(e) alteration of surface AB Project • A search of water licenses and points of diversion along • No residual effect identified. water supply and quality JNP Footprint to watercourses crossed by the Proposed Route was undertaken for downstream water LSA / Project by TERA/Westland (2005d). Based on this search, downstream MRPP users Footprint to water supply and quality are not expected to be affected by BC LSA construction or operation of the pipeline. Mount Robson Ranch’s diversion of water from Cochrane Creek (KP/KL 466.4) upstream of the Proposed Route will not be affected by Project activities. • No water licenses have been issued within 1 km of the identified hydrostatic testing water withdrawal locations. Withdrawal rates will be determined by the appropriate authority and are not expected to exceed 10% of streamflow at the time of withdrawal. 13.1(f) alteration of well water JNP Project • Normal pipeline construction methods (i.e., trenching) are not • See Water Quality and Quantity flow and quality Footprint anticipated to affect any water wells identified in the vicinity of element 3.5. the Project Footprint. • Monitor all registered or known water wells within 200 m of any blasting before and after the proposed blasting. See also Water Page 6-160 Page 6-160 Quality and Quantity element 3.5. 13.2 human occupancy 13.2(a) public safety during AB Project • Near populated areas (e.g., residences, warden stations, • No residual effect identified. construction JNP Footprint to Pocahontas Bungalows, Municipality of Jasper, Pine Bungalows, Mount Robson Ranch), place signs on the right-of- MRPP LSA / Project Footprint to way to notify the public of construction activities. BC LSA • Provide the construction schedule to the public through newspapers, TV, radio, and a website. • Protect public safety near populated areas by controlling public access (24-hr security) to the work area and the installing fencing around the perimeter of excavations in accordance with provincial and NEB safety procedures. • Follow measures outlined in the Construction Traffic Contingency Plan of the EPP, and the Public Traffic Management Plan to be developed by the contractor. • No blasting is anticipated near populated areas. Where blasting may occur near Highway 16, see Infrastructure and Services element 16.1(a). 13.2(b) proposed Cougar Rock AB Project • Engage in discussions with representatives of Cougar Rock • No residual effect identified. Resort KP/KL 311.3-KP/KL 312.4 Footprint / Resort to identify and resolve any potential incompatibilities LSA between the two projects. 13.3 potential alterations to existing viewsheds (VEC) 13.3(a) general JNP Project • Viewshed modelling of ten observer viewpoints in JNP and • N/A MRPP Footprint to MRPP based on methods adapted from BC Ministry of Forests RSA / Project was conducted by TERA/Westland (2005e). Footprint to RSA

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 13.3(b) straight stretches along JNP Project • N/A • An incremental increase in alteration Highway 16 (OV1) KL 331.4 Footprint to of the existing viewshed attributed to RSA / Project the Project along selected straight Footprint to stretches of Highway 16 in JNP and RSA MRPP will occur. 13.3(c) Highway 16 between JNP Project • Factors mitigating the visual effects of the existing pipeline and • An incremental increase in alteration Edna and Talbot Lakes ~KP/KL 348.5 Footprint to road disturbances on the north side of the Athabasca River of the existing viewshed attributed to (OV2) RSA / Project valley include: the Project at Windy Point Footprint to • the disturbed areas are over 2 km north of the observation (KP/KL 349.3 to KP/KL 350.3) and RSA viewpoint in a landscape that has a high visual absorption KP/KL 347.9 will occur. capability (VAC); • there are a lack of developed viewpoints, recreation sites, or hiking trails along the south side of the valley from which the disturbed sites would be easily visible; and • most traffic at this location travels at or slightly above the posted speed limit. • Implement site-specific restoration measures at Windy Point

Page 6-161 Page 6-161 (KP/KL 349.3 to KP/KL 350.3) and Celestine Lake Road at KP/KL 347.9 to minimize affects to the viewshed as outlined in the Restoration Plan. • Consider using a biodegradable paint on the rock cut along the Proposed Route at Windy Point and KP/KL 347.9 to reduce visibility of the pipeline from Highway 16. 13.3(d) Old Fort Point Trail JNP Project • Factors mitigating the visual effects of the Project as viewed • An incremental increase in alteration (OV3) ~KP/KL 377.5 Footprint to from the south side of the Athabasca River include: of the existing viewshed from the RSA / Project • the areas of the viewshed affected by the Project are Old Fort Trail in JNP attributed to the Footprint to currently dominated by the Jasper townsite, a light Project will occur. RSA industrial area and major highway and railway transportation features; and • a high VAC within the existing visually affected areas. 13.3(e) Jasper Tramway JNP Project • Factors mitigating the visual effects of the Project as viewed • An incremental increase in alteration (upper terminal) (OV4) ~KL 382.0 Footprint to from the northwest side of the Miette River valley include: of the existing viewshed from the RSA / Project • the disturbed areas associated with the Project are located Jasper Tramway (upper terminal) Footprint to in a landscape with a high VAC; and attributed to the Project will occur. RSA • the existing view of the Jasper townsite is complex and occurs in a natural-looking landscape. 13.3(f) Highway 16 near JNP Project • The visual effects of the Project as viewed from the north side • An incremental increase in alteration Meadow Creek (OV5) KL 390.3 Footprint to of the Miette River valley will be mitigated by the high speed of of the existing viewshed from LSA / Project most traffic on Highway 16 at this location. Highway 16 near Meadow Creek Footprint to (KL 390.3) attributed to the Project LSA will occur.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 13.3(g) Highway 16 near Miette JNP Project • Factors mitigating the visual effects of the Project as viewed • An incremental increase in alteration River wetlands (OV6) ~KP/KL 392.6 Footprint to from the north side of the Miette River valley include: of the existing viewshed that LSA / Project • most traffic on Highway 16 at this location travels at high includes the Miette River wetlands Footprint to speeds and there are no formal pullouts or viewpoints; (KP/KL 392.6) from Highway 16 attributed to the Project will occur. LSA • the highway is elevationally and topographically separated from the center and south portions of the valley, consequently, viewing new disturbances would be difficult; and • no trees will be cleared at the site. • Follow measures outlined in the Restoration Plan to promote regeneration of vegetation in the wetlands. 13.3(h) Highway 16 west of JNP Project • Factors mitigating the visual effects of the Project as viewed • An incremental increase in alteration Clairvaux Creek (OV7) ~KL 396.4 Footprint to from the north side of the Miette River valley include: of the existing viewshed from LSA / Project • most traffic on Highway 16 at this location travels at high Highway 16 west of Clairvaux Creek Footprint to speeds; (KL 396.4) attributed to the Project will occur. LSA • a high VAC in the existing visually affected areas; and • existing vegetation screens much of the Proposed Route. Page 6-162 Page 6-162 13.3(i) pipeline crossing of MRPP Project • Factors mitigating the visual effects of the Project on the • Without mitigation, an incremental Highway 16 west of KL 407.4 Footprint to viewshed include: increase in alteration of the existing Yellowhead Pass (OV8) LSA / Project • most traffic on Highway 16 at this location travels at high viewshed at KL 407.4 attributed to Footprint to speeds and there are no formal pullouts or viewpoints. the Project will occur. LSA • Extend the length of the bore crossing of Highway 16 to leave a • With mitigation, no change in the buffer of mature forest intact to fully mitigate affects to the existing visual quality will occur. viewshed, if feasible. 13.3(j) Highway 16 crossing of MRPP Project • Factors mitigating the visual effects of the Project on the • An incremental increase in alteration the Fraser River (OV9) ~KL 422.5 Footprint to viewshed include: of the existing viewshed from LSA / Project • most traffic on Highway 16 at this location travels at high Highway 16 crossing of the Fraser Footprint to speeds and there are no formal pullouts or viewpoints; and River to ~KL 422.5 attributed to the Project will occur. LSA • the foreground views along the river corridor have a moderate VAC due to the Proposed Route being located on the opposite side of the railway and at right angles from potential viewers.

13.3(k) Highway 16 near MRPP Project • Factors mitigating the visual effects of the Project on the • An incremental increase in alteration KL 424.8 (OV10) ~KL 424.8 Footprint to viewshed include: of the existing viewshed from LSA / Project • most traffic on Highway 16 at this location travels at high Highway 16 near KL 424.8 attributed Footprint to speeds and there are no formal pullouts or viewpoints; and to the Project will occur. LSA • the foreground views along the highway corridor have a moderate VAC due to the Proposed Route being located on the opposite side of the railway and at oblique angles from potential viewers.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 13.4 tourism and recreation 13.4(a) potential alteration of AB Project • Avoid clearing and construction activities in high use areas • A decrease in the quality of the wilderness experience JNP Footprint to such as trails, campgrounds, and accommodation facilities wilderness experience will occur (VEC) RSA / Project during the peak summer season to reduce the level of visitor during construction. MRPP Footprint to disturbance, where feasible. RSA • Schedule construction in JNP during fall and winter outside of the peak tourist season. • Minimize the amount of Project-related traffic on Highway 16 to the extent practical (see also Infrastructure and Services element 16.1(b)). • Work as expeditiously as practical to minimize inconvenience to tourists. 13.4(b) potential auditory and JNP Project • Schedule clearing and construction activities outside of the • Some tourism accommodations may visual disturbances to Pocahontas Bungalows Footprint to summer peak tourist season in JNP to minimize the effects of experience temporary noise or some existing tourism KL 332.8 LSA / Project nuisance dust, noise and visual disturbance to guests of visual disturbances during accommodations during Jasper Footprint to existing tourism accommodations, where feasible. construction. clearing and construction KP/KL 375.5-KP/KL 379.5 LSA • Consult with the owners of affected accommodation facilities to Page 6-163 Page 6-163 periods Pine Bungalows determine and resolve any potential concerns associated with KP/KL 375.5 clearing and construction activities. BC Mount Robson Ranch KP/KL 466.4 13.4(c) potential disruption of JNP Project • Clearing and construction activities are scheduled to • No residual effect identified. summer recreational KP/KL 341-KP/KL 358 Footprint to commence in October and extend through early March along activity served by the LSA / Project the portion of the Proposed Route along or near the Celestine Celestine Lake Road Footprint to Lake Road at a time when the road is closed to the public LSA (October to May). 13.4(d) potential alteration of JNP LSA / LSA • Schedule construction activities near Jasper outside of the • A decrease in the quality of the hiking experience during KP/KL 372-KP/KL 375.5 summer peak tourist season to minimize sensory impacts to hiking experience on day trails in the construction in JNP day hikers on trails near Jasper such as: vicinity of the Jasper town site may • Cottonwood trail; occur during construction. • Pyramid Lake Loop; • Riley Lake Loop; • Lake Annette Loop; and • other unnamed trails. 13.4(e) potential disruption of JNP Project • Schedule clearing or construction activities outside of the • Use of some trails in JNP may be hiking trail use in JNP Pocahontas Loop Footprint / summer peak tourist season to minimize impacts to hikers on temporarily disrupted during KL 332.7 Project trails, where feasible. construction. Vine Creek trailhead Footprint to • Notify Parks Canada of any potential temporary trail closures KP/KL 351.4 RSA and install signs at trailheads notifying users of construction Miette River Route activities and potential temporary trail closure. KP/KL 405.4 • Restore disturbed trails to their pre-construction condition. Decoigne Road KL 400-KL 402

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 13.4(f) potential alteration of MRPP LSA / LSA • Schedule construction activities outside of the summer peak • A decrease in the quality of the hiking experience during Yellowhead Lake Trail tourist season, where feasible, to minimize sensory impacts to hiking experience on selected trails construction in MRPP KP/KL 415 hikers on trails. within MRPP may occur during Labrador Tea Trail • Notify BC Parks of construction schedule, erect signs near trail construction. KP/KL 415 heads, and notify staff at the MRPP Visitor Centre that affected Overlander Falls Trail trails will be closed during construction. KP/KL 412.8 13.4(g) potential disruption of MRPP Project • Schedule construction activities outside of the summer peak • Use of some trails in MRPP will be hiking trail use in MRPP Mount Fitzwilliam Trail Footprint / tourist season to minimize impacts to hikers on trails, where temporarily disrupted during KP/KL 411.5-KP/KL 412.8 Project feasible. construction. Moose River Route Footprint to • Notify BC Parks of construction schedule and trail closures, KP/KL 434 RSA erect signs near trail heads, and notify staff at the MRPP Visitor Centre that affected trails will be closed during construction. • Restore disturbed trails to their pre-construction condition. 13.4(h) potential alteration of MRPP LSA / LSA • Schedule construction activities outside of the summer peak • A decrease in the quality of the fishing experience during Yellowhead Lake tourist season to minimize sensory impacts to recreational fishing experience on selected construction in MRPP KP/KL 409.5-KP/KL 415.7 fishing, where feasible. waterbodies within MRPP may occur

Page 6-164 Page 6-164 Whitney Lake • Provide BC MOE with proposed construction schedule and during construction. KP/KL 413.3-KP/KL 413.9 Project route maps and install signs at access points to the Fraser River waterbody notifying water users of construction activities in the KP 417.4-KP 437 vicinity. Moose Lake KP/KL 436.9-KP/KL 448.7 Ghita Creek KP/KL 420.5 Grant Brook Creek KP 428.8 Moose River KP/KL 433.3 13.4(i) potential alteration of MRPP LSA / LSA • Schedule construction activities outside of the summer peak • A decrease in the quality of kayaking, canoeing and KP/KL 417-KP/KL 436 tourist season to minimize sensory impacts to water users, kayaking, canoeing or rafting rafting experiences during KP/KL 449-KP/KL 464 where feasible. experiences on selected waterbodies within MRPP may occur construction in MRPP KP/KL 468 • Provide BC MOE with proposed construction schedule and Project route maps and install signs at access points to the during construction. waterbody notifying water users of construction activities in the vicinity. • Follow the Navigable Waters Approval conditions on applicable waterbodies to alert water users of construction activities. 13.4(j) potential alteration of JNP LSA / LSA • Schedule construction activities in fall to minimize sensory • A decrease in the quality of skiing cross country skiing KP/KL 371-KP/KL 377 impacts to recreational skiers on the Old Fort Point/Athabasca experiences on selected trails in experience during River trail, the Lake Annette ski loop, and Lac Beauvert. JNP may occur during construction. construction in JNP • Provide Parks Canada and Jasper residents with proposed construction schedule and Project route maps and erect signs if skiing may be affected by construction.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 13.4(k) potential alteration JNP Project • Prior to construction, place notices in local newspapers • Winter recreational use of selected and/or disruption of winter Pocahontas Loop Trail Footprint to announcing the Project location and construction schedule. trail and local roads in JNP will be recreational activities KP/KL 332.8 LSA / Project • Notify Parks Canada of closure of these trails or local roads and closed during construction. during construction in JNP Celestine Lake Road Footprint to install signs at access points notifying users of construction KP/KL 360-KP/KL 363 LSA activities and temporary closure of trail or road. Near Snaring Campground • Provide Parks Canada and Jasper residents with proposed KP/KL 366 construction schedule and Project route maps. Wynd Road KL 379-KP/KL 383 Pipeline trailt KP/KL 383-KP/KL 388 13.4(l) potential disruption of MRPP LSA / LSA • Use signage to inform travelers of the presence of heavy • Select roadside pull-outs along roadside pull-outs along KP 410.7 machinery and long truck loads at select roadside pull-outs and Highway 16 in MRPP will be closed Highway 16 KP 412 that pull-outs may be closed. during construction. KP/KL 457 14. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING

Page 6-165 Page 6-165 14.1 influx of temporary JNP LSA to RSA / • Liaise with hotel associations and Parks Canada to provide • The construction of the Project will construction workers MRPP LSA to RSA updates on the numbers of workers requiring accommodation, result in a temporary increase in the and their scheduled arrival and departure. local community population. 15. HUMAN HEALTH 15.1 nuisance air emissions AB Project • See Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality element 4.2. • See Greenhouse Gases and Air (e.g., vehicle exhaust, JNP Footprint to Quality element 4.2. dust, smoke) MRPP LSA / Project Footprint to BC LSA 15.2 nuisance noise emissions AB Project • See Acoustic Environment element 5.1 and 5.2. • See Acoustic Environment element JNP Footprint to 5.1 and 5.2. MRPP LSA / Project Footprint to BC LSA 15.3 public safety AB Project • See Human Occupancy and Resource Use element 13.2(a). • See Human Occupancy and JNP Footprint / Resource Use element 13.2(a). MRPP Project Footprint to BC LSA

