GRIZZLY BEAR MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT NEB CONDITION 56
March 2018 REV 3 687945 01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 R3
Prepared for:
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC
Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Suite 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 5J2 Ph: 403-514-6400
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
TABLE OF CONCORDANCE National Energy Board (NEB) Condition 56 is applicable to the following legal instruments: OC-064 (CPCN), AO-004-OC-2 (OC2), XO-T260-007-2016 (Temp), XO-T260-008-2016 (Pump 1) and XO-T260-009-2016 (Pump 2). Table 1 describes how this Plan addresses the Condition requirements applicable to Project activities.
TABLE 1
LEGAL INSTRUMENT CONCORDANCE WITH NEB CONDITION 56: GRIZZLY BEAR MITIGATION PLAN
OC-064 AO-004-OC-2 XO-T260-007-2016 XO-T260-008-2016 XO-T260-009-2016 NEB Condition 56 (CPCN) (OC2) (Temp) (Pump1) (Pump2) Trans Mountain must file with the NEB for approval, at least 4 months prior to commencing construction in each vulnerable Grizzly Bear Population Unit/grizzly Section 1.0 of this Plan. Section 1.0 of this Plan. Section 1.0 of this Plan. N/A - this legal instrument does not Section 1.0 of this Plan. Bear Management Area, a Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan for each of these areas. Trans Mountain must provide a rationale for why any vulnerable Grizzly Bear have a Project interaction as Population Units/Grizzly Bear management units potentially affected by the Project are not addressed in the plan. The Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan(s) must include: described in Section 4.0 of this Plan. a) a summary of results from any supplementary surveys conducted; Section 5.0 of this Plan. Section 4.0 of this Plan. Section 4.0 of this Plan. See above. Section 4.0 of this Plan. b) potential direct and indirect effects of Project activities on vulnerable grizzly bear populations units and grizzly bear management units; Section 3.1 and Section 4.0 of this Section 3.1 and Section 4.0 of this Section 3.1 and Section 4.0 of this See above. Section 3.1 and Section 4.0 of this Plan. Plan. Plan. Plan. c) mitigation measures to be implemented, including all relevant measures committed to throughout the OH-001-2014 proceeding, any new mitigation Section 5.0, Section 5.0, Section 5.0, See above. Section 5.0, measures resulting from supplementary surveys, detailed criteria using clear and unambiguous language that describes the circumstances under which Section 6.0 and Section 6.0 and Section 6.0 and Section 6.0 and each measure will be applied, and measurable targets for evaluating mitigation success; Appendix C of this Plan. Appendix C of this Plan. Appendix C of this Plan. Appendix C of this Plan. d) details on post-construction monitoring of mitigation measures, including survey methods, corrective measures, detailed criteria using clear and Section 7.0 of this Plan. Section 7.0 of this Plan. Section 7.0 of this Plan. See above. Section 7.0 of this Plan. unambiguous language that describes the circumstances under which each measure will be applied, and a proposed reporting schedule; e) a commitment to include results of the monitoring in the Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring (PCEM) reports filed under Condition 151; Section 7.4 of this Plan. Section 6.4 of this Plan. Section 6.4 of this Plan. See above. Section 6.4 of this Plan. f) a description of how Trans Mountain has taken available and applicable Aboriginal Traditional Land Use (TLU) and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Section 1.2 and Appendices A and B Section 1.2 and Appendices A and B Section 1.2 and Appendices A and B See above. Section 1.2 and Appendices A and B into consideration in developing the plans including demonstration that those Aboriginal persons and groups that provided Aboriginal traditional land use of this Plan. of this Plan. of this Plan. of this Plan. information and traditional ecological knowledge, as reported during the OH-001-2014 proceeding and/or pursuant to Condition 97, had the opportunity to review and comment on the information; g) a summary of its consultations with Appropriate Government Authorities, any species experts and potentially affected Aboriginal groups. In its summary, Section 