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 16. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 16.1 infrastructure 16.1(a) disruption to traffic AB LSA / LSA to • Project construction activities in JNP are scheduled outside of • Traffic along Highway 16 will be movement patterns on JNP RSA the summer peak visitor season to limit the disruption to traffic temporarily affected by construction Highway 16 during on Highway 16. activities. MRPP construction BC • Schedule clearing and construction activities adjacent to the highway to avoid peak traffic movement periods, where feasible. • Prepare a traffic management plan to reduce traffic impacts on highways and residential areas near Project access points. • Prior to construction, place notices in local and regional newspapers announcing the Project location and construction schedule. • Use website, radio and TV announcements, or roadside signs to inform travelers of roadside work. • Place signs on Highway 16, and particularly at entrances to

Page 6-166 Page 6-166 JNP and MRPP to notify the public of construction activities, the presence of heavy machinery, trucks with long loads, and potential brief traffic delays, as warranted. • Provide labour, equipment, and pipe delivery traffic scheduling information to the appropriate authority along the Proposed Route. • Coordinate with local authorities to address any law enforcement or public safety concerns. • Control traffic on Highway 16 within the fly rock zone if blasting occurs as per the Public Traffic Management Plan. 16.1(b) transportation of AB LSA to RSA / • Transport materials used during construction via rail to the • Increase in traffic on Highway 16 workers and supplies JNP LSA to RSA extent feasible to minimize the number of heavy vehicles on and other access routes will occur major access routes in the LSA (i.e., Highway 16). during construction. MRPP BC • Transport workers between the construction camps and muster areas to work-sites by multi-passenger vehicles to the extent practical. • All Project-related vehicles to follow applicable traffic, road-use and safety laws. • Follow the Construction Traffic Management Plan outlined in the EPP to manage vehicular movements during construction.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 16.1(c) future widening of JNP LSA / LSA to • Parks Canada is considering a potential upgrade of Highway 16 • No residual effect identified. Highway 16 within JNP RSA through the JNP from two to four lanes in the future. Terasen Pipelines commissioned a Jasper Highway Twinning Concept Planning Study (UMA Engineering Ltd. 2005) to identify areas where Highway 16 road improvements and potential widening is likely to occur in JNP. • Pipeline route selection and design has taken into consideration potential widening/twinning of Highway 16 • The Project is not anticipated to increase costs for Parks Canada for routine road infrastructure maintenance. 16.1(d) disruption to AB LSA / LSA • Locate and flag all known foreign lines and cables by using • See Accidents and Malfunctions transmission lines and JNP “one call” services or direct contact with utility owners. 18.3. pipelines MRPP • Carefully expose all known locations of underground facilities in BC accordance with prescribed, safe methods. • Use flagging and signage at overhead line crossings to alert equipment operators of hazards. 16.1(e) construction along rail JNP LSA / LSA to • Provide CN Rail with key Project contacts, route maps and • No residual effect identified. Page 6-167 Page 6-167 line MRPP RSA schedule, and maintain close communications with CN Rail operations personnel during construction. BC • Adhere to the Railway Management Plan guidelines outlined in the EPP for undertaking activities and for worker safety when constructing in proximity to the CN Rail line. • Disruption of rail service due to Project activities is not anticipated. 16.1(f) waste management AB RSA / RSA • Collect waste from work site on a daily basis to avoid the • Temporary increase in waste flow to during construction JNP attraction of nuisance animals. Waste containers shall regional landfill and transfer station accompany each working unit. Do not dispose waste in the sites will occur. MRPP trench. BC • Store all garbage in bear-proof containers. • Transport and dispose all wastes in accordance with provincial and federal regulatory requirements and local guidelines. • Follow the measures outlined in the Waste Management Plan in the EPP. • Follow criteria and regulations set out by WHIMIS and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 16.2 services 16.2(a) worker accommodation AB RSA / RSA • Provide a construction work camp at the Old Jasper Dump • A small proportion of local or needs may displace JNP (KP/KL 365) for the approximately 350 person workforce along regional tourist accommodations tourists the Alberta/JNP spread. Local or regional accommodations will may be temporarily occupied by MRPP house other workers. Project workers. BC • Provide construction work camps at the former Terasen Pipelines pump station (KP 406). Fitzwilliam Pit (KP 410.7), Moose River Pit (KP 433.5), Red Pass gravel pit (KP/KL 448.8) and the Dennison gravel pit (KP/KL 465) for the approximately 350 person workforce along the MRPP/BC spread. Provide RV facilities at Moose River (R-CS 433) (KP/KL 433) as an additional accommodation option. • Liaise with hotel associations, Parks Canada, and BC Parks when accommodation needs and schedules are clearly known. • Treat sewage and grey water onsite in a temporary bio-action facility. Dispose of waste in accordance with the Waste Management Plan located in the EPP.

Page 6-168 Page 6-168 • Ensure that approval is obtained from the applicable regulatory authority prior to withdrawing water from nearby watercourses for use in the temporary camps. Otherwise, haul fresh water to camps. 16.2(b) provision of emergency AB LSA to RSA • Provide key Project contact numbers, Project route maps and • Despite best intentions and work services JNP /LSA to RSA the construction schedule to the local and regional RCMP, fire practices, incidents arising during departments, hospitals/medical facilities and ambulances construction may warrant the use of MRPP services. emergency services. BC • Adhere to all safety standards during the construction and operation of the Project. • Train construction workers fire prevention and control. Contractors are to follow the fire prevention measures outlined in the Fire Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP. • Contractors are to provide First Aid attendants. • Contact emergency medical services in Jasper to ensure that services can be used if necessary. • Note that helicopters are available in Hinton and Valemount for emergency evacuations. 16.2(c) recreational AB RSA / RSA • Ample public recreation is available in Hinton, Jasper and • No residual effect identified. opportunities for workers JNP Valemount. Use of facilities by workers is unlikely to burden the facilities or to displace local residents. MRPP BC • Construction during the winter season will limit disruption during the peak summer visitor season in JNP.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 17. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY 17.1 employment opportunities AB RSA / RSA • Terasen Pipelines has entered into agreements with Aboriginal • Local businesses, residents and JNP groups regarding involvement in project planning and Aboriginal groups will benefit from assessment. the Project through employment MRPP opportunities. BC • The involved Aboriginal groups have articulated their interest in gaining economic benefits for their communities through involvement in major projects. Terasen Pipelines supports aboriginal economic development initiatives and has entered into agreements with Aboriginal groups. • Terasen Pipelines is committed to a procurement program that actively promotes local opportunity and targeting, in part, of Aboriginal businesses. 17.2 revenue AB RSA / RSA • Revenue payments by Terasen Pipelines are substantial and • The Project will generate revenue JNP are considered beneficial by governments. for municipal, provincial and federal governments. MRPP BC Page 6-169 Page 6-169

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 18. ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS 18.1 spills of hazardous AB Project Spill Prevention • Spot spills, once remediated, will materials during JNP Footprint / • Place an impervious tarp when servicing equipment/vehicles have little adverse residual effect, construction Project although other resources could be MRPP with the potential for accidental spills (e.g., oil changes, Footprint to servicing of hydraulic systems). affected or lost as a result of the BC LSA accident. • Ensure that no fuel, lubricating fluids, hydraulic fluids, antifreeze, herbicides, biocides or other chemicals are dumped on the ground or into any watercourse. • Ensure that bulk fuel trucks, service vehicles and pick-up trucks equipped with box-mounted fuel tanks carry spill prevention, containment and clean-up materials that are suitable for the volume of fuels or oils carried. Carry spill contingency material on bulk fuel and service vehicles that is suitable for use on land and water (i.e., sorbent pads, sorbent boom and rope). Carry additional spill prevention and clean-up material, and equipment such as a tarp, shovel and heavy plastic bags in bulk fuel trucks, service trucks and pick-ups with box-mounted Page 6-170 Page 6-170 fuel tanks. • Do not store fuel, oil or hazardous material within 100 m of a watercourse or waterbody except where secondary containment is provided. • Inspect hydraulic, fuel and lubrication systems of equipment used in water crossing construction to ensure that the systems are in good condition and free of leaks. Clean equipment to be used instream or adjacent to a watercourse or otherwise ensure equipment is free of grease, oil or other fluids, mud, dirt and vegetation, both prior to and entering the waterbody and upon completion of instream activity. In the Event of a Spill • Report spills immediately to the Construction Supervisor and Environmental Inspector and, if warranted, appropriate government agencies in accordance with the Spill Contingency Plan. • Implement the Spill Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP. The plan includes measures to be undertaken in the event of a spill on land, ice and in water.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 18.2 fire during construction AB Project Fire Prevention • Despite vigilance, fires may JNP Footprint to • Note that all contractor personnel must participate in a safety adversely affect adjacent vegetation, RSA / Project and in very rare situations, affect MRPP and environmental training session, which will include Footprint to instruction on the use of fire fighting equipment. wildlife and adjacent property. BC RSA • Ensure that personnel are made aware of proper disposal methods for welding rods, cigarette butts and other hot or burning material. Do not burn when the fire hazard is high. • Do not smoke in the open on the right-of-way when the fire hazard is high. Smoke only within vehicles at these times. • Ensure that exhaust and engine systems of equipment are in good working condition and inspect undercarriages periodically to ensure that grasses do not accumulate. Do not leave vehicles idling for extended periods of time when the fire hazard is high and do not park on tall grass. • Maintain a fire truck on the right-of-way when the fire hazard is high and air temperatures allow. • Mow the right-of-way prior to construction if the fire hazard is

Page 6-171 Page 6-171 high in order to reduce potential ignition sources. Undertake mowing at appropriate times (i.e., early morning or late evening, when relative humidity is high and the temperature is cool) accompanied by a water truck with appropriate fire-fighting equipment. Use a nonmetallic roller or equivalent to flatten down rather than mow grasses in areas where mowing over rocky terrain could increase the risk of fire. • Ensure that each crew carries at a minimum, two shovels, one fire extinguisher, one two-way radio or cell phone as well as two pulaskis (see also the Fire Contingency Plan outlined in the EPP). • Ensure that slash burning crews have fire fighting equipment on hand that is capable of controlling any fire that may occur as a result of their activities as regulated by provincial regulations and government agencies. • Do not burn slash if the fire hazard is high. If burning is delayed, store slash along the right-of-way, in natural clearings, or approved push-outs. Resume burning once the fire hazard is low. In the Event of Fire • Follow the fire suppression measures of the Fire Contingency Plan as outlined in the EPP.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 18.3 damage to foreign lines , AB Project Foreign Lines and Cables • Rupture of water, sewage or gas Trans Mountain pipeline and JNP Footprint to • Locate and flag all known foreign lines and cables by using lines could lead to interruption of cables during construction LSA / Project services, contamination of soil or MRPP “one call” services. Footprint to water depending on the location and • Carefully expose all known locations of underground facilities in BC LSA severity of the rupture and fires in accordance with prescribed, safe methods. the case of gas. Cable damage can • Use flagging and signage at overhead line crossings to alert lead to interrupted service of the equipment operators of hazards. utility to communities and local Trans Mountain Pipeline residences. • Conduct construction activities in the vicinity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline in compliance with all requirements of CSA Z662 and the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations for work close to an operating pipeline. • Prior to any mechanical earthmoving activities at a given location, confirm the existing pipeline location and depth of burial by day-lighting the pipeline at close intervals and marking appropriately. Conduct each exposure manually or by other low-harm means (e.g., hydrovac in appropriate conditions) in

Page 6-172 Page 6-172 accordance with Terasen Operations requirements. • Prior to any equipment working on, or crossing over, the Trans Mountain pipeline, first obtain a crossing permit from Terasen Pipelines Operations for each specific location, detailing the conditions and limitations for each crossing. Assess and approve crossing types for specific ranges of equipment and traffic in the expected soils types. As a minimum for crossings, place an additional 1 m layer of soil over the buried pipeline. • At locations where Terasen Pipelines Operations personnel have concerns for very coarse material surrounding the existing pipeline, avoid working equipment over the pipeline where practical, and where unavoidable, undertake additional protective measures. Such measures may include adding an additional thickness of cover soil, removing overlaying boulder material from the Trans Mountain backfill, restricting the types of traffic, or providing a structure and air space between the work pad and the top of the Trans Mountain cover soil. • Where a separate trench is excavated adjacent to the Trans Mountain pipeline, minimum separations will apply, both to protect the existing pipeline during this construction, and also to allow for future remedial excavation work on either pipeline without affecting the other pipeline. The standard spacing will be in the order of 4.5 m centre to centre, wider in frozen conditions, and also wider in wetlands and boulder conditions, all to avoid potential disturbance to the existing pipeline.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 18.3 damage to foreign lines , AB Project • Monitor ground movements at the existing pipeline where there • see above Trans Mountain pipeline and JNP Footprint to is a likelihood of movement. For example, during adjacent cables during construction LSA / Project blasting, use a seismograph to record events over the pipeline MRPP Footprint to and monitoring personnel will be alert to any indications of BC block material movement towards the pipeline. For adjacent (Cont'd) LSA blasting, use only packaged explosive, and tightly control and manage explosive charges and patterns to strictly limit peak (Cont'd) (Cont'd) ground particle acceleration (as has been successful in preventing adjacent pipeline damage on other projects). • Prior to any excavation to expose the Trans Mountain pipeline, first obtain a permit from Terasen Pipelines Operations for each specific location, complete with preauthorized excavation procedures. • Terasen Pipelines Operations personnel will be on hand to monitor activities around the operating pipeline and will have the authority to stop any construction activity of integrity concern until the situation is satisfactorily resolved. 18.4 use of explosives JNP Project • Transport explosives in accordance with the Transport of • Fly rock from blasting may cause Page 6-173 Page 6-173 MRPP Footprint to Dangerous Goods Act and other applicable provincial or federal injury to wildlife or people, while regulations. unintentional detonation of LSA / Project Footprint to • Store explosives on-site in compliance with permits and explosives could affect wildlife, LSA provincial or federal regulations. Ensure that explosives are aquatic ecosystems, and people stored in a secured container to minimize accessibility to wildlife depending on the proximity to the and the public. detonated area. • Handle explosives in accordance with permits, certificates and provincial and federal regulations. • Control traffic on Highway 16 within the fly rock zone as per the Traffic Management Plan. • Review safety protocols and procedures with construction workers working in the fly rock zone prior to commencement of blasting activity. Sound warning calls to alert workers of impending detonation and to displace wildlife from the blasting area in order to minimize the potential for injury from flying rock. • Use blast mats to minimize the risk of damage to property within the fly rock zone. • See additional measures in Physical Environment element 1.2 and Accidents and Malfunctions element 18.3. 18.5 release of drilling mud JNP Project • Utilize an inert, nontoxic bentonitic clay-based material as • Release of drilling mud on land, during horizontal MRPP Footprint to drilling mud. once cleaned-up and reclaimed, will directional drilling LSA / Project • Implement the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream have little residual effect. Footprint to Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan in the event of a • Depending on the volume and LSA release (see EPP). location of the release, a release of drilling mud into a watercourse may affect aquatic ecosystems in the short-to medium term.

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Biophysical or Socio- Project / Economic Element or Ecological VEC/Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect(s) 18.6 transportation accidents AB LSA / LSA • Transport workers between the construction camps and muster • A transportation accident may cause JNP areas to work-sites by multi-passenger vehicles to the extent injury to people or wildlife or may practical. result in fire or contamination of MRPP lands and water depending on the BC • All Project-related vehicles to follow applicable traffic, road-use and safety laws. location and severity of the accident. • Follow the Construction Traffic Management Plan outlined in the EPP to manage vehicular movements during construction. 18.7 pipeline system integrity AB Project • Terasen Pipelines has an Environmental Management System • A pipeline failure may adversely JNP Footprint to and a Pipeline Integrity Management Program in place to affect adjacent vegetation, wildlife minimize the risk of pipeline failure during operations. These habitat and aquatic ecosystems. MRPP LSA / Project Footprint to company programs are discussed in detail in Section 8.0 of this BC LSA EA report. • Terasen Pipelines has implemented a comprehensive Emergency Preparedness and Response Program which is fully described in Section 8.0 of this EA report. • Select block valve locations to control spill volumes to acceptable levels. Consider use of remotely controlled valves. Page 6-174 Page 6-174 Note: 1 - Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the EPP to be submitted with the NEB application.

TABLE 6.3

POTENTIAL BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Effect Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 1. PHSYICAL ENVIRONMENT 1(a) potential site contamination Wolf Pump Project Footprint / − A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was undertaken at each site by − No residual effect identified. Station + New Project Footprint SEACOR Environmental Inc. in September 2005. No potential areas of Access Road environmental concern were identified at either site and a Phase II Environmental Chappel Pump Site Investigation is not recommended for the Wolf and Chappel pump stations Station (SEACOR Environmental Inc. 2005). Old Jasper Project Footprint / − These sites have been identified as a former waste disposal sites or contaminated − No residual effect identified. Dump Project Footprint sites. No ground disturbance at these sites is anticipated. (work camp) − Ensure that qualified Terasen Pipelines personnel are onsite during construction Jasper Siding at contaminated sites in the unlikely event that contaminated substrate is J-CS 379 discovered during construction. Company environmental personnel to initiate (staging area) standard response procedures as outlined in Terasen Pipelines Internal Environmental Guide: Env. 315 Management of Contaminated Sites Based on the Degree of Contamination. Continue efforts until accepted regulatory guidelines are Page 6-175 Page 6-175 met. − Dispose of contaminated material in accordance with government regulations. 2. SOIL CAPABILITY 2(a) topsoil or root zone material / Wolf Pump Project Footprint / − Salvage the topsoil or root zone material from areas at the site required for − Minor topsoil or root zone material / subsoil mixing may subsoil mixing during Station + New Project Footprint surface work, buildings and traffic as well as along the new access road to the occur. construction Access Road Wolf Pump Station as directed by the EI based on the Soils Technical Report Chappel Pump (Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd. 2005). Station − Ensure that the location of the topsoil or root zone material berm is noted and maintained on site in site record files in order that the material can be replaced upon abandonment of the site. All Temporary Project Footprint / − Salvage the upper 15-20 cm or 20-25 cm of topsoil or root zone material for Sites Project Footprint replacement at undisturbed sites as directed by the EI based on the Soils Block Valves Assessment Report (see Soil Technical Report). Scraper Trap − Salvage the topsoil or root zone material for replacement if expansion occurs outside the present disturbed area, including any construction and expansion of existing roads. 2(b) erosion control of upper surface Wolf Pump Project Footprint / − Do not salvage topsoil or root zone material under extremely windy conditions. − Given that the proposed mitigative measures will ensure material berm during Station + New Project Footprint − Seed the topsoil or root zone material stockpile as soon as possible with the that the capability of the soil is maintained, no residual construction and operations Access Road appropriate seed mix from the EPP to prevent the wind or water erosion of topsoil effect has been identified. Chappel Pump or root zone material during operations. Station

Table 6.3 Cont'd

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Impact Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 3. WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 3(a) surface runoff Wolf Pump Project Footprint / − Install an appropriate size berm on the downslope side of the site to control − Given that the proposed mitigative measures will ensure Station Project Footprint surface runoff and to provide containment in the event of a spill. that offsite natural drainage patterns in the vicinity of the Chappel Pump site are maintained, no residual effect has been identified. Station 3(b) alteration of natural drainage Access Roads Project Footprint to − Replace culverts and install new culverts as warranted along access roads to be − Given that the proposed mitigative measure will ensure that patterns LSA / Project upgraded to appropriately accommodate surface water flow. natural drainage patterns along the access roads are Footprint to LSA − Ensure that existing bridges are only used in accordance with their rated maintained, no residual effect has been identified. capacities. For passage of larger than rated loads at an existing bridge, divert these loads on an alternative suitable route or install a temporary appropriate bridge. 4. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 4(a) increased noise during Wolf Pump Project Footprint / − A noise impact assessment was undertaken for the Wolf and Chappel pump − Ambient noise levels at each pump station site will increase operations Station Project Footprint to stations by HFP Acoustical Consultants Corp. (HFP) (2005). The pump station at during operation of the pump station. Chappel Pump LSA each site will be constructed within a housed facility and equipment will be Station operated in accordance with the manufacturers’ instruction. 5. WETLANDS (VEC) Page 6-176 Page 6-176 5(a) potential alteration of water JNP LSA / LSA − Two temporary facility sites lie within 30 m of a wetland. No topsoil salvage is − No residual effect identified. quality J-CS 395 required at any of these sites. − Install silt fences around the perimeter the site nearest the wetland to prevent sediments from entering the waterbody. − Minimize disturbance in the vicinity of the wetland. − Do not store fuel tanks or conduct refuelling within 100 m the wetland except where secondary containment is provided. 6. VEGETATION (VEC) 6(a) loss or alteration of native Block Valves Project Footprint / − Permanent and temporary facilities siting considerations included using existing − Incremental loss or alteration of native vegetation will occur. vegetation during construction Scraper Trap Project Footprint disturbed areas to the extent feasible thereby minimizing the amount of new Wolf Pump disturbance to the extent practical. Station + New − Where disturbance to native vegetation cannot be feasibly avoided, minimize Access Road grading and disturbance to native vegetation. Temporary Sites − Where plant population or communities of concern have been identified, disturbance of these areas will be avoided to the extent feasible (e.g., Vegetation element 5(b) below). 6(b) june grass – pasture J-CS 354 Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). − No residual effect identified. sagewort – wild blue flax (stockpile) Project Footprint to − Avoid using this location as a temporary facility site so as not to disturb the S2S3 community (ranked S2S3) LSA ranked community. JNP Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). − No residual effect identified. Celestine Lake Project Footprint to − Do not travel off the existing road. Road LSA − Fence or flag off the edges of the road to ensure no accidental encroachment KP/KL 354 during construction.

Table 6.3 Cont'd

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Impact Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 6(c) june grass – pasture JNP Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). − No residual effect identified. sagewort – wild blue flax Devona Siding Project Footprint to − Fence or flag off the community located at the southernmost end of the stockpile community (unique) (stockpile) LSA site to ensure no accidental encroachment during construction. JNP Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). The − No residual effect identified. Access Road Project Footprint to unique community was identified along the northernmost end of the existing LSA Snaring Road between Highway 16 and the CN Railway (east of KP/KL 357). − Do not travel off the existing road. − Fence or flag off the edges of the road to ensure no accidental encroachment during construction, to the extent feasible. JNP Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). This − No residual effect identified. Access Road Project Footprint to community was identified along the access road to the Devona Siding stockpile LSA site. − Do not travel off the existing road. − Fence or flag off the edges of the road to ensure no accidental encroachment during construction, to the extent feasible. 6(d) Crawe’s sedge JNP Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). − No residual effect identified. (ranked S2) Access Road Project Footprint to Crawe's sedge was identified along the north end of the Snaring Road, between Page 6-177 Page 6-177 LSA the CN Railway and Highway 16 (east of KP/KL 357) − Fence or flag off the Crawe's sedge population to ensure no accidental encroachment during construction. 6(e) Sitka columbine JNP Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). Sitka − If mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, (ranked S2) Access Road Project Footprint to columbine was identified at two locations along the abandoned CN Railway some loss or alteration of the local Sitka columbine KP/KL 395.3 LSA railgrade access road at KP/KL 395.3 and KP/KL 396. population on access road near KP/KL 395.3 and KP/KL 396 − Fence or flag off the population to ensure no accidental encroachment during KP/KL 396 may occur. construction. − Restrict grading for road preparation in the vicinity of the rare plant population to the extent feasible. − Use portable span bridge sections to ramp over the population(s) to avoid impact from traffic. − Temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads, flex net or swamp mats. 6(f) nootka lupine JNP Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). − If mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, (ranked S3) Access Road Project Footprint to Nootka lupine was identified on the CN Railway railgrade access road with Sitka some loss or alteration of the local nootka lupine population KP/KL 395.3 LSA columbine near KP/KL 395.3. on access road near KP/KL 395.3 may occur. − Fence or flag off the population to ensure no accidental encroachment during construction. − Restrict grading for road preparation in the vicinity of the rare plant population to the extent feasible. − Use portable span bridge sections to ramp over the population(s) to avoid impact from traffic. − Temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads, flex net or swamp mats.

Table 6.3 Cont'd

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Impact Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 6(g) mingan grape fern JNP Project Footprint / − A vegetation survey of this site was undertaken by TERA/Westland (2005a). − If mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, (ranked S2S3) Access Road Project Footprint to Mingan grape fern was identified on the CN Railway railgrade access road near some loss or alteration of the local mingan grape fern KP/KL 395 LSA KP/KL 395.3. population on access road near KP/KL 395 may occur. − Fence or flag off the population to ensure no accidental encroachment during construction − Restrict grading for road preparation in the vicinity of the rare plant population to the extent feasible. − Use portable span bridge sections to ramp over the population(s) to avoid impact from traffic − Temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads, flex net or swamp mats 6(h) revegetation of disturbed areas Block Valves Project Footprint / − Seed topsoil or root zone material berm at Wolf and Chappel pump stations with − No residual effect identified. during construction Scraper Trap Project Footprint the appropriate seed mix from the EPP as soon as possible. Wolf Pump − Gravel high traffic and maintenance areas within the fenced-in facility boundary. Station + New − Seed disturbed areas outside of the graveled areas with an appropriate native Access Road seed mix as listed in the EPP. Chappel Pump Station Page 6-178 Page 6-178 Temporary Sites Project Footprint / − Follow detailed restoration measures outlined in the Restoration Plan to be − No residual effect identified.. Project Footprint to developed for JNP and MRPP and submitted with the NEB application. LSA − Monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures during the post-construction monitoring program (i.e., first and second years following construction). 6(i) weed introduction during All Facilities Project Footprint to − Employ standard weed control measures such as cleaning equipment prior to − Weed introduction and/or spreading from disturbance may construction and operations LSA / Project arrival at the job site as described in the EPP. occur. Footprint to LSA − Consider full width topsoil stripping at weed infestations where above-ground facilities along the right-of-way are going to be constructed. − Clean equipment used in topsoil or root zone material handling in weed infested areas prior to moving to other sites. − Monitor and control weeds during operation of the facility. 6(j) loss of salvageable timber Block Valves Project Footprint / − Minimize the amount of new disturbance to the extent practical. − No residual effect identified. Scraper Trap Project Footprint − Salvage all merchantable timber. Wolf Pump Station + New Access Road

Table 6.3 Cont'd

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Impact Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 7. WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT (VEC) 7(a) loss or alteration of potential Permanent Project Footprint / − Use existing roads and trails where practical, in preference to developing new − Loss of habitat for permanent facilities and alterations to wildlife habitat during Scraper Trap Project Footprint to access. habitats for temporary facilities. construction and operations LSA Wolf Pump − Minimize the width of vegetation removal to the extent practical. Station + New − Develop each trail only to the extent necessary to accommodate the intended Access Road construction traffic for that trail. Chappel Pump − Apply appropriate measures (such as signs, boundary markers, gates and fences) Station to ensure that Project vehicles remain on designated access roads and trails. Temporary − Return temporary access roads to a state/conditions (i.e., trail) similar to that prior Access Routes to the Project development and leave these areas in an environmentally stable Stockpile sites condition (e.g., culverts removed to restore natural drainage patterns and restore Staging areas travel surfaces using native plant species). Camps − Collaborate with regulatory authorities on routing of any new access routes. Borrow pits − Save wildlife trees encountered if an access road can practically avoid them, where safety is not a concern, and there would be no substantial additional disturbance resulting from the avoidance of the wildlife trees.

Page 6-179 Page 6-179 − Avoid use of native grasslands and deciduous forest habitats for temporary facilities. − Avoid clearing of mature trees wherever practicable. 7(b) auditory or visual disturbances All Facilities Project Footprint to − Prohibit personnel from harassing or feeding wildlife during Project activities. − Short-term displacement of wildlife away from permanent of wildlife during construction LSA / Project − Prohibit Project personnel from having pets or firearms while on the construction and temporary facilities during construction with resultant Footprint to LSA site. use of potentially suboptimal habitat during noncritical periods may occur. − Prohibit the recreational use of all terrain vehicles and snowmobiles by construction personnel on the work site. − Establish and enforce construction traffic speed limits and posting speed limits on access roads to reduce the risk of collisions with wildlife (see also the Right-of- Way Traffic Management Plan in the EPP). 7(c) auditory disturbances of wildlife Wolf Pump Project Footprint to − Ensure that noise levels at the pump station boundary are in compliance with − Incremental increase in noise levels in the immediate during operations Station LSA / Project applicable provincial regulations. vicinity of the pump stations will likely displace wildlife over Chappel Pump Footprint to LSA the short-term until wildlife is acclimatized to the noise from Station the facilities. 7(d) direct and indirect mortality All Facilities Project Footprint to − Report any incidents or collisions with wildlife to the Environmental Inspector, who − Potential for vehicle/wildlife collisions on access routes and during construction RSA / Project will notify local wildlife authorities and the police as appropriate. at the facility site. Footprint to RSA − Inform contractor that Project traffic is to obey all traffic laws. − Transport workers to and from worksite by bus or van with workers being picked up and let off at marshalling area to minimize potential for vehicle/wildlife interactions (see the Construction Traffic Management Plan located in the EPP). − Collect garbage on a daily basis and dispose of at an approved facility to minimize the attraction of wildlife during construction. − Implement the Wildlife Encounter Contingency Plan located in the EPP in the event of an encounter with wildlife occurring during construction, either at the site or on the commute to and from the construction site.

Table 6.3 Cont'd

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Impact Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 7(e) disturbance of migratory bird Block Valves Project Footprint / − Schedule clearing activities outside of the restricted activity period (RAP) for − Given that the proposed mitigative measures will ensure nesting during construction Scraper Trap Project Footprint nesting migratory birds from May 1 to July 31. that nests of migratory birds will not be disturbed by Wolf Pump − No clearing activities are to occur within the migratory bird nesting period construction activities, no residual effects have been Station + New between May1 - July 31 unless the area has been pre-logged, pre- identified. Access Road brushed or pre-mowed. − Conduct a nesting survey for migratory birds at the pump station site prior to commencement of Project activities in 2008 if activities occur during the RAP and the site has not been pre-logged, pre-brushed or pre-mowed. − If migratory species are identified as nesting on the Project Footprint, develop a mitigation plan which will address any potential impacts on migratory birds or their active nests to be reviewed by Environment Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service. 8. SPECIES AT RISK (VEC) 8(a) combined effects on wolverine JNP Project Footprint / − See Table 6.2 Species at Risk element 10.9. − See Table 6.2 Species at Risk element 10.9. J-CS 391 LSA J-CS 401 MRPP Terasen Pump

Page 6-180 Page 6-180 Station 406 R-CS 416 R-CS 417 R-CS 431 R-CS 433 Moose River Pit Red Pass Gravel Pit 8(b) combined effects on grizzly JNP Project Footprint / − See Table 6.2 Species at Risk element 10.10 − See Table 6.2 Species at Risk element 10.10 bear Fiddle River LSA North J-CS 354 Snaring Campground Overflow J-CS 379 J-CS 391 J-CS 395 J-CS 401 MRPP Terasen Pump Station 406 R-CS 416 R-CS 417 R-CS 433 Moose River Pit Red Pass Gravel Pit

Table 6.3 Cont'd

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Impact Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 9. HERITAGE RESOURCES (VEC) 9(a) potential discovery of heritage Wolf Pump Project Footprint / − A Heritage Resources Overview of the Wolf Pump Station was undertaken by − No residual effect identified. resources prior to construction Station + New Project Footprint R & W Archaeological Consulting Ltd. and no concerns were identified. Access Road − An Archaeological Impact Assessment of the Chappel Pump Station was Chappel Pump conducted by Madrone Environmental Services Ltd. and no concerns were Station identified (Madrone Environmental Services Ltd. 2005). − Implement the Heritage Resources Contingency Plan located in the EPP should any buried archaeological or historical finds are encountered during construction activities. − Suspend work at that location and notify appropriate regulatory agencies. − Resume work once permission has been granted from the appropriate regulatory agencies. Line Facilities Project Footprint / − A Heritage Resources Overview and Archaeological Impact Assessment were − Identified surface sites in JNP will be disturbed during Temporary Project Footprint undertaken at line facilities and temporary facilities associated with the Project. construction. Facilities Heritage resources were found at only two sites, both in JNP. − Avoid using J-CS 354 stockpile site due to high interpretive values at this site (Site 281R) or undertake Stage I mitigation excavation. Page 6-181 Page 6-181 − Compensate for disturbance of identified surface heritage site at the Snaring River stockpile site by sketching, photographing, core sampling, collecting representative sample and/or mapping the site in accordance with Parks Canada protocols. 10. HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE 10(a) disruption of ranching activities Wolf Pump Project Footprint to − Notify local rancher of the Project and activity schedule prior to commencement of − Rancher may experience short-term disturbances of their Station + New LSA / Project Project activities. activities during construction of the Project. Access Road Footprint to LSA 10(b) disruption of trapping, guide Block Valves Project Footprint to − Notify local trapper, guide and outfitters of the Project and construction schedule. − No residual effect identified. and outfitting, and hunting Scraper Trap RSA / Project Footprint to RSA Wolf Pump Station + New Access Road Chappel Pump Station 10(c) alteration of viewscape during Wolf Pump Project Footprint / − The Wolf Pump Station site cannot be viewed from any residences or highway. − The installation of the Wolf and Chappel pump stations will operations Station + New Project Footprint to − Although no residences are located in proximity to the Chappel Pump Station, the form part of the visual landscape over the long-term. Access Road LSA station will be viewed by southbound users of Highway 5. Chappel Pump − Create a visual vegetation screen of the Chappel Pump Station from southbound Station users of Highway 5 by retaining trees. Scraper Trap − Minimize light intrusion on areas adjacent to the pump stations by reducing the number of lights and light intensity as much as practical without compromising safety.