2.0 and Appendix A of this Section 2.0 and Appendix A of this Section 2.0 and Appendix A of this See above. Section 2.0 and Appendix A of this Trans Mountain must provide a description and justification for how Trans Mountain has incorporated the results of its consultation, including any Plan. Plan. Plan. Plan. recommendations from those consulted, into the Plan; and h) confirmation that Trans Mountain will update the relevant Environmental Protection Plan(s) to include any relevant information from the Grizzly Bear Section 5.0 of this Plan. Section 5.0 of this Plan. Section 5.0 of this Plan. See above. Section 5.0 of this Plan. Mitigation Plan, including confirmation that the mitigation, monitoring, and corrective measures in this plan will be implemented in the case of discovery via their inclusion in Trans Mountain’s Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page i
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan (the Plan) was prepared to address the requirements of National Energy Board (NEB) Condition 56 regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“the Project” or “TMEP”). Grizzly bear is listed as Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, are Blue-listed in British Columbia (BC) and listed as Threatened under the Alberta Wildlife Act. Portions of the pipeline route are located within two Bear Management Areas (BMAs) in Alberta and four Grizzly Bear Population Units (GBPU) in BC. The North Cascades GBPU in BC is considered Threatened while the other BMAs and GBPUs crossed are not considered vulnerable. Project interactions with grizzly bear and potential effects are associated with habitat alteration, barriers or changes in movement, and mortality risk, although provincial regulators have indicated that mortality risk as a result of increased access is the primary concern.
This Plan demonstrates Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC’s (Trans Mountain) commitment to avoid and mitigate Project effects on grizzly bear and their habitat in the BMAs/GBPUs through the application of mitigation and restoration measures. Following a hierarchy of mitigative actions, Trans Mountain has considered measures to avoid Project effects to grizzly bear and will apply appropriate measures to minimize Project effects, followed by implementation of access management and habitat restoration measures. Mitigation developed as part of this Plan includes, but is not limited to, reducing potential effects of the Project on suitable habitat and restoring affected areas (e.g., minimizing/adjusting the configuration of temporary workspace, minimizing grading and grubbing, woody vegetation planting in selected areas) and preventing any Project-related grizzly bear mortalities during construction and operations. Measurable goals and targets, as well as details of Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring (PCEM) to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and habitat restoration measures are provided.
The measures in this Plan align with other Plans prepared for the Project, specifically the Access Management Plan. Since the primary Project interaction with grizzly bear is associated with mortality risk, the focus of mitigation is to provide measures to mitigate Project-related access associated with the pipeline easement and access roads. Key components of the Access Management Plan are incorporated into this Plan, including specific strategies and measures to control access during Project construction and operations and decision frameworks that show how access management locations and measures are selected, and how corrective measures will be implemented. Candidate locations for access management measures have been identified using a decision framework, Project information and mapping, field reconnaissance (aerial overflights) and information provided by Aboriginal groups. Site-specific locations for access management will be refined in the field based on factors such as availability of material and storage space, the construction techniques used, and ongoing consultation and engagement.
The Plan was developed in consideration of the current regulatory policies, as well as consultation with Appropriate Government Authorities. Applicable Aboriginal Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge are also incorporated.