Table 6.3 Cont'd

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Impact Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 10(d) temporary closure of trailhead J-CS 336 Project Footprint to − Schedule construction activities outside of the summer peak tourist season to − The trailhead to Roche Miette located in J-CS 336 stockpile access Stockpile Site LSA / Project minimize impacts hikers wishing to use the Roche Miette trail from J-CS 336. site will be closed during construction. Footprint to LSA MRPP Project Footprint to − Design access to Dennison Gravel Pit to minimize conflicts with visitors. − Some traffic conflicts may arise intermittently between trail Dennison Gravel LSA / Project − Discuss potential access conflicts between the Dennison Gravel Pit camp and users and the construction camp at Dennison Gravel Pit. Pit Footprint to LSA Overlander Falls trail with BC MOE, and resolve issues that may arise during use of the camp. 11. HUMAN HEALTH 11(a) increased noise during Wolf Pump Project Footprint / − See Acoustic Environment element 4(a). − See Acoustic Environment element 4(a). operations Station Project Footprint to Chappel Pump LSA Station 12. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 12(a) transport of workers during All Facilities Project Footprint to − Provide parking at marshalling areas for workers. Transport workers to and from − No residual effect identified. construction RSA / Project worksite by bus or van, whenever practical. Footprint to RSA − Follow applicable traffic, road-use and safety laws and abide by provincial and Page 6-182 Page 6-182 local speed limits. 12(b) waste management during All Facilities Project Footprint / − Collect waste from worksite on a daily basis. − No residual effect identified. construction Project Footprint to − Transport and dispose of all wastes in accordance with provincial and federal RSA regulatory requirements. − Follow the measures contained in the Waste Management Plan located in the EPP. 12(c) widening of Celestine Lake JNP Project Footprint / − Limit the upgrades to Celestine Lake Road at Windy Point (KP/KL 349.3 to − Celestine Lake Road widening for safe access to the Road Access Road: Project Footprint KP/KL 350.3) to such a width as to provide safe passage of construction Proposed Route may alter the visitor experience. Celestine Lake equipment and workers. KP/KL 349.3- − Reclaim and revegetate other widened parts of the road following construction. KP/KL 350.3 12(d) potential disruption of access AB Project Footprint / − Schedule construction during fall and winter to avoid the summer peak tourist − Use of road leading to recreation area near KP/KL 323.9 roads to existing tourism and Wildhorse Project Footprint season and high use of existing tourism and recreation features. may be intermittently disrupted during construction recreation features and facilities Recreation Area − Bore crossing of Road 317.5 leading to Wildhorse Recreation Area to minimize activities. during construction activities KP/KL 317.5 traffic disruption along this access route. Recreation area − Place signs at conjunction of road to the recreation area at the sewage lagoons KP/KL 323.9 and Highway 16 notifying potential users of construction activity. 12(e) disruption of public use of JNP JNP Access Project Footprint / − Prior to construction, place ads in the local newspaper announcing the Project − Traffic patterns on some local roads in JNP will be roads roads: Celestine Project Footprint to location and construction schedule. Inform Parks Canada staff of closures, so they temporarily affected by construction activities. Lake Road, LSA can, in turn, explain the closures to the public. Snaring Road, − Place signs at points of entry on JNP roads to be used as access routes for the and Palisades Project and at the entrances to JNP to notify the public of construction activities, Road the presence of heavy machinery, and trucks with long loads. − Note that the Celestine Lake Road is closed to the public from October to April annually.

Table 6.3 Cont'd

Biophysical or Project Boundary / Socio-Economic Element or Ecological Recommendations/ VEC/Potential Impact Facility Type Boundary Mitigative Measures1 Residual Effect 12(f) power generation for Work Camps Project Footprint to − Consult with Parks Canada to determine if the construction work camp at − Minor, short-term increase in noise associated with construction camps and RV Parks LSA KP/KL 365 may use surplus electrical power without jeopardizing the community. generator use at construction camps. Otherwise, utilize generators to supply power to the camp. − Use generators to generate electricity at all construction camps in MRPP. − Use propane will be used for heat and cooking at the camps. 13. ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS 13(a) hydrocarbon spill during All Facilities Project Footprint / − Report spills immediately to the Construction Supervisor and, if warranted, − Spot spills, once remediated, will have little adverse construction Project Footprint to appropriate government agencies. residual effect, although other resources could be affected LSA − Implement the Spill Contingency Plan located in the EPP. or lost as a result of the accident. 13(b) large scale oil release during Wolf Pump Project Footprint to − Minimize the potential for malfunction of the pumping facilities during operations − Although the likelihood of such an event is low, a large operations Station RSA / Project by adhering to preventative measures outlined in Terasen Pipelines’ Pipeline scale oil release may affect other resources. Chappel Pump Footprint to RSA Maintenance Procedures Manual on file with the NEB. Station − Ensure that the berm enclosing the pump station is of sufficient height to withstand a large scale release. − In the unlikely event of a large scale release, follow Terasen Pipelines’ Emergency Response Plan currently on file with the NEB.

Page 6-183 Page 6-183 13(c) fire during construction or All Facilities Project Footprint to − Follow the Fire Contingency Plan located in the EPP. − Despite vigilance, fires may adversely affect adjacent operations RSA / Project vegetation, and in very rare situations, affect wildlife and Footprint to RSA adjacent property. Note: 1 - Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the EPP to be submitted with the NEB application.

TABLE 6.5

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF ADVERSE RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT

Temporal Context 1 Significance Adverse Residual Effects Impact Balance Spatial Context Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence 1. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1(a) accelerated degradation of potential thawing permafrost area neutral to PF short-term isolated permanent low low moderate not (KP/KL 361.9 to KP/KL 362.4) negative significant 1(b) areas of minor instabilities may occur in fill materials as a result negative PF short-term isolated short-term low high high not of blasting and/or terrain instabilities significant 1(c) topography may be altered at locations where cut slopes are too negative PF short-term isolated permanent low to high moderate not steep to be replaced or where blasting was required to remove medium significant grade rock 1(d) substantial loss of cover over the pipeline may occur in isolated negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low high not

Page 6-184 Page 6-184 areas as a result of an extreme flood event significant 1(e) a wildfire may affect the construction schedule neutral to RSA short-term accidental short-term low low high not negative significant Physical Environment Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term accidental to short-term to low to high low moderate not negative isolated permanent to to high significant high 2. SOIL CAPABILITY 2(a) mixing of topsoil or root zone material and subsoil negative PF short-term isolated medium-term low high high not significant 2(b) surface erosion of topsoil or root zone material can be expected negative PF short-term isolated short- to low to high high not until a vegetative cover has been established medium-term medium significant 2(c) revegetation of some disturbed soils with high wind erosion negative PF short-term isolated to short- to low to high high not potential occasional long-term medium significant 2(d) revegetation of disturbed strongly or extremely calcareous negative PF short-term isolated to medium-to medium high high not surface soils occasional long-term significant 2(e) trench subsidence or a remnant crown may remain negative PF short-term isolated medium-term low high high not significant Soil Capability Summary negative PF short-term isolated to short- to low to high high not occasional long-term medium significant 3. WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 3(a) alteration of natural drainage patterns until trench settlement is negative PF to LSA short-term isolated to short-term low high high not complete occasional significant 3(b) reduction in surface water quality due to suspended solids negative LSA short-tem isolated immediate to low to high high not during a completely isolated crossing short-term medium significant

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Impact Balance Spatial Context Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 3(c) reduction in surface water quality due to suspended solids negative LSA short-tem isolated short-term medium to high high not during a partially isolated crossing of a very large river high significant 3(d) disruption of water well flows may occur during construction negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low low high not significant 3(e) potential disruption of groundwater flow where springs are negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low low high not encountered during construction significant Water Quality and Quantity Summary negative PF to LSA short-term isolated to immediate to low to high low high not occasional short-term to significant high 4. GREENHOUSE GASES AND AIR QUALITY 4(a) incremental increase in the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions negative SRSA short-term continuous long-term negligible high high not associated with the Trans Mountain system to low significant

Page 6-185 Page 6-185 4(b) increase in vehicle emissions during construction negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant 4(c) increase in dust arising from construction traffic on the right-of- negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not way and unpaved access roads significant 4(d) increase in dust arising from blasting negative PF to LSA immediate isolated immediate to low high high not short-term significant 4(e) rise in air emissions during site-specific maintenance activities negative PF to LSA immediate to periodic short-term negligible high high not short-term to low significant Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality Summary negative PF to SRSA immediate to isolated to immediate to negligible high high not short-term continuous long-term to low significant 5. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 5(a) increase in noise during construction negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not significant 5(b) rise in noise levels during site-specific maintenance activities negative LSA immediate to periodic immediate negligible high high not short-term to low significant 5(c) ambient noise levels at Wolf and Chappel pump stations negative LSA long-term continuous long-term low to high high not increase during operation of the pump station medium significant Acoustic Environment Summary negative LSA immediate to isolated to immediate to negligible high high not long-term continuous long-term to medium significant 6. FISH AND FISH HABITAT 6(a) loss and alteration of riparian habitat3 negative LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high high not significant 6(b) loss and alteration of instream habitat from direct disturbance neutral RSA long-term isolated long-term low high moderate not and downstream sediment deposition3 significant 6(c) increased suspended sediment concentrations in water column3 negative LSA immediate to occasional long-term low high high not short-term significant 6(d) mortality from blasting, dewatering, and recreational fishing by negative RSA short-term isolated long-term low low moderate not contractors and staff significant

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 6(e) combined effects on bull trout3 neutral RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not significant 6(f) combined effects on fish and fish habitat3 neutral RSA long-term isolated long-term low high high not significant Fish and Fish Habitat Summary3 neutral LSA to RSA immediate to isolated to long-term low to low moderate not long-term occasional medium to to high significant high 7. WETLANDS 7(a) alteration of wetland habitat following disturbance negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not medium term significant 7(b) alteration of hydrologic function of wetlands negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high moderate not significant

Page 6-186 Page 6-186 7(c) alteration of water quality function of wetlands negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high moderate not significant Wetlands Summary negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not medium-term significant 8. VEGETATION 8(a) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S1 rare vascular plant population significant may occur and transplanted or propagated specimens may not survive 8(b) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S2 rare vascular plant population significant may occur and transplanted or propagated specimens may not survive 8(c) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S3 rare vascular plant population significant may occur and transplanted or propagated specimens may not survive 8(d) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S1 rare non-vascular plant significant population may occur 8(e) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S2 rare non-vascular plant significant population may occur 8(f) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S3 rare non-vascular plant significant population may occur

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 8(g) if the S1 plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow strip negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community 8(h) if the S2 plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow strip negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community 8(i) if the S3 plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow strip negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and

Page 6-187 Page 6-187 temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community 8(j) if the unique plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not strip of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community 8(k) alteration of 470 ha of montane vegetation in the Project neutral PF short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not Footprint most of which to be restored to early seral montane significant vegetation 8(l) alteration of approximately 5 ha of Douglas-fir savannah habitat negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not in the PF in JNP and approximately 1 ha in MRPP significant 8(m) if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local Sitka columbine population on significant access road near KP/KL 395.3 and KP/KL 396 may occur 8(n) if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local nootka lupine population on access significant road near KP/KL 395.3 may occur 8(o) if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local mingan grape fern population on significant access road near KP/KL 395 may occur 8(p) control of invasive species on Project Footprint neutral PF short-term isolated medium-term medium high moderate not significant 8(q) removal of salvageable timber from the forested land base negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant Vegetation Summary neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated medium- to low to high moderate not negative long-term medium significant

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 9. WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 9(a) loss and alteration of wildlife habitats negative PF short-term isolated long-term low to high moderate not medium significant • Wetland, Shrub and Riparian Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Douglas Fir and White Spruce Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Grassland and Dry Slope Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not significant • Pine Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Floodplain Spruce Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not

Page 6-188 Page 6-188 significant • Aspen and Balsam Poplar Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Cedar and Hemlock Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Cedar and Mixedwood Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant 9(b) combined effects on amphibians negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • boreal chorus frog, if mitigation measures do not completely negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not protect this species long-term significant • western (boreal) toad, if mitigation measures do not negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not completely protect this species long-term significant • long-toed salamander, if mitigation measures do not negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not completely protect this species long-term significant 9(c) combined effects on reptiles negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • western terrestrial garter snake, if mitigation measures do not negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not completely protect this species long-term significant 9(d) combined effects on birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-to long- low low moderate not term to significant high • wetland birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium- to low low moderate not long-term significant • harlequin ducks negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low low moderate not significant • forest and grassland birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility • migratory birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant 9(e) combined effects on ungulates negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low to high moderate not medium significant • moose negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant • elk negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant • deer negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant • bighorn sheep negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-term medium high moderate not significant

Page 6-189 Page 6-189 9(f) combined effects on bears negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to short-to long- low low moderate not occasional term significant • grizzly bear negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant • black bear negative PF to RSA long-term occasional short-to low low moderate not medium-term significant 9(g) combined effects on large-ranging carnivores negative PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low low low to not long-term occasional long-term to moderate significant high • wolf negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant • lynx negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • cougar negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • wolverine negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to short-to low low low not occasional medium-term significant • fisher negative PF to RSA long-term occasional short-to low low low not medium significant 9(h) combined effects on small to medium-sized mammals negative PF to LSA short- to isolated to short- to low low moderate not long-term occasional long-term to significant high • coyote negative PF to LSA long-term isolated to medium-term low low moderate not occasional significant • river otter negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-to low high moderate not medium-term significant • marten negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Summary negative PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low to low low to not long-term occasional long-term medium to moderate significant high 10. SPECIES AT RISK 10(a) combined effects on bull trout neutral RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not significant 10(b) combined effects on western (boreal) toad, if mitigation negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not measures do not completely protect this species long-term significant 10(c) combined effects on wolverine negative PF to RSA short-term isolated to short-to low low low not occasional medium-term significant 10(d) combined effects on grizzly bear negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant

Page 6-190 Page 6-190 Species at Risk Summary neutral to PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low low low to not negative long-term occasional long-term to high significant high 11. HERITAGE RESOURCES 11(a) identified surface and buried sites within JNP will be lost as a negative PF short-term isolated permanent low high high not result of construction significant 11(b) identified surface site at KL 458.0 may be disturbed if a negative PF short-term isolated permanent low high high not trenched crossing of the Fraser River is utilized significant 11(c) potential loss of buried heritage resources discovered during negative PF short-term isolated permanent low low high not construction significant 11(d) a decrease in the quality of the experience along the Canada negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low low high not Heritage River at the Fraser River crossing at KL 458.1 may significant occur Heritage Resources Summary negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term to low low high not permanent to significant high 12. TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE 12(a) alteration of vegetation used by Aboriginal groups negative PF short-term isolated medium- to low high high not long-term significant 12(b) disruption of Aboriginal hunting activities neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term negligible high high not negative to low significant 12(c) alteration of wetlands supporting plant and animal species of negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not value to Aboriginal groups medium-term significant 12(d) alteration of the existing viewshed at select locations within JNP neutral to LSA to RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not and MRPP negative significant 12(e) alteration of water quality during construction negative PF to LSA short-term isolated immediate to low to high high high not short-term significant

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility Traditional Land and Resource Use Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term isolated immediate to negligible high moderate not negative long-term to high to high significant 13. HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE 13(a) disruption of grazing activities along the Alberta and BC neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not portions of the Proposed Route and at Wolf Pump Station negative significant may occur during construction 13(b) local trappers and guide outfitters may experience some neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term negligible high high not disturbance of their activities during construction along the negative to low significant Alberta and BC segments of the route 13(c) the navigability of some watercourses along the Proposed neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated immediate negligible low high not Route may be affected during construction negative to low to significant high 13(d) alteration of 10 representative viewsheds in JNP and MRPP neutral to LSA to RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not Page 6-191 Page 6-191 negative significant 13(e) a decrease in the quality of the wilderness experience within negative LSA short-term isolated immediate to medium high high not JNP and MRPP will occur during construction short-term significant 13(f) some existing tourism accommodations in AB, JNP and BC negative LSA short-term isolated immediate to low high high not may experience noise and visual disturbances during short-term significant construction 13(g) a decrease in the quality of the recreation experience on day negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not trails near Jasper may occur during construction medium significant 13(h) use of selected trails in JNP may be disrupted during negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not construction significant 13(i) closure of trailhead to Roche Miette located in J-CS 336 negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not stockpile site during construction significant 13(j) a decrease in the quality of the recreation experience on negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not some trails in MRPP may occur during construction medium significant 13(k) use of some trails in MRPP may be disrupted during negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term medium high high not construction significant 13(l) some traffic conflicts may arise intermittently between trail negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not users and the construction camp at Dennison Gravel Pit in significant MRPP 13(m) a decrease in the quality of the fishing experience in MRPP negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not may occur during construction significant 13(n) a decrease in the quality of kayaking, canoeing or rafting negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not experiences in MRPP may occur during construction significant 13(o) a decrease in the winter recreation experiences on some negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low to low high not trails in JNP may occur during construction medium significant 13(p) closure of some trail and local roads in JNP used for winter negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not recreation during construction medium significant

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 13(q) some roadside pull-outs along Highway 16 in MRPP will be negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not closed during construction activities significant 13(r) alteration of visual landscape at Wolf and Chappel pump neutral to LSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not stations negative significant Human Occupancy and Resource Use Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term isolated immediate to negligible low high not negative long-term to medium to significant high 14. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING No adverse residual effect identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15. HUMAN HEALTH 15(a) ambient noise levels at Wolf and Chappel pump stations will N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A increase during operation of the pump station - see Acoustic

Page 6-192 Page 6-192 Environment element 5(c) 16. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 16(a) traffic on Highway 16 will be affected by construction negative LSA short-term isolated immediate medium high high not activities significant 16(b) increase in traffic on Highway 16 and other access routes negative LSA short-term isolated immediate medium high high not during construction significant 16(c) increase in waste flow to regional landfill and transfer station negative RSA to short-term isolated immediate to low to high high not sites SRSA short-term medium significant 16(d) some local or regional tourist accommodations may be negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate to low high high not occupied by Project workers short-term significant 16(e) incidents arising during construction may warrant the use of negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate low low high not some emergency services significant 16(f) Celestine Lakes Road (JNP) widening for safe access to the negative PF to RSA short-term isolated permanent medium high moderate not Proposed Route may alter the visitor experience significant 16(g) traffic on some local roads in AB, JNP and MRPP will be negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not affected by construction activities medium significant 16(h) increase in noise associated with construction camps negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not significant Infrastructure and Services Summary negative LSA to short-term isolated immediate to low to low moderate not SRSA permanent medium to to high significant high 17. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY No adverse residual effect identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18. ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS 18(a) spot spills, once remediated, will have little adverse residual negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low moderate not effect, although other resources could be affected or lost as a significant result of the accident

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 18(b) fires may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, and in very negative LSA to RSA immediate to accidental short- to low to high low moderate not rare situations, affect wildlife and adjacent property short-term long-term significant 18(c) rupture of water, sewage, oil or gas lines could lead to negative LSA to RSA immediate to accidental short-term low to high low moderate not interruption of services, contamination of land or water and short-term significant fires in the case of gas while cable damage can lead to interrupted service of the utility to communities and local residences 18(d) fly rock may cause injury to wildlife or people while negative PF to LSA immediate accidental immediate to low to high low moderate not unintentional detonation of explosives could affect wildlife, long-term significant aquatic ecosystems, and people depending on the proximity to the detonated area 18(e) a transportation accident may cause injury to people or negative LSA short-term to accidental immediate to low to high low moderate not wildlife or may result in fire or contamination of lands and long-term permanent significant

Page 6-193 Page 6-193 water depending on the location and severity of the accident 18(f) depending on the volume and location of the release, a negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short- to low to high moderate not release of drilling mud into a watercourse may affect aquatic medium-term medium significant ecosystems 18(g) a pipeline failure may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, negative LSA short-term accidental short- to low to high low moderate not wildlife habitat and aquatic ecosystems long-term significant Accidents and Malfunctions Summary negative PF to RSA immediate to accidental immediate to low to high low moderate not long-term permanent to significant high 19. EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT 19(a) mass wasting events (e.g., debris flows, rock slides) negative PF to LSA immediate accidental short- to low low moderate not long-term significant 19(b) flooding negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low low high not significant 19(c) wildfire negative RSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low high not significant Effects of the Environment on the Project Summary negative PF to RSA immediate to accidental short- to low to high low moderate not short-term long-term to high significant Notes: 1. PF = Project Footprint; LSA = Local Study Area; RSA = Regional Study Area; SRSA = Supra-regional Study Area 2. Significant Residual Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

3. The evaluation of significance has included compensation considerations.

TABLE 6.6

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF ADVERSE RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS FOR JASPER NATIONAL PARK

Temporal Context 1 Significance Adverse Residual Effects Impact Balance Spatial Context Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence 1. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1(a) accelerated degradation of potential thawing permafrost area neutral to PF short-term isolated permanent low low moderate not (KP/KL 361.9 to KP/KL 362.4) negative significant 1(b) areas of minor instabilities may occur in fill materials as a result negative PF short-term isolated short-term low high high not of blasting and/or terrain instabilities significant 1(c) topography may be altered at locations where cut slopes are too negative PF short-term isolated permanent low to high moderate not steep to be replaced or where blasting was required to remove medium significant grade rock 1(d) substantial loss of cover over the pipeline may occur in isolated negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low high not

Page 6-194 Page 6-194 areas as a result of an extreme flood event significant 1(e) a wildfire may affect the construction schedule neutral to RSA short-term accidental short-term low low high not negative significant Physical Environment Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term accidental to short-term to low to high low moderate not negative isolated permanent to to high significant high 2. SOIL CAPABILITY 2(a) mixing of topsoil or root zone material and subsoil negative PF short-term isolated medium-term low high high not significant 2(b) surface erosion of topsoil or root zone material can be expected negative PF short-term isolated short- to low to high high not until a vegetative cover has been established medium-term medium significant 2(c) revegetation of some disturbed soils with high wind erosion negative PF short-term isolated to short- to low to high high not potential occasional long-term medium significant 2(d) revegetation of disturbed strongly or extremely calcareous negative PF short-term isolated to medium-to medium high high not surface soils occasional long-term significant 2(e) trench subsidence or a remnant crown may remain negative PF short-term isolated medium-term low high high not significant Soil Capability Summary negative PF short-term isolated to short- to low to high high not occasional long-term medium significant 3. WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 3(a) alteration of natural drainage patterns until trench settlement is negative PF to LSA short-term isolated to short-term low high high not complete occasional significant 3(b) reduction in surface water quality due to suspended solids negative LSA short-tem isolated immediate to low to high high not during a completely isolated crossing short-term medium significant

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Impact Balance Spatial Context Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 3(c) reduction in surface water quality due to suspended solids negative LSA short-tem isolated short-term medium to high high not during a partially isolated crossing of a very large river high significant 3(d) disruption of water well flows may occur during construction negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low low high not significant 3(e) potential disruption of groundwater flow where springs are negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low low high not encountered during construction significant Water Quality and Quantity Summary negative PF to LSA short-term isolated to immediate to low to high low high not occasional short-term to significant high 4. GREENHOUSE GASES AND AIR QUALITY 4(a) incremental increase in the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions negative SRSA short-term continuous long-term negligible high high not associated with the Trans Mountain system to low significant

Page 6-195 Page 6-195 4(b) increase in vehicle emissions during construction negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant 4(c) increase in dust arising from construction traffic on the right-of- negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not way and unpaved access roads significant 4(d) increase in dust arising from blasting negative PF to LSA immediate isolated immediate to low high high not short-term significant 4(e) rise in air emissions during site-specific maintenance activities negative PF to LSA immediate to periodic short-term negligible high high not short-term to low significant Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality Summary negative PF to SRSA immediate to isolated to immediate to negligible high high not short-term continuous long-term to low significant 5. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 5(a) increase in noise during construction negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not significant 5(b) rise in noise levels during site-specific maintenance activities negative LSA immediate to periodic immediate negligible high high not short-term to low significant Acoustic Environment Summary negative LSA immediate to isolated to immediate negligible high high not short-term periodic to low significant 6. FISH AND FISH HABITAT 6(a) loss and alteration of riparian habitat3 negative LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high high not significant 6(b) loss and alteration of instream habitat from direct disturbance neutral RSA long-term isolated long-term low high moderate not and downstream sediment deposition3 significant 6(c) increased suspended sediment concentrations in water column3 negative LSA immediate to occasional long-term low high high not short-term significant 6(d) mortality from blasting, dewatering, and recreational fishing by negative RSA short-term isolated long-term low low moderate not contractors and staff significant 6(e) combined effects on bull trout3 neutral RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not significant

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 6(f) combined effects on fish and fish habitat3 neutral RSA long-term isolated long-term low high high not significant Fish and Fish Habitat Summary3 neutral LSA to RSA immediate to isolated to long-term low to low moderate not long-term occasional medium to to high significant high 7. WETLANDS 7(a) alteration of wetland habitat following disturbance negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not medium term significant 7(b) alteration of hydrologic function of wetlands negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high moderate not significant 7(c) alteration of water quality function of wetlands negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high moderate not significant

Page 6-196 Page 6-196 Wetlands Summary negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not medium-term significant 8. VEGETATION 8(a) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S1 rare vascular plant population significant may occur and transplanted or propagated specimens may not survive 8(b) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S2 rare vascular plant population significant may occur and transplanted or propagated specimens may not survive 8(c) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S3 rare vascular plant population significant may occur and transplanted or propagated specimens may not survive 8(d) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S1 rare non-vascular plant significant population may occur 8(e) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S2 rare non-vascular plant significant population may occur 8(f) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S3 rare non-vascular plant significant population may occur 8(g) if the S1 plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow strip negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 8(h) if the S2 plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow strip negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community 8(i) if the unique plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not strip of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community 8(j) alteration of montane vegetation in the Project Footprint most of neutral PF short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not which to be restored to early seral montane vegetation significant 8(k) alteration of approximately 5 ha of Douglas-fir savannah habitat negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not

Page 6-197 Page 6-197 in the PF in JNP significant 8(l) if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local Sitka columbine population on significant access road near KP/KL 395.3 and KP/KL 396 may occur 8(m) if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local nootka lupine population on access significant road near KP/KL 395.3 may occur 8(n) if mitigation measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local mingan grape fern population on significant access road near KP/KL 395 may occur 8(o) control of invasive species on Project Footprint neutral PF short-term isolated medium-term medium high moderate not significant 8(p) removal of salvageable timber from the forested land base negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant Vegetation Summary neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated medium- to low to high moderate not negative long-term medium significant 9. WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 9(a) loss and alteration of wildlife habitats negative PF short-term isolated long-term low to high moderate not medium significant • Wetland, Shrub and Riparian Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Douglas Fir and White Spruce Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Grassland and Dry Slope Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not significant • Pine Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility • Floodplain Spruce Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Aspen and Balsam Poplar Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant 9(b) combined effects on amphibians negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • boreal chorus frog, if mitigation measures do not completely negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not protect this species long-term significant • western (boreal) toad, if mitigation measures do not negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not completely protect this species long-term significant • long-toed salamander, if mitigation measures do not negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not completely protect this species long-term significant

Page 6-198 Page 6-198 9(c) combined effects on reptiles negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • western terrestrial garter snake, if mitigation measures do not negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not completely protect this species long-term significant 9(d) combined effects on birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-to long- low low moderate not term to significant high • wetland birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium- to low low moderate not long-term significant • harlequin ducks negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low low moderate not significant • forest and grassland birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • migratory birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant 9(e) combined effects on ungulates negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low to high moderate not medium significant • moose negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant • elk negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant • deer negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant • bighorn sheep negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-term medium high moderate not significant 9(f) combined effects on bears negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to short-to long- low low moderate not occasional term significant

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility • grizzly bear negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant • black bear negative PF to RSA long-term occasional short-to low low moderate not medium-term significant 9(g) combined effects on large-ranging carnivores negative PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low low low to not long-term occasional long-term to moderate significant high • wolf negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant • lynx negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • cougar negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant Page 6-199 Page 6-199 • wolverine negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to short-to low low low not occasional medium-term significant • fisher negative PF to RSA long-term occasional short-to low low low not medium significant 9(h) combined effects on small to medium-sized mammals negative PF to LSA short- to isolated to short- to low low moderate not long-term occasional long-term to significant high • coyote negative PF to LSA long-term isolated to medium-term low low moderate not occasional significant • river otter negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-to low high moderate not medium-term significant • marten negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Summary negative PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low to low low to not long-term occasional long-term medium to moderate significant high 10. SPECIES AT RISK 10(a) combined effects on bull trout neutral RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not significant 10(b) combined effects on western (boreal) toad, if mitigation negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not measures do not completely protect this species long-term significant 10(c) combined effects on wolverine negative PF to RSA short-term isolated to short-to low low low not occasional medium-term significant 10(d) combined effects on grizzly bear negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility Species at Risk Summary neutral to PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low low low to not negative long-term occasional long-term to high significant high 11. HERITAGE RESOURCES 11(a) identified surface and buried sites within JNP will be lost as a negative PF short-term isolated permanent low high high not result of construction significant 11(b) potential loss of buried heritage resources discovered during negative PF short-term isolated permanent low low high not construction significant Heritage Resources Summary negative PF short-term isolated permanent low low high not to significant high 12. TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE

Page 6-200 Page 6-200 12(a) alteration of vegetation used by Aboriginal groups negative PF short-term isolated medium- to low high high not long-term significant 12(b) disruption of Aboriginal hunting activities neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term negligible high high not negative to low significant 12(c) alteration of wetlands supporting plant and animal species of negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not value to Aboriginal groups medium-term significant 12(d) alteration of the existing viewshed at select locations in JNP neutral to LSA to RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not negative significant 12(e) alteration of water quality during construction negative PF to LSA short-term isolated immediate to low to high high high not short-term significant Traditional Land and Resource Use Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term isolated immediate to negligible high moderate not negative long-term to high to high significant 13. HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE 13(a) the navigability of some watercourses along the Proposed neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated immediate negligible low high not Route may be affected during construction negative to low to significant high 13(b) alteration of 7 representative viewsheds in JNP neutral to LSA to RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not negative significant 13(c) a decrease in the quality of the wilderness experience in JNP negative LSA short-term isolated immediate to medium high high not will occur during construction short-term significant 13(d) some existing tourism accommodations in AB, JNP and BC negative LSA short-term isolated immediate to low high high not may experience noise and visual disturbances during short-term significant construction 13(e) a decrease in the quality of the recreation experience on day negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not trails near Jasper may occur during construction medium significant 13(f) use of selected trails in JNP may be disrupted during negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not construction significant