This Plan will be included as part of the Environmental Management Plans (Section 6, Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) to ensure that the mitigation and restoration measures are implemented. Additionally, the results of PCEM for grizzly bear will be provided in the PCEM reports to be filed by Trans Mountain as per NEB Condition 151.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page ii
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONCORDANCE ...... I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... II 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use ...... 3 1.3 Mitigation Hierarchy ...... 3 1.4 Objective and Measurable Goals ...... 4 1.5 Commitment Management ...... 4 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ...... 5 3.0 CONTEXT AND APPROACH ...... 6 3.1 Ecology and Project Effects ...... 6 3.2 Regulatory Context ...... 6 3.2.1 Federal Regulatory Policy and Guidance ...... 7 3.2.2 Provincial Regulatory Policy and Guidance ...... 7 4.0 PROJECT INTERACTION ...... 10 4.1 Grande Cache BMA ...... 10 4.2 Yellowhead BMA ...... 11 4.3 Robson GBPU ...... 12 4.4 Wells Gray GBPU ...... 12 4.5 Columbia-Shuswap GBPU ...... 14 4.6 North Cascades GBPU ...... 15 5.0 MITIGATION ...... 20 5.1 Avoid ...... 20 5.1.1 Project Routing...... 20 5.1.2 Scheduling ...... 20 5.2 Minimize and Restore Onsite ...... 21 5.3 Integration with the Access Management Plan ...... 26 5.3.1 Selection of Access Management Locations ...... 26 5.3.2 Selection of Access Management Measures ...... 27 6.0 MEASURING MITIGATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION SUCCESS ...... 30 7.0 MONITORING ...... 32 7.1 Monitoring Timeframe ...... 32 7.2 Monitoring Strategy ...... 32 7.2.1 Bear-Human Conflict Monitoring ...... 32 7.2.2 Access Control Monitoring ...... 33 7.2.3 Habitat Restoration Monitoring ...... 35 7.3 Corrective Measures ...... 35 7.4 Reporting ...... 36 8.0 CONCLUSION ...... 38 9.0 REFERENCES ...... 39 9.1 Personal Communications ...... 39 9.2 Literature Cited ...... 39 9.3 GIS Mapping References ...... 41
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page iii
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Consultation and Engagement ...... A-1 Appendix B Summary of TLU and TEK Activities Completed within Traditional Territories that Cross the BMAS/GBPUS ...... B-1 Appendix C Candidate Access Management Locations in BMAS/GBPUS ...... C-1 Appendix D Record of Stakeholder Notifications of Plan ...... D-1 Appendix E Contact Information and Recording Bear Sightings ...... E-1
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Grande Cache and Yellowhead BMAs ...... 17 Figure 2 Robson, Wells Gray and Columbia-Shuswap GBPUs ...... 18 Figure 3 North Cascades GBPU ...... 19 Figure 4 Decision Framework for Selection of Access Management Locations ...... 28 Figure 5 Decision Framework for Selection of Access Management Measures ...... 29 Figure 6 Adaptive Approach for the Application of Corrective Measures ...... 35 Figure 7 Adaptive Management Decision Framework for Access Management ...... 37
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Legal Instrument Concordance with NEB Condition 56: Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan ...... i Table 2 Summary of Direct Project Interaction with Grande Cache BMA ...... 10 Table 3 Summary of Direct Project Interaction with the Yellowhead BMA ...... 11 Table 4 Summary of Direct Project Interaction with the Robson GBPU ...... 12 Table 5 Summary of Direct Project Interaction with the Wells Gray GBPU ...... 13 Table 6 Summary of Direct Project Interaction with Columbia-Shuswap GBPU ...... 14 Table 7 Summary of Direct Project Interaction with North Cascades GBPU ...... 15 Table 8 Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Measures within BMAS/GBPUS ...... 22 Table 9 Performance Indicators and Measurable Targets for North Cascades Grizzly Bear ...... 30 Table 10 Monitoring Strategy ...... 32 Table A-1 Summary of Public Consultation - May 2012 to June 20151 ...... A-3 Table A-2 Summary of Public Consultation – July 2015 to February 2017 ...... A-4 Table A-3 Summary of Regulatory Consultation Activities Related to Grizzly Bear (May 2012 to June 2015) ...... A-4 Table A-4 Summary of Regulatory Consultation Activities Related to Grizzly Bear (July 2015 to March 2017) ...... A-6 Table A-5 Summary of Aboriginal Concerns Regarding Grizzly Bears ...... A-7
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page iv
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
1.0 INTRODUCTION The Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan (the Plan) was prepared to address the requirements of NEB Condition 56 regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“the Project” or “TMEP”). The Plan was submitted to Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups and species experts on September 16, 2016 for review. Feedback was requested by January 13, 2017, although additional feedback was considered up until March 2017. A copy of the draft Plan was sent out to additional Aboriginal groups on June 28, 2017 with a deadline of July 28, 2017 for feedback and on July 6, 2017 with a deadline of August 6 for feedback. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) incorporated any feedback into the final Plan or has provided rationale for why input has not been included, as summarized in Appendix A.
Since the September 16, 2016 release of the draft Plan, engineering design has continued to progress and there have been design updates that are described in detail in the TMEP Fall 2016 Project Updates (www.transmountain.com/environmental-protection-plans). All of the design updates have been reviewed, and the Project design updates that are relevant have been incorporated into this Plan.
This Plan has been prepared to describe planning considerations, mitigation and restoration measures to reduce potential effects of the Project on grizzly bear and their habitat. Grizzly bear is listed as Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2017) and is not currently listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Government of Canada 2017).
In British Columbia (BC), grizzly bear is blue-listed and is recognized as a species of special concern (BC Conservation Data Centre 2017). The Project crosses four GBPUs in BC: Robson, Wells Gray, Columbia-Shuswap and North Cascades. Only the North Cascades GBPU is considered Threatened (BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations [MFLNRO] 2012). The other three BC GBPUs are considered Viable (BC MFLNRO 2012). Grizzly bear is listed as Threatened under the Alberta Wildlife Act (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2014) and is recognized as May Be at Risk in Alberta (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development [ASRD] 2012). The Project crosses two Bear Management Areas (BMAs) in Alberta: Yellowhead (BMA 3) and Grande Cache (BMA 2). Since the NEB Project proceedings (OH-001-2014) (see Section 1.5), Trans Mountain has continued consultation with provincial government authorities regarding grizzly bear population status and mitigation. Recent data finds that grizzly bear populations are increasing in the Yellowhead BMA (Stenhouse et al. 2015), and the Grande Cache BMA has a high population of grizzly bears compared to the other BMAs in Alberta (Hobson pers. comm.) (Alberta Environment and Parks [AEP] 2016). The grizzly bear populations in these Alberta BMAs are not considered vulnerable.
The proposed mitigation measures in the Project Environmental Plans (Volumes 1 through 8), including development and implementation of a Wildlife Conflict Management Plan, and measures to reduce new access and control access where it cannot be avoided, are consistent with regional resource management objectives and strategies for vulnerable and viable grizzly bear populations. This Plan describes the mitigation measures and monitoring strategy that will be implemented for the Grande Cache, Yellowhead, Robson, Wells Gray, Columbia-Shuswap and North Cascades BMA/GBPUs in addition to those presented in the Environmental Plans. BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) Condition 18 (Grizzly Bear Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – North Cascades Population) also considers the North Cascades GBPU (and will refer to NEB Condition 56), and EAO Condition 19 (Grizzly Bear Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Robson, Wells Gray and Columbia-Shuswap Populations) considers mitigation and monitoring for the Robson, Wells Gray, Columbia-Shuswap GBPUs crossed by the Project.
1.1 Project Description Trans Mountain filed its Facilities Application (the Application) with the NEB in December 2013. In developing its Application, Trans Mountain commenced an engagement and communications program of extensive discussions with landowners, engagement with Aboriginal groups and consultation with affected stakeholders. This program was intended to gather input from these groups into the Application and supporting Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA), and to continue to assist Trans Mountain in the design and execution of the Project. Trans Mountain is also working with Appropriate Government Authorities to carry out the necessary reviews, studies and assessments required for the Project.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 1
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
For ease of description, the following terms are used:
Kilometre Post (KP): describes distances measured along the centreline of the pipeline.
Project Footprint: includes the area directly disturbed by surveying, construction, clean-up and operation of the pipeline, as well as associated physical works and activities (including the temporary construction lands and infrastructure, the pipeline, reactivation, facilities, the Westridge Marine Terminal, and access roads). For clarity, specific components of the Project Footprint are further described by Trans Mountain below.