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 13(g) closure of trailhead to Roche Miette located in J-CS 336 negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not stockpile site during construction significant 13(h) a decrease in the winter recreation experiences on some negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low to low high not trails in JNP may occur during construction medium significant 13(i) closure of some trail and local roads in JNP used for winter negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not recreation during construction medium significant Human Occupancy and Resource Use Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term isolated immediate to negligible low high not negative long-term to medium to significant high 14. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING No adverse residual effect identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15. HUMAN HEALTH

Page 6-201 Page 6-201 No adverse residual effect identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 16(a) traffic on Highway 16 will be affected by construction negative LSA short-term isolated immediate medium high high not activities significant 16(b) increase in traffic on Highway 16 and other access routes negative LSA short-term isolated immediate medium high high not during construction significant 16(c) increase in waste flow to regional landfill and transfer station negative RSA to short-term isolated immediate to low to high high not sites SRSA short-term medium significant 16(d) some local or regional tourist accommodations may be negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate to low high high not occupied by Project workers short-term significant 16(e) incidents arising during construction may warrant the use of negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate low low high not some emergency services significant 16(f) Celestine Lakes Road (JNP) widening for safe access to the negative PF to RSA short-term isolated permanent medium high moderate not Proposed Route may alter the visitor experience significant 16(g) traffic on some local roads in JNP will be affected by negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not construction activities medium significant 16(h) increase in noise associated with construction camps negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not significant Infrastructure and Services Summary negative LSA to short-term isolated immediate to low to low moderate not SRSA permanent medium to to high significant high 17. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY No adverse residual effect identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18. ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS 18(a) spot spills, once remediated, will have little adverse residual negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low moderate not effect, although other resources could be affected or lost as a significant result of the accident

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 18(b) fires may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, and in very negative LSA to RSA immediate to accidental short- to low to high low moderate not rare situations, affect wildlife and adjacent property short-term long-term significant 18(c) rupture of water, sewage, oil or gas lines could lead to negative LSA to RSA immediate to accidental short-term low to high low moderate not interruption of services, contamination of land or water and short-term significant fires in the case of gas while cable damage can lead to interrupted service of the utility to communities and local residences 18(d) fly rock may cause injury to wildlife or people while negative PF to LSA immediate accidental immediate to low to high low moderate not unintentional detonation of explosives could affect wildlife, long-term significant aquatic ecosystems, and people depending on the proximity to the detonated area 18(e) a transportation accident may cause injury to people or negative LSA short-term to accidental immediate to low to high low moderate not wildlife or may result in fire or contamination of lands and long-term permanent significant

Page 6-202 Page 6-202 water depending on the location and severity of the accident 18(f) depending on the volume and location of the release, a negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short- to low to high moderate not release of drilling mud into a watercourse may affect aquatic medium-term medium significant ecosystems 18(g) a pipeline failure may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, negative LSA short-term accidental short- to low to high low moderate not wildlife habitat and aquatic ecosystems long-term significant Accidents and Malfunctions Summary negative PF to RSA immediate to accidental immediate to low to high low moderate not short-term permanent to significant high 19. EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT 19(a) mass wasting events (e.g., debris flows, rock slides) negative PF to LSA immediate accidental short- to low low moderate not long-term significant 19(b) flooding negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low low high not significant 19(c) wildfire negative RSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low high not significant Effects of the Environment on the Project Summary negative PF to RSA immediate to accidental short- to low to high low moderate not short-term long-term to high significant Notes: 1. PF = Project Footprint; LSA = Local Study Area; RSA = Regional Study Area; SRSA = Supra-regional Study Area 2. Significant Residual Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

3. The evaluation of significance has included compensation considerations.

TABLE 6.7

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF ADVERSE RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS FOR MOUNT ROBSON PROVINCIAL PARK

Temporal Context 1 Significance Adverse Residual Effects Impact Balance Spatial Context Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence 1. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1(a) areas of minor instabilities may occur in fill materials as a result negative PF short-term isolated short-term low high high not of blasting and/or terrain instabilities significant 1(b) topography may be altered at locations where cut slopes are too negative PF short-term isolated permanent low high moderate not steep to be replaced or where blasting was required to remove significant grade rock 1(c) substantial loss of cover over the pipeline may occur in isolated negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low high not areas as a result of an extreme flood event significant 1(d) a wildfire may affect the construction schedule neutral to RSA short-term accidental short-term low low high not

Page 6-203 Page 6-203 negative significant Physical Environment Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term accidental to short-term to low to high low moderate not negative isolated permanent to to high significant high 2. SOIL CAPABILITY 2(a) mixing of topsoil or root zone material and subsoil negative PF short-term isolated medium-term low high high not significant 2(b) surface erosion of topsoil or root zone material can be expected negative PF short-term isolated short- to low to high high not until a vegetative cover has been established medium-term medium significant 2(c) revegetation of some disturbed soils with high wind erosion negative PF short-term isolated to short- to low to high high not potential occasional long-term medium significant 2(d) trench subsidence or a remnant crown may remain negative PF short-term isolated medium-term low high high not significant Soil Capability Summary negative PF short-term isolated to short- to low to high high not occasional long-term medium significant 3. WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 3(a) alteration of natural drainage patterns until trench settlement is negative PF to LSA short-term isolated to short-term low high high not complete occasional significant 3(b) reduction in surface water quality due to suspended solids negative LSA short-tem isolated immediate to low to high high not during a completely isolated crossing short-term medium significant 3(c) reduction in surface water quality due to suspended solids negative LSA short-tem isolated short-term medium to high high not during a partially isolated crossing of a very large river high significant 3(d) disruption of water well flows may occur during construction negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low low high not significant

TABLE 6.7 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Impact Balance Spatial Context Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 3(e) potential disruption of groundwater flow where springs are negative LSA short-term isolated short-term low low high not encountered during construction significant Water Quality and Quantity Summary negative PF to LSA short-term isolated to immediate to low to high low high not occasional short-term to significant high 4. GREENHOUSE GASES AND AIR QUALITY 4(a) incremental increase in the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions negative SRSA short-term continuous long-term negligible high high not associated with the Trans Mountain system to low significant 4(b) increase in vehicle emissions during construction negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant 4(c) increase in dust arising from construction traffic on the right-of- negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high high not way and unpaved access roads significant

Page 6-204 Page 6-204 4(d) increase in dust arising from blasting negative PF to LSA immediate isolated immediate to low high high not short-term significant 4(e) rise in air emissions during site-specific maintenance activities negative PF to LSA immediate to periodic short-term negligible high high not short-term to low significant Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality Summary negative PF to SRSA immediate to isolated to immediate to negligible high high not short-term continuous long-term to low significant 5. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 5(a) increase in noise during construction negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not significant 5(b) rise in noise levels during site-specific maintenance activities negative LSA immediate to periodic immediate negligible high high not short-term to low significant Acoustic Environment Summary negative LSA immediate to isolated to immediate negligible high high not short-term periodic to low significant 6. FISH AND FISH HABITAT 6(a) loss and alteration of riparian habitat3 negative LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high high not significant 6(b) loss and alteration of instream habitat from direct disturbance neutral RSA long-term isolated long-term low high moderate not and downstream sediment deposition3 significant 6(c) increased suspended sediment concentrations in water column3 negative LSA immediate to occasional long-term low high high not short-term significant 6(d) mortality from blasting, dewatering, and recreational fishing by negative RSA short-term isolated long-term low low moderate not contractors and staff significant 6(e) combined effects on bull trout3 neutral RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not significant 6(f) combined effects on fish and fish habitat3 neutral RSA long-term isolated long-term low high high not significant

TABLE 6.7 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility Fish and Fish Habitat Summary3 neutral LSA to RSA immediate to isolated to long-term low to low moderate not long-term occasional medium to to high significant high 7. WETLANDS 7(a) alteration of wetland habitat following disturbance negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not medium term significant 7(b) alteration of hydrologic function of wetlands negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high moderate not significant 7(c) alteration of water quality function of wetlands negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low high moderate not significant Wetlands Summary negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not medium-term significant

Page 6-205 Page 6-205 8. VEGETATION 8(a) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S1 rare vascular plant population significant may occur and transplanted or propagated specimens may not survive 8(b) if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not loss or alteration of the local S2 rare non-vascular plant significant population may occur 8(c) if the S3 plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow strip negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community 8(d) if the unique plant community cannot be avoided, then a narrow negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not strip of the community will be disturbed resulting in some loss or significant alteration of the community and access restrictions and temporarily covering of the site may not completely protect the community 8(e) alteration of montane vegetation in the Project Footprint most of neutral PF short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not which to be restored to early seral montane vegetation significant 8(f) alteration of approximately 1 ha of Douglas-fir savannah habitat negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term medium high moderate not in the PF in MRPP significant 8(g) control of invasive species on Project Footprint neutral PF short-term isolated medium-term medium high moderate not significant 8(h) removal of salvageable timber from the forested land base negative PF to LSA short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant Vegetation Summary neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated medium- to low to high moderate not negative long-term medium significant

TABLE 6.7 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 9. WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 9(a) loss and alteration of wildlife habitats negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Wetland, Shrub and Riparian Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Douglas Fir and White Spruce Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Pine Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Floodplain Spruce Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Aspen and Balsam Poplar Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not

Page 6-206 Page 6-206 significant • Cedar and Hemlock Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant • Cedar and Mixedwood Forest Habitat negative PF short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant 9(b) combined effects on amphibians negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • boreal chorus frog, if mitigation measures do not completely negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not protect this species long-term significant • western (boreal) toad, if mitigation measures do not negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not completely protect this species long-term significant • long-toed salamander, if mitigation measures do not negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not completely protect this species long-term significant 9(c) combined effects on reptiles negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant 9(d) combined effects on birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low low moderate not long-term to significant high • wetland birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium- to low low moderate not long-term significant • forest and grassland birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • migratory birds negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant 9(e) combined effects on ungulates negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant • moose negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant

TABLE 6.7 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility • elk negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant • deer negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-term low high moderate not significant 9(f) combined effects on bears negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to short-to long- low low moderate not occasional term significant • grizzly bear negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant • black bear negative PF to RSA long-term occasional short-to low low moderate not medium-term significant 9(g) combined effects on large-ranging carnivores negative PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low low low to not long-term occasional long-term to moderate significant high Page 6-207 Page 6-207 • wolf negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant • lynx negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • cougar negative PF to RSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant • wolverine negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to short-to low low low not occasional medium-term significant • fisher negative PF to RSA long-term occasional short-to low low low not medium significant 9(h) combined effects on small to medium-sized mammals negative PF to LSA short- to isolated to short- to low low moderate not long-term occasional long-term to significant high • coyote negative PF to LSA long-term isolated to medium-term low low moderate not occasional significant • river otter negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-to low high moderate not medium-term significant • marten negative PF to LSA short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not long-term significant Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Summary negative PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low low low to not long-term occasional long-term to moderate significant high 10. SPECIES AT RISK 10(a) combined effects on bull trout neutral RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not significant 10(b) combined effects on western (boreal) toad, if mitigation negative PF short-term isolated medium-to low high moderate not measures do not completely protect this species long-term significant

TABLE 6.7 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 10(c) combined effects on wolverine negative PF to RSA short-term isolated to short-to low low low not occasional medium-term significant 10(d) combined effects on grizzly bear negative PF to RSA long-term isolated to medium-to low low moderate not occasional long-term significant Species at Risk Summary neutral to PF to RSA short- to isolated to short- to low low low to not negative long-term occasional long-term to high significant high 11. HERITAGE RESOURCES 11(a) identified surface site at KL 458.0 may be disturbed if a negative PF short-term isolated permanent low high high not trenched crossing of the Fraser River is utilized significant 11(b) potential loss of buried heritage resources discovered during negative PF short-term isolated permanent low low high not construction significant

Page 6-208 Page 6-208 11(c) a decrease in the quality of the experience along the Canada negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term low low high not Heritage River at the Fraser River crossing at KL 458.1 may significant occur Heritage Resources Summary negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term to low low high not permanent to significant high 12. TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE 12(a) alteration of vegetation used by Aboriginal groups negative PF short-term isolated medium- to low high high not long-term significant 12(b) disruption of Aboriginal hunting activities neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term negligible high high not negative to low significant 12(c) alteration of wetlands supporting plant and animal species of negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short- to low high moderate not value to Aboriginal groups medium-term significant 12(d) alteration of the existing viewshed at select locations within JNP neutral to LSA to RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not and MRPP negative significant 12(e) alteration of water quality during construction negative PF to LSA short-term isolated immediate to low to high high high not short-term significant Traditional Land and Resource Use Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term isolated immediate to negligible high moderate not negative long-term to high to high significant 13. HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE 13(a) the navigability of some watercourses along the Proposed neutral to PF to LSA short-term isolated immediate negligible low high not Route may be affected during construction negative to low to significant high 13(b) alteration of 3 representative viewsheds in MRPP neutral to LSA to RSA short-term isolated long-term low high high not negative significant 13(c) a decrease in the quality of the recreation experience on negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not some trails in MRPP may occur during construction medium significant

TABLE 6.7 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 13(d) use of some trails in MRPP may be disrupted during negative PF to LSA short-term isolated short-term medium high high not construction significant 13(e) some traffic conflicts may arise intermittently between trail negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not users and the construction camp at Dennison Gravel Pit in significant MRPP 13(f) a decrease in the quality of the fishing experience in MRPP negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not may occur during construction significant 13(g) a decrease in the quality of kayaking, canoeing or rafting negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not experiences in MRPP may occur during construction significant 13(h) some roadside pull-outs along Highway 16 in MRPP will be negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not closed during construction activities significant Human Occupancy and Resource Use Summary neutral to PF to RSA short-term isolated immediate to negligible low high not negative long-term to medium to significant Page 6-209 Page 6-209 high 14. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING No adverse residual effect identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15. HUMAN HEALTH No adverse residual effect identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 16(a) traffic on Highway 16 will be affected by construction negative LSA short-term isolated immediate medium high high not activities significant 16(b) increase in traffic on Highway 16 and other access routes negative LSA short-term isolated immediate medium high high not during construction significant 16(c) increase in waste flow to regional landfill and transfer station negative RSA to short-term isolated immediate to low to high high not sites SRSA short-term medium significant 16(d) some local or regional tourist accommodations may be negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate to low high high not occupied by Project workers short-term significant 16(e) incidents arising during construction may warrant the use of negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate low low high not some emergency services significant 16(f) traffic on some local roads in MRPP will be affected by negative LSA to RSA short-term isolated immediate low to high high not construction activities medium significant 16(g) increase in noise associated with construction camps negative LSA short-term isolated immediate low high high not significant Infrastructure and Services Summary negative LSA to short-term isolated immediate to low to low high not SRSA short-term medium to significant high 17. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY No adverse residual effect identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TABLE 6.7 Cont'd