• Temporary construction lands and infrastructure refers to preparatory works to support Project construction and includes temporary camps, stockpile sites, equipment staging areas and borrow pits located on land that has been previously disturbed, as well as access roads within the first 10 km of each designated construction spread. For ease of assessing Project interactions, these access roads are considered as part of the overall access road network.
• Pipeline construction footprint refers to the total area used to construct the pipeline and includes the right-of-way and temporary workspace (TWS).
• Reactivation of currently deactivated pipeline segments include and engineering assessment under Section 45 of the National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulations and associated construction activities. Currently known ground disturbance activities and associated access (as of December 2016), were assessed to determine the Project interactions. For ease of assessing Project interactions, these access roads were considered as part of the overall access road network.
• Facilities refer to pump stations, terminals (Edmonton, Sumas and Burnaby), and associated infrastructure (i.e., traps), most of which are located on land that has been previously disturbed. Westridge Marine Terminal has infrastructure located on land and in the marine environment, and is included in the Facilities component of the Project.
• Access roads include new temporary and permanent roads and existing roads that may require upgrades or improvements. For ease of assessing Project interactions, this includes the access roads to be developed as part of temporary construction lands and infrastructure, as well as those accesses associated with reactivation.
Contingency Alternate Routes: refer to three alternate pipeline route segments that have been identified and assessed for use if construction on the preferred route is not feasible. These are not included in the Project Footprint defined above since they are considered contingency alternates.
• Raft River, in BC (KP 713.1 to KP 714.4), is an alternate open cut contingency alignment. The preferred primary crossing method, a horizontal directional drill (HDD), does not support an open cut contingency crossing method at the same location.
• Pembina River, in Alberta (KP 133.0 to KP 134.7), is an alternate open cut contingency alignment. Similar to Raft River, the preferred primary crossing method (HDD) does not support an open cut contingency crossing method at the same location.
• Westridge Delivery Lines (WDLs) (WDL KP 0.0 to WDL KP 3.4) is an alternate contingency alignment for a trenched installation around the Burnaby Conservation Area in BC. The preferred pipeline corridor requires tunnel construction and does not support a trenched contingency option; therefore, an alternate trenched contingency alignment has been identified.
Variances: as part of the Project Footprint update that occurred in December 2016, a number of route revisions located outside of the Project corridor were identified. Trans Mountain is in the process of seeking approval from the NEB in 2017 for these route realignments. All of the variances have been reviewed in consideration of impacts to this Plan and minor adjustments to the direct project interactions and KP ranges were required as a result, where applicable.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 2
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Trans Mountain has engaged with Aboriginal groups who might have an interest in the Project or have Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project, based on the proximity of their community and their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. Appendix B provides a summary of Aboriginal participation in wildlife field work as well as Traditional Land Use (TLU) opportunities for Aboriginal groups whose traditional territories cross the BMAs/GBPUs. The wildlife field work listed in Appendix B includes a variety of wildlife survey types (e.g., breeding bird, amphibian) and are not specific to grizzly bear. Appendix A provides more detail on the engagement process.
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) participants identified good grizzly bear habitat near Juliet Creek within the North Cascades GBPU, given the presence of salmon, abundance of potential denning habitat and berry plants, and minimal human presence. Over the past 20 years, the decline in salmon has caused a decline in the regional grizzly bear population. Bears are moving south and west for food sources and to higher elevations. Bears once frequented the Fraser and Thompson Rivers, however participants believe that increased human presence in the region may prevent bears from returning. Grizzly bear tracks and scat were identified by TEK participants and it was reported that bears are likely using the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) right-of-way for habitat and food in some locations. TEK participants also noted that disturbance of bear dens may be an issue and a protective buffer may be necessary. The TMEP pipeline route within the North Cascades GBPU is located within a major transportation corridor to avoid the creation of new disturbance. Restoration of key habitats is also a focus of the Project. The Riparian Habitat Management Plan prepared to address NEB Condition 71 provides reclamation prescriptions for riparian habitats associated with water crossings, such as Juliet Creek. Grizzly bear tracks and scat were identified by TEK participants along the Hope to Burnaby Segment and it was reported that bears are likely using the existing right-of-way for habitat and food sources. TEK participants observed evidence of black bear and grizzly bear along the Edmonton to Hinton Segment including scat, tracks, black bear dens, chewed or clawed logs and claw marks on trees. TEK information from Alberta also noted that claw marks on trees indicate a den is nearby, since bears do not tend to wander far from where they mark. Clawing trees is a way for bears to mark their territories and sharpen their claws. Black bears will also dig up the base of trees to mark their territory. Black bears prefer to den on ridges while grizzlies are found in lower-lying, valley lands of the Rocky Mountains. Grizzly bears travel long distances to hibernate and will mate at higher elevations. Bears are considered sacred animals and while rarely hunted today, bear hides were once traditionally worn while hunting or worn for protection and decorated with feathers and beads. TEK participants had concerns regarding potential effects of the Project on bear habitat and bear dens during construction.
1.3 Mitigation Hierarchy Throughout all stages of the development of this Plan, Trans Mountain has applied the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, minimize and restore on-site as described in the Policy and Procedures for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (BC Ministry of Environment [BC MOE] 2014a,b). The Policy and Procedures emphasize the importance of implementing each step of the hierarchy before moving onto the next step. Following this hierarchy, Trans Mountain has considered measures to avoid direct and indirect Project effects on grizzly bear and their habitat within the BMAs/GBPUs where site conditions and construction constraints allow. Where effects cannot be avoided, appropriate measures to minimize and mitigate Project effects, and restore habitat on-site to alleviate the Project’s residual effects will be implemented. The last step of the mitigation hierarchy is offsets. This step is only appropriate if unacceptable residual impacts remain even after measures to avoid, minimize, and restore onsite have been taken. The determination of offsets is the responsibility of the province (BC MOE 2014a,b). Trans Mountain will maintain ongoing consultation with the province during the development, implementation and monitoring components of this Plan.
Measures to avoid, minimize and restore on-site are provided in Section 4.0.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 3
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
1.4 Objective and Measurable Goals The objective of this Plan is to minimize and mitigate potential Project effects on grizzly bear and their habitat. The measurable goals for this Plan are specific to the BMAs/GBPUs and are defined based on the provincial management goals.
The measurable goals of the Plan are to:
1. avoid Project-caused grizzly bear mortality during construction and operations activities; 2. manage access to mitigate potential for increased grizzly bear mortality associated with the pipeline and Project-related access roads during construction and operations; and 3. restore disturbed vegetation to natural vegetation communities.
The performance indicators and targets that will be monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation in achieving the goals of the Plan are described in Section 5.0.
1.5 Commitment Management Trans Mountain made a number of commitments regarding the Project during the OH-001-2014 proceedings and engagement activities up to May 2016. Commitments were made to improve and optimize Project planning and mitigation measures. As Trans Mountain has consolidated its commitments into a Commitments Tracking Table in accordance with NEB Condition 6 the Table of Commitments in each plan has been removed.
The updated Commitments Tracking Table was filed with the NEB pursuant to NEB Condition 6 and is available on Trans Mountain’s web site at https://www.transmountain.com/commitments-tracking. Trans Mountain continues to monitor and track compliance with its commitments and will update, post to its website and file with the NEB updated versions of the Commitments Tracking Table according to the timeframes outlined in NEB Condition 6. Commitments with specific relevance to this Plan have been considered and incorporated in this Plan.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 4
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT Consultation and engagement activities related to the grizzly bear and their habitat and this Plan were conducted between May 2012 and March 2017 with Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups and species experts. A copy of the draft Plan was sent out to additional Aboriginal groups on June 28, 2017 with a deadline of July 28, 2017 for feedback and on July 6, 2017 with a deadline of August 6, 2017 for feedback. Opportunities to discuss grizzly bear and issues or concerns were provided to public stakeholders through online information, workshops, meetings and ongoing engagement activities during the reporting period. Appendix A includes a comprehensive record of these engagement activities, stakeholder feedback and Trans Mountain responses.