1 Temporal Context 2 Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Spatial Context Adverse Residual Effects Duration Frequency Reversibility 18. ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS 18(a) spot spills, once remediated, will have little adverse residual negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low moderate not effect, although other resources could be affected or lost as a significant result of the accident 18(b) fires may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, and in very negative LSA to RSA immediate to accidental short- to low to high low moderate not rare situations, affect wildlife and adjacent property short-term long-term significant 18(c) rupture of water, sewage, oil or gas lines could lead to negative LSA to RSA immediate to accidental short-term low to high low moderate not interruption of services, contamination of land or water and short-term significant fires in the case of gas while cable damage can lead to interrupted service of the utility to communities and local residences 18(d) fly rock may cause injury to wildlife or people while negative PF to LSA immediate accidental immediate to low to high low moderate not unintentional detonation of explosives could affect wildlife, long-term significant Page 6-210 Page 6-210 aquatic ecosystems, and people depending on the proximity to the detonated area 18(e) a transportation accident may cause injury to people or negative LSA short-term to accidental immediate to low to high low moderate not wildlife or may result in fire or contamination of lands and long-term permanent significant water depending on the location and severity of the accident 18(f) depending on the volume and location of the release, a negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short- to low to high moderate not release of drilling mud into a watercourse may affect aquatic medium-term medium significant ecosystems 18(g) a pipeline failure may adversely affect adjacent vegetation, negative LSA short-term accidental short- to low to high low moderate not wildlife habitat and aquatic ecosystems long-term significant Accidents and Malfunctions Summary negative PF to RSA immediate to accidental immediate- low to high low moderate not short-term to permanent to significant high 19. EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT 19(a) mass wasting events (e.g., debris flows, rock slides) negative PF to LSA immediate accidental short- to low low moderate not long-term significant 19(b) flooding negative PF to LSA short-term accidental short-term low low high not significant 19(c) wildfire negative RSA short-term accidental short-term low to high low high not significant Effects of the Environment on the Project Summary negative PF to RSA immediate to accidental short- to low to high low moderate not short-term long-term to high significant Notes: 1. PF = Project Footprint; LSA = Local Study Area; RSA = Regional Study Area; SRSA = Supra-regional Study Area 2. Significant Residual Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. 3. The evaluation of significance has included compensation considerations. Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8

TMX - ANCHOR LOOP PROJECT WATERBODY CROSSING SUMMARY

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class 2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk Alberta 311.0 Unnamed Ephemeral 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type I or Type III Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed bottom 311.9 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type I or Type III NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom Measures proposed 312.0 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Moderate Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type I or Type III NA Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom Measures proposed 313.8 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom Measures proposed 314.4 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type V NA Standard Measures None None Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom proposed 314.6 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type V NA Standard Measures None None Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom proposed 314.6 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III or Type NA Standard Measures None None bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom V proposed 315.6 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III or Type NA Standard Measures None None bearing V proposed 315.8 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type I or Type V NA Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 316.0 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 317.0 Unnamed Perennial 3 Fish- Not sampled BRST, PRDC Not sampled Moderate Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I or Type III NA Standard Isolate Riparian Low Channel bearing fish salvage frozen to bottom (open bottom Measures habitat and structure) restoration monitoring 319.4 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III or use NA Standard Measures None None Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom existing TMPL proposed route 321.1 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 325.0 Drystone Intermittent 8 Non-fish- No fish Dry Not sampled Low Open Open cut if Isolate if flowing Type I or Type V NA Standard Measures None Low Creek bearing captured or dry or frozen proposed observed to bottom Jasper National Park 326.1 Unnamed Perennial 2 (NFB) Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured No fish captured Moderate Open Isolate Open cut if frozen Type I or use Type III Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed or observed to bottom existing TMPL Measures proposed route 327.8 Fiddle Perennial 1 Fish- BLTR MNWH Not sampled Moderate- July 1 - August Isolate with Trenchless Use adjacent NA Standard Isolate Salvage High River bearing High 15 fish salvage Highway bridge Measures existing and boulder/cobbl monitoring e banks 330.1 Unnamed Lake 10 Fish- Not sampled LKCH Not sampled Moderate Open Isolate with Open cut if frozen Use Highway NA Standard Isolate None Low Pond bearing fish salvage to bottom Measures proposed and monitoring 331.5 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Use Highway Type V icefill in Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom winter if frozen Measures proposed 332.0 Unnamed Pond 10 Fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled Low* Open Isolate Open cut if frozen Use Highway NA Standard Isolate None Low Pond bearing to bottom Measures proposed

November 2005 Page 6-211 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 333.0 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut if Isolate if flowing Type III NA Standard Measures None None Channel bearing dry or frozen proposed to bottom 333.2 Roche Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Existing TMPL Type III Standard Crossing None Low Miette bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom route Measures proposed Creek 335.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None bearing water present 336.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 336.7 Athabasca Seasonal 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type I or use NA Standard Crossing None Low River bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom Highway Measures proposed (side channel) 337.4 Athabasca Perennial 1 Fish- MNWH Not sampled Not sampled Moderate- November 1 to Trenchless Open cut with Access from NA Standard Trenchless Riparian High River bearing High December 31 with monitoring either side of Measures habitat March 10 to monitoring existing TMPL restoration April 30 route 338.0 Unnamed Perennial 2 Fish- BURB BURB Not sampled Moderate May 1 - Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing December 31 fish salvage frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed and bottom monitoring 338.1 Unnamed Perennial 2 Fish- BURB BURB Not sampled Moderate May 1 - Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing December 31 fish salvage frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed and bottom monitoring 341.7 Unnamed Perennial 3 Fish- BKTR BKTR Not sampled Moderate- May 1 - Isolate with Trenchless outside Type I NA Standard Isolate Riparian High Channel bearing High September 15 fish salvage work window Measures habitat and restoration monitoring if flowing 346.4 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Existing TMPL NA Standard Measures None None Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom route or Type IV proposed 348.0 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type I or Type III NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed flowing frozen to bottom or use existing Measures proposed observed TMPL route 351.3 Vine Perennial 1 (NFB) Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I or use NA Standard Crossing None Low Creek bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom existing TMPL Measures proposed observed flowing route (salvage bed material) 352.2 Unnamed Perennial 1 Fish- BKTR No fish captured Not sampled Moderate- May 1 - Isolate with Trenchless Type I or use NA Standard Isolate Riparian High Channel bearing or observed High September 15 fish salvage existing TMPL Measures habitat and route restoration monitoring if flowing 352.7 Corral Perennial 2 (NFB) Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Moderate Open Isolate Open cut if frozen Type I Existing Type Standard Crossing None Low Creek bearing captured or or observed to bottom IV crossing in Measures proposed observed low flow conditions 354.1 Unnamed Perennial 3 Fish- BKTR, BLTR, BKTR, MNWH, Not sampled High July 16 -August Isolate with Trenchless Type I or use NA Standard Isolate Riparian High Channel bearing RNTR, BLTR 15 fish salvage existing TMPL Measures habitat MNWH and route restoration monitoring 354.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open Cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 354.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open Cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed

November 2005 Page 6-212 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 355.3 Cobblesto Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open Cut Not sampled Type IV NA Standard Measures None None ne Creek - Dry in fall bearing proposed 04 and spring05 355.7 Unnamed Perennial 1 (NFB) Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low May 1 - Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I or use NA Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed September 15 monitoring if frozen to bottom existing TMPL Measures proposed observed November 1 - flowing route April 15 356.6 Miner Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type I or use Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None Creek - dry 2005 bearing flowing or frozen to existing TMPL proposed subsurface streambed route flow 356.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open Cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 357.0 Unnamed Seasonal 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut Type I NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing dry or observed monitoring if Measures proposed flowing 360.2 Snaring Perennial 1 Fish- No fish Not sampled Not sampled Moderate July 16 - Isolate with Trenchless Type III (ramp Type II Standard Isolate Riparian Moderate River bearing captured or August 15 fish salvage and multi multispan Measures habitat observed and culvert) at low vehicle restoration monitoring if flow crossing or flowing access from either side of existing TMPL route 360.3 Snaring Perennial 2 Fish- RNTR, Not sampled - BLTR, RNTR, Moderate- July 16 - Isolate with Trenchless Type I NA Standard Isolate Riparian High - channel River bearing MNWH, BLTR dangerous MNWH High August 15 fish salvage Measures habitat difficult to (side and restoration isolate channel) monitoring if flowing 361.5 Unnamed Seasonal 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - Not sampled No fish captured Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type V Log fill if Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing dry or observed flowing frozen to bottom flowing or icefill if Measures proposed frozen to bottom 361.6 Unnamed Seasonal 8 Non-fish- No fish Not sampled No fish captured Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type V Log fill if Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed flowing frozen to bottom flowing or icefill if Measures proposed observed frozen to bottom 366.0 Unnamed Ephemeral 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled None Open Open cut if Isolate if flowing Type III or Type Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None Channel bearing or observed dry V if flowing proposed 366.2 Unnamed Perennial 2 (NFB) Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Moderate Open Isolate with Not sampled Type I or use NA Standard Isolate Riparian Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if existing TMPL Measures habitat (Palisades observed instream. route restoration Creek) 371.9 Unnamed Perennial 1 Fish- BKTR, BKTR, BLTR, Not sampled High July 1 - August No instream Isolate with fish Use Highway NA Standard Isolate Riparian Low Channel bearing MNWH LNDC, LNSC 15 activity - salvage and Measures; Maintain habitat (Sucker install in road monitoring erosion barrier to restoration Creek) shoulder prevent sediment above existing input. culvert 372.1 Pyramid Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I, type III, Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Creek bearing dry no water monitoring if frozen to or use existing frozen to Measures proposed flowing streambed TMPL route bottom 372.2 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I, type III, Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing no water monitoring if frozen to or use existing frozen to Measures proposed flowing streambed TMPL route bottom 375.0 Cottonwo Perennial 3 Fish- RNTR RNTR Not sampled High July 16 - April 1 Isolate with Open cut if dry or Existing Jasper Type I Standard Isolate Riparian Low od Creek bearing fish salvage frozen to bottom roadway Measures habitat and restoration monitoring

November 2005 Page 6-213 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 379.1 Cabin Perennial 2 Fish- BKTR, RNTR BLTR, RNTR, Not sampled Moderate- July 16 - No instream Isolate with fish Type III, or use NA Standard Isolate None Low Creek bearing BKTR, LNSC High August 15 activity - salvage and existing TMPL Measures proposed install in road monitoring route shoulder above existing culvert 382.4 Unnamed Perennial 1 Fish- BKTR Not sampled BKTR, RNTR, Moderate- July 16 - Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type II NA Standard Isolate Riparian High Channel bearing LKCH, LNDC High September 15 flowing with frozen to bottom Measures habitat fish salvage restoration and monitoring 383.2 Miette Perennial 1 Fish- BLTR, MNWH Not sampled Not sampled Moderate- April 5 - April Trenchless Isolate with fish Access from NA Standard Trenchless Riparian Low River bearing High 15 with salvage and either side of Measures habitat July 16 - monitoring, monitoring existing TMPL restoration August 15 pending route geotechnical investigation 383.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 383.8 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if frozen Type III or Type NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed flowing to bottom V Measures proposed 384.2 Unnamed Pond 10 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate Open cut if frozen Type IV NA Standard Isoalte None None Pond bearing to bottom Measures proposed 385.9 Muhigan Perennial 1 Fish- BKTR MNWH, RNTR, Not sampled High July 16 - Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I Type III Standard Isolate Riparian High Creek bearing BKTR August 30 monitoring frozen to bottom Measures habitat and fish restoration salvage 386.8 Conifer Perennial 3 Fish- RNTR, UNID No fish captured Not sampled Moderate- Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I or Type III NA Standard Isolate None Low Creek bearing or observed High monitoring frozen to bottom Measures proposed and fish salvage 386.9 Unnamed Intermittent 7 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I or Type III NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring frozen to bottom Measures proposed observed 387.0 Unnamed Perennial 3 Fish- No fish BKTR Not sampled Moderate May 1 - Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I or Type III NA Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing captured or September 15 monitoring frozen to bottom Measures proposed observed November 1 - April 15 388.2 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Existing TMPL NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed monitoring frozen to bottom route or Highway Measures proposed bridge 388.5 Unnamed Ephemeral 8 Fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Existing TMPL Type I Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed monitoring. frozen to bottom route or Highway Measures proposed bridge 390.3 Meadow Perennial 2 Fish- RNTR Not sampled BKTR, RNTR Moderate July 16 - Isolate with Open cut if dry or Highway bridge NA Standard Isolate Riparian Moderate Creek bearing captured, September 15 fish salvage frozen to bottom Measures habitat MNWH and restoration observed monitoring 394.8 Clairvaux Perennial 2 Fish- BKTR, RNTR Not sampled Not sampled Moderate- July 16 - Trenchless Isolation with fish Type I Type II Standard Isolate Riparian High Creek bearing High September 15 crossing with salvage and Measures habitat monitoring monitoring restoration 395.9 Unnamed Perennial 2 Fish- Not sampled BKTR, LKCH Not sampled Moderate May 1 - Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III NA Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing September 15 flowing with frozen to bottom Measures proposed November 1 - monitoring April 15 and fish salvage

November 2005 Page 6-214 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 396.3 Miette Perennial 1 Fish- MNWH Not sampled Not sampled Moderate- April 5 - April Trenchless Isolate with fish Access from NA Standard Isolate Riparian Low River bearing High 15 with salvage and either side of Measures habitat July 16 - monitoring, monitoring existing TMPL restoration August 15 pending route geotechnical investigation 396.6 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 396.8 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Existing TMPL NA Standard Measures None None bearing route proposed 399.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type V if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing or frozen to proposed bottom 400.0 Derr Perennial 1 Fish- BURB, BURB, MNWH Not sampled High July 1 - August Isolate with Trenchless Existing TMPL NA Standard Isolate Riparian High Creek bearing MNWH, 15 fish salvage route bridge Measures habitat BKTR, BLTR and restoration monitoring 401.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 403.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 405.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 405.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 405.3 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 405.4 Miette Perennial 1 Fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled Moderate November 1 - Trenchless Isolate with fish TBD NA Standard Isolate Riparian Low River bearing April 15 with salvage and Measures habitat monitoring, monitoring restoration pending geotechnical investigation Mount Robson Provincial Park 407.9 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 407.9 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 408.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 409.1 Unnamed Perennial 5 Fish- No fish LNC LKC, EB Moderate Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Use Highway Type III Standard Isolate Deviate Low Channel bearing captured or fish salvage frozen to bottom Measures centreline observed and downstream monitoring of cascade 410.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 410.6 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 411.6 Rockingha Perennial 1 Fish- RB, BB Not sampled Not sampled Moderate July 16 - Isolate with Open cut if dry or Use Highway Type I or Type Standard Isolate Riparian Low m Creek bearing September 15 fish salvage frozen to bottom II Measures habitat and restoration monitoring 412.8 Unnamed Perennial 3 Fish- No fish Ice cover RB Moderate July 16 - April 1 Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III (open Type V Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing captured or precluded fish salvage frozen to bottom bottom structure) Measures proposed observed sampling and monitoring

November 2005 Page 6-215 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 413.9 Unnamed Perennial 5 Fish- No fish No fish captured LKC Moderate Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Use Highway Type III Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed fish salvage frozen to bottom Measures proposed observed and monitoring 414.4 Unnamed Wetland 10 Fish- Not sampled No fish captured RB Moderate July 16 - April 1 Isolate with Open cut if dry or Use Highway Type I or Type Standard Isolate None Low Wetland bearing or observed fish salvage frozen to bottom. II Measures proposed and monitoring 414.9 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 416.4 Yellowhea Perennial 1 Fish- RB Not sampled Not sampled Moderate July 15 - Isolate with Open cut if dry Type I Type II Standard Isolate Riparian Low d Creek bearing September 15 fish salvage Measures habitat restoration 417.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 418.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 418.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 419.0 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 419.6 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring frozen to bottom Measures proposed observed 420.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 420.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 421.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 421.3 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 421.4 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - No fish, dry Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type IV NA Standard Measures None None Channel bearing dry channel flowing frozen to bottom proposed 422.4 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 423.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 423.4 Cottonwo Perennial 4 Fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low-Moderate Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III (open Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low od Creek bearing captured or or observed monitoring frozen to bottom bottom structure) or frozen to Measures proposed observed bottom 424.5 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III NA Standard Measures None Low channel bearing captured or or observed flowing frozen to bottom proposed observed 424.8 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III NA Standard Measures None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed flowing frozen to bottom proposed observed 425.4 Unnamed Ephemeral 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None Low Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom proposed 425.7 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III NA Standard Measures None Low Channel bearing or observed flowing frozen to bottom proposed 425.9 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 426.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 426.9 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing proposed