The draft Plan was released on September 16, 2016 for review. Feedback was requested by January 13, 2017, although additional Appropriate Government Authority and potentially affected Aboriginal group feedback was considered up until March 2017. Trans Mountain incorporated any feedback into the final Plan or has provided rationale for why input has not been included, as summarized in Appendix A. In many cases, feedback received from BC MOE (Large Carnivore Specialist), extends to other plans prepared for the Project, specifically the Worker Accommodation Strategy (NEB Condition 59), BC EAO Condition 19 (Grizzly Bear Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Robson, Wells Gray and Columbia-Shuswap Populations) and the Wildlife Conflict Management Plan (Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans).
Engineering design changes were issued in the TMEP Fall 2016 Project Update document (www.transmountain.com/environmental-protection-plans) along with a request for feedback. No revisions to this Plan were required as a result of the design updates, with the exception of minor adjustments to direct Project interactions (see Section 4.0) and KP ranges.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 5
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
3.0 CONTEXT AND APPROACH Identified interactions of the Project with grizzly bear habitat, movement and mortality risk are described in detail in the Application including qualitative and quantitative evaluations of direct and indirect effects (Trans Mountain 2013). This section summarizes the ecological and regulatory context of the Project’s potential interaction (direct and indirect) with grizzly bear and their habitat in the BMAs/GBPUs, which is the basis and rationale for the approach taken in the development of this Plan.
3.1 Ecology and Project Effects Vegetation clearing and sensory disturbance during construction and operations of the Project have potential to reduce habitat value for grizzly bear. Vegetation clearing will reduce forest cover and potentially create attractive foraging opportunities for grizzly bear as early seral vegetation regenerates (McKay et al. 2014), provided bears perceive the risk to be low (Cristescu et al. 2014). Grizzlies have shown strong avoidance of areas that are near human-dominated or otherwise noisy areas. Mace et al. (1996) showed that grizzlies reduced their use of habitats that were close to roads, and that this effect extended upwards of 500 m away from a given road. Other studies (McLellan and Shackleton 1988) have shown similar results. Mitigation developed for this Plan focuses on reducing potential effects of the Project on suitable habitat and restoring affected areas (e.g., minimizing/adjusting the configuration of TWS, minimizing grading and grubbing and planting of woody vegetation).
Physical barriers, noise and human activity during construction may temporarily block bear movement, or cause bears in proximity to the Project to alter their usual movement patterns to avoid the construction area. The Project avoids above-ground structures or facilities that would cause a long-term disturbance or barrier to grizzly bear movement. Therefore, long-term barriers to movement are not considered a key Project interaction for the goals and monitoring components of this Plan. Measures to minimize barriers to movement are included in the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) (Volume 2 of the Environmental Plans), and include reducing the length of open trench and strung pipe.
Sensory disturbance has potential to displace bears from important habitats, such as dens. Project interaction with an occupied grizzly bear den is considered low given the route’s proximity to Highway 16 and 5, and the Project’s clearing schedule. Within the North Cascades GBPU, snowfall levels are typically high, requiring completion of construction activities for the Project from late-spring to fall. Since construction will occur within the North Cascades GBPU during the active season for bears, potential interactions with occupied grizzly bear dens will be avoided. Overall, avoidance of sensory disturbance and displacement from grizzly bear overwintering habitat is not considered a key Project interaction for the goals and monitoring components of this Plan.
The primary Project interaction with grizzly bear is associated with human-induced mortality risk. Throughout the grizzly bear’s Canadian range, the single greatest limiting factor for its continued persistence is human-induced mortality. In nearly all regions, the majority of grizzly bear deaths are from human-related causes such as illegal hunting (ASRD 2008, ASRD and Alberta Conservation Association 2010, Austin and Wrenshall 2004, COSEWIC 2012, Hamilton et al. 2004, McLellan 1990). Formerly remote wilderness areas that have become more accessible via an increased amount of roads and other linear features has resulted in bear-human interactions and conflicts, often resulting in human-caused grizzly bear deaths (Benn 1998 in Braid 2015, McLellan and Shackleton 1988, McLellan 2015). As a result, access management and mortality risk stemming from resource development activities are primary issues that affect grizzly bear populations. Therefore, preventing any Project-related grizzly bear mortalities during construction and operations is considered a key Project interaction for the goals and monitoring components of this Plan. This Plan, in combination with other plans, specifically the Access Management Plan (NEB Condition 47), provide measures to mitigate the potential effects of the Project on grizzly bear mortality risk associated with the pipeline easement and Project-related access.
3.2 Regulatory Context This Plan was developed in consideration of current regulatory policies and guidance. Trans Mountain will continue to work with Appropriate Government Authorities to align this Plan with provincial and federal policy.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 6
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
3.2.1 Federal Regulatory Policy and Guidance Grizzly bear is federally listed as Special Concern by the COSEWIC (2017) though is not currently listed under SARA (Government of Canada 2017). There are no federal recovery, management or action plans for grizzly bear.
3.2.2 Provincial Regulatory Policy and Guidance Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Recovery objectives are based on the premise that the grizzly bear population in Alberta is not limited by human-caused mortality, is able to successfully disperse across major road corridors and that Albertans are supportive of grizzly bear conservation and management activities (AEP, 2016).
Within the Grande Cache BMA, poaching, road density and human-bear interactions related to agricultural attractants are threats that management actions will focus on, while management in the Yellowhead BMA will focus on habitat connectivity, poaching and access management.
Strategies for recovery include:
• improving Alberta BearSmart programs;
• enhancing public outreach and education;
• improving provincial coordination and communication between administrative regions;
• reducing human-caused mortality;
• reducing human-grizzly bear conflict by managing attractants;
• minimizing motorized access;
• reducing accidental human-caused mortality;
• using aversive conditions;
• mitigating effect of recreational use;
• improving understanding and management of effects of human use and resource extraction on habitat;
• improving dispersal across major transportation corridors; and assessing potential abundance and distribution using resource selection functions.
Measures relevant to the Project identified in the Recovery Plan include revegetating areas such as roadsides with appropriate seed mixes that are similar to adjacent vegetation and avoids bear attractants (e.g., legumes), and road developments should be temporary and have a schedule for reclamation and/or deactivation.
Alberta Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions The Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions (Government of Alberta 2017), provides desired outcomes and best management practices when working in grizzly bear zones. In order to achieve the desired outcomes of reducing human-caused mortality and human-bear conflicts, and avoiding development in key habitats and attractants, relevant recommended measures include the following:
• workers in bear country will receive education regarding bear awareness;
• to the extent possible, new linear features should parallel existing disturbances;
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 7
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
• avoid high quality and/or effective habitat types;
• coordinate access with other users;
• reforestation should occur within 2 years of pipeline construction and match the adjacent forest type with the exception of 1.5 m on each side of trench-line; and
• limbs of some coniferous trees should be left onsite to provide a seed source.
BC Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (GBCS) Goals for grizzly bear are to maintain in perpetuity the diversity and abundance of grizzly bears and the ecosystems on which they depend and to improve their management and interactions with humans. Conservation strategies for grizzly bear identified in 1995 included the following (Austin et al., 1995):
• a commitment to establish Grizzly Bear Management Areas where grizzly bear hunting will be restricted and where habitat and access issues will be addressed through land use planning;
• the creation of an independent Grizzly Bear Scientific Advisory Committee;
• increased research and inventory of grizzly bear populations and habitat;
• improved hunting regulations;
• increased enforcement;
• increased penalties for poaching and trading in bear parts;
• a comprehensive educational program;
• reducing conflicts between people and grizzly bears; and
• partnerships with