November 2005 Page 6-216 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 427.7 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 428.6 Grant Perennial 1 Fish- LNC, RB, BB Not sampled Not sampled Moderate- July 16 - Isolate with Open cut if dry or Use existing Type I or Type Standard Isolate Riparian Low Brook bearing High December 31 fish salvage frozen to bottom access road and II Measures habitat and bridge restoration monitoring 428.7 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if culvert Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing proposed 429.0 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 430.0 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 431.6 Unnamed Perennial 2 (NFB) Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate if Open cut if frozen Type I NA Standard Measures None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed flowing to bottom proposed observed 432.0 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Isolate if flowing Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 433.0 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 433.3 Moose Perennial 1 Fish- MW, CRI, BT Not sampled Not sampled Moderate- July 1 - August Trenchless Isolate with Use existing NA Standard Isolate Riparian High River bearing High 15 with monitoring access road and Measures habitat monitoring, bridge restoration pending geotechnical investigation 433.7 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 435.9 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing too steep proposed 435.9 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- Not sampled - Not sampled Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type V NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing too steep monitoring if frozen to bottom Measures proposed flowing 436.8 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled None Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing too steep monitoring if frozen to bottom proposed flowing 437.5 Unnamed Ephemeral 4 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled None Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None Channel bearing no water monitoring if frozen to bottom proposed flowing 438.3 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 438.6 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III NA Standard Measures None None bearing flowing frozen to bottom proposed 438.9 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III (open Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom bottom structure) or frozen to Measures proposed observed flowing bottom 439.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 439.3 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III (open NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom bottom structure) Measures proposed observed flowing 439.3 Unnamed Ephemeral 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing dry or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 439.4 Unnamed Ephemeral 6 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 439.4 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed

November 2005 Page 6-217 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 439.5 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III (open Type V if Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom bottom structure) frozen to Measures proposed observed flowing bottom 439.9 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- Not sampled - Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing too steep too steep monitoring if frozen to bottom or frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 439.9 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Measures None None bearing flowing frozen to bottom or frozen to proposed bottom 440.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 440.4 Unnamed Intermittent/ 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low Channel Ephemeral bearing too steep too steep monitoring if frozen to bottom or frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 440.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 440.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 440.7 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 440.7 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 440.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 440.9 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 441.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 441.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 441.4 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 441.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 441.7 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 441.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 442.0 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 442.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 442.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 442.4 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 442.6 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 442.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 443.0 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 443.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 443.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 443.3 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed

November 2005 Page 6-218 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 443.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 443.6 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 443.7 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 443.9 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 443.9 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 444.6 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 444.6 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom or frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 444.8 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing flowing frozen to bottom proposed 444.9 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing flowing frozen to bottom proposed 445.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 445.4 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- Not sampled no fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III Type IV Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom Measures proposed flowing 445.7 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 445.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 446.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 446.3 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low-Moderate Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed flowing frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed observed bottom 447.0 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV Standard Measures None None bearing flowing frozen to bottom proposed 447.1 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed observed flowing bottom 447.1 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Measures None None bearing flowing frozen to bottom frozen to proposed bottom 447.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 448.0 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 448.3 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III Type V Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom Measures proposed observed flowing 448.6 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed observed flowing bottom 449.2 Woodley Perennial 4 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Use Highway Type III (open Standard Crossing None Low Creek bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom bottom Measures proposed observed flowing structure) 449.4 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Moderate Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Use Highway Type III (open Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom bottom Measures proposed observed flowing structure)

November 2005 Page 6-219 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 450.2 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- No fish No fish captured Not sampled Moderate Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III (open Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing captured or or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom bottom structure) frozen to Measures proposed observed flowing if flowing bottom 450.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 451.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 451.3 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 451.6 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type IV NA Standard Crossing None None bearing flowing frozen to bottom Measures proposed 451.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 452.1 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 452.2 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III NA Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom Measures proposed flowing 452.7 Unnamed Perennial 2 Fish- unidentified No fish captured Not sampled Low July 16 to Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I or Type II Use Highway Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing fish observed or observed August 15 fish salvage frozen to bottom (50 m Measures proposed and downstream) monitoring if flowing 453.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 453.6 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 454.0 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Isolate if Open cut if dry or Type I NA Standard Measures None None bearing flowing frozen to bottom proposed 454.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 455.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 456.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 456.6 Unnamed Ephemeral 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing no water no water monitoring if frozen to bottom Measures proposed flowing 456.7 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing no water monitoring if frozen to bottom Measures proposed flowing 456.8 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type IV if dry Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing no water no water monitoring if frozen to bottom Measures proposed flowing 457.3 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 458.1 Fraser Perennial 1 Fish- RB, MW Not sampled Not sampled Moderate- July 16 - Trenchless Open cut within Access from NA Standard Trenchless Riparian Low River bearing High August 15 proposed work either side of Measures habitat November 1 - window with fish existing TMPL restoration if April 15 salvage route contingency crossing method implemented 458.2 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 458.5 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed

November 2005 Page 6-220 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Construction Planning Preliminary Method, Pipeline Crossing of Preliminary Method, Vehicle Access Across Stream Stream Preliminary Protection Measures Waterbody Waterbody TMX Species Present Species Present Species Present Instream Work Mitigation and Enhancement Preliminary Location Name Type 1 Class2 Fish Presence (Fall) 3 (Spring) 3 (Summer) 3 Fish Sensitivity Window Proposed Primary Contingency Primary Contingency Restoration and Follow-Up Crossing Risk 458.8 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing too steep monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 458.8 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 458.9 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 459.0 NCD NCD 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV NA Standard Measures None None bearing proposed 459.1 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing too steep monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 459.2 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing too steep monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 459.4 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing too steep monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 460.5 Unnamed Perennial 2 Fish- RB Not sampled Not sampled Moderate July 16 to April Isolate with Open cut if frozen Type I NA Standard Isolate None Low Channel bearing 1 monitoring to bottom Measures proposed and fish salvage 461.0 Unnamed Perennial 4 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing too steep frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed bottom 462.5 Unnamed Perennial 6 Non-fish- No fish Not sampled - Not sampled None Open Isolate with Open cut if frozen Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Measures None None Channel bearing captured or barrier monitoring to bottom frozen to proposed observed bottom 463.1 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled - Not sampled - Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing dry dry monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 464.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed 465.9 Cochrane Perennial 2 (NFB) Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type I Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Creek bearing or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom British Columbia 466.4 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled No fish captured Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type IV Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing or observed monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 467.7 Unnamed Intermittent 8 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled Low Open Isolate with Open cut if dry or Type III if flowing Type V if dry or Standard Crossing None Low Channel bearing monitoring if frozen to bottom frozen to Measures proposed flowing bottom 467.8 NVC NVC 9 Non-fish- Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled None Open Open cut Not sampled Type IV ford if NA Standard Measures None None bearing water present proposed

1. Water Body Type: Perennial = A watercourse that flows year round, vary in size, provide year round habitat for fish Seasonal = A watercourse that flows for part of the year only Intermittent = Usually a function of seasonality. Generally do not dry up completely, may retain water in isolated pools or connected by sub-surface flow. Can represent important migration routes or spawning or rearing habitat. Ephemeral = A watercourse present at different periods in time. Variance may spans years, with watercourse becoming vegetated during periods of no flow. NVC = No Visible Channel; a depression with no visible bed or banks and no direct/indirect fisheries potential. NCD = Non Classified Drainage; a designation for a waterbody with a continuous channel less than 100 m in length and no direct/indirect fisheries potential. Wetland = An area of swamp, marsh, or other similar habitat with distinct vegetation and where the water table is at, near or above the surface. 2. TMX Classification: 1 Very Large (>20 m) watercourse with fisheries potential

November 2005 Page 6-221 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

2 Large (>5m - 20 m) watercourse with fisheries potential 3 Medium (1.5m - 5m) watercourse with direct / indirect fisheries potential 4 Medium (1.5m - 5m) watercourse with no fisheries potential 5 Small (<1.5 m) permanent watercourse with direct / indirect fisheries potential 6 Small (<1.5 m) permanent watercourse with no direct / indirect fisheries potential 7 Seasonal/intermittent watercourse with direct / indirect fisheries potential 8 Seasonal/intermittent watercourse with no fisheries potential; includes NCD 9 No Visible Channel (NVC) 10 Wetland, lake or pond (NFB) Denotes Non Fish-bearing for TMX Classification 1 & 2

3. Species: Alberta British Columbia Species Alberta British Columbia Bull Trout BLTR BT White Sucker WHSC WSU Brook Trout BKTR EB Lake Chub LKCH LKC Rainbow Trout RNTR RB Longnose Dace LNDC LNC Mountain White Fish MNWH MW Spoonhead Sculpin SPSC CRI Northern Pike NRPK NP Chinook Salmon CH Burbot BURB BB Pearl Dace PRDC PDC Longnose Sucker LNSC LSU BT/DV Historically Dolly Varden were reported in BC but since the distinction of the species with Bull Trout it is suspected that the DV are most likely bull trout based on sampling in other areas of waterbody.

November 2005 Page 6-222 3739

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 6 Tables

TABLE 6.9

NATIVE SEED MIXES BY HABITAT TYPE

Mix #1* Mix #2* Mix #3* Mix #4* Douglas-fir and White Spruce Forest Grassland and Dry Slope Wetland, Shrub and Riparian Forest Cedar Forest Community Type Aspen and Balsam Poplar Forest Pine Forest slender/awned wheatgrass 20% northern wheatgrass 25% hairy wild rye 30% hairy wild rye 35% Rocky Mountain fescue 20% hairy wild rye 20% slender/awned wheatgrass 25% fowl bluegrass 30% northern wheatgrass 20% Rocky mountain fescue 20% fowl bluegrass 20% ringed brome grass 20% fringed brome 15% slender/awned wheatgrass 20% Rocky mountain fescue 15% tufted hair grass 15% mountain brome 10% alpine bluegrass 10% tufted hair grass 10% hairy wild rye 10% june grass 5% june grass 5%

Seeding Rates: Seeding Rates: Seeding Rates: Seeding Rates: Drilled: 12 kg/ha Drilled: 12 kg/ha Drilled: 12 kg/ha Drilled: 12 kg/ha Broadcast: 20 kg/ha Broadcast: 20 kg/ha Broadcast: 20 kg/ha Broadcast: 20 kg/ha Note: * Species composition by percent seed weight

3739 EA S6 Effects Assessment_rep-KL Revised: 18/11/2005 2:02:00 PM November 2005 Page 6-223 3739

TABLE 6.17

RECOMMENDATIONS / MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN JASPER NATIONAL PARK

Location Site # Site Type Site Verification Recommendations / Mitigative Measures KL 331+200 2206R Possible graves Field verify site location Avoidance KP/KL 342+050 249R/250R Habitation; cabin/root cellar Field verify site location Stage I mitigative excavation (20 m2) KP/KL 345+300 2195R Transportation; wooden survey marker ---- Sketch, photograph, core sample KP/KL 347+000 2043R Precontact; lithic workshop --- Stage I mitigative excavation (10 m2) KP/KL 354+000 281R Multi-Component; prehistoric campsite, historic homestead --- Stage I mitigative excavation (20 m2) KP/KL 354+150 282R Prehistoric; buried campsite ---- Stage I mitigative excavation (10 m2) KP/KL 363+100 2190R Prehistoric; surface scatter ---- No further work KP/KL 364+200 2209R Prehistoric; surface scatter --- No further work KP/KL 364+500 2191R Prehistoric; isolated find --- No further work KP/KL 365+200 979R Multi-component; paleoindian campsite; historic lean to ---- Stage I mitigative excavation (10 m2) KP/KL 365+500 1060R Historic; fence --- No further work KP/KL 370+750 995R Multi-component; historic camp, lithic scatter ---- Stage I mitigative excavation (10 m2) KP/KL 371+500 1003R Multi-component; prehistoric campsite, construction camp --- Fence prior to clearing (within 5 m) KP/KL 371+780 1007R Transportation; cellar depressions, construction camp --- Stage I mitigative excavation (2 m2) KP/KL 373+500 1011R Prehistoric; isolated find ---- No further work

Page 6-224 Page 6-224 KP/KL 373+700 2194R Transportation; wooden survey marker --- Sketch, photograph, core sample KP/KL 374+871 323R Habitation; cabin, Laroque’s house Field verify site location Avoidance (utilize existing disturbance) KP/KL 375+011 1014R Multi-component; prehistoric scatter, historic scatter Field verify site location Stage I mitigative excavation (20 m2) KP/KL 376+600 1059R Transportation; historic scatter --- No further work KP/KL 379+220 2188R Habitation; cabin Field verify site location Stage I mitigative excavation (2 m2) KL 381+100 2208R Transportation, habitation; cellar depressions Field verify site location Stage I mitigative excavation (10 m2) KL 382+800 1146R Multi-component; prehistoric workshop, historic scatter --- Stage I mitigative excavation (5 m2) KL 387+850 2187R Habitation; cabin depression Field verify site location Stage I mitigative excavation (2 m2) KL 388+709 1152R Habitation; log cabin Field verify site location No further work KL 396+400 594R Historic; stone oven Field verify site location Avoidance (fence prior to clearing) KL 398+511 2212R Prehistoric; buried campsite --- Stage I mitigative excavation (40 m2) KL 398+700 2211R Multicomponent; prehistoric campsite, historic ditch/berm --- Stage I mitigative excavation (40 m2) KL 398+818 2192R Prehistoric; workshop, lithic scatter --- Stage I mitigative excavation (6 m2) KL 398+836 2193R Historic; blasting can dump Field verify site location No further work KL 398+850 1169R Habitation; log cabin --- Fence prior to clearing (within 5 m) KL 402+500 1183R Historic; grave Avoidance (reroute around site), construction monitoring KL 402+933 2197R Transportation; blasting can dump Field verify site location Sketch, photograph, representative sample KL 403+137 1184R Habitation; log cabins Field verify site location Stage I mitigative excavation (20 m2) KL 403+464 1316R Historic; blasting can dump Field verify site location Sketch, photograph, representative sample KL 403+865 1304R Historic; blasting can dump Field verify site location Sketch, photograph, representative sample KL 403+967 1305R Historic; blasting can dump --- Sketch, photograph, representative sample KL 405+296 2144R Transportation; railway bed --- Sketch, photograph, map (some deconstruction) KL 405+500 1984R Transportation, habitation; townsite Field verify site location Avoidance

TABLE 6.18

SUMMARY TABLE OF VIEWSHED ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR OBSERVER VIEWPOINTS IN JASPER NATIONAL PARK AND MOUNT ROBSON PROVINCIAL PARK

Pre-Construction Post-construction Area Area Site Visual Total Viewshed Percent Total Viewshed Percent Viewshed Visual Observer Absorption Viewshed Disturbed Viewshed Visual Quality Viewshed Disturbed Viewshed Visual Quality Disturbed Quality Viewpoint Location Capability Size (ha) (ha) Disturbed Objective Size (ha) (ha) Disturbed Objective (ha; %) Objective OV #1 JNP Low 791.7 10.3 1.3 Retention 1,308.7 11.5 0.9 Preservation 1.2 ha No change KL 331.4 -0.4 % OV #2 JNP High 10,662.4 31.3 0.3 Preservation 10,662.4 42.5 0.4 Preservation 11.2 ha No change ~KP/KL 348.5 0.1% OV #3 JNP High 12,525.8 352.3 2.8 Retention 12,525.8 362.8 2.9 Retention 10.5 ha No change ~KP/KL 377.5 0.1% OV #4 JNP High 46,470.1 774.6 1.7 Retention 46,470.1 796.4 1.7 Retention 21.8 ha No change ~KL 382.0 0.05% OV #5 JNP Low 2,380.6 41.3 1.7 Retention 2,607.2 42.6 1.8 Retention 1.3 ha No change KL 390.3 0.1% Page 6-225 Page 6-225 OV #6 JNP Moderate 587.3 2.2 0.4 Preservation 587.3 6.8 1.2 Preservation 4.6 ha No change ~KP/KL 392.6 0.8% OV #7 JNP High 3,584.8 9.4 0.3 Preservation 3,584.8 20.2 0.5 Preservation 10.8ha No change ~KL 396.4 0.3% OV #8 MRPP Low 276.0 5.5 2.0 Retention 276.6 6.1 2.2 Retention 0.6 ha No change KL 407.4 0.2% OV #9 MRPP Moderate 188.4 3.7 2.0 Retention 188.4 6.7 3.6 Retention 2.9 ha No change ~KL 422.5 1.6% OV #10 MRPP Low 20.2 4.5 22.2 Modification 20.2 5.7 25.9 Modification 1.2 ha No change ~KL 424.8 3.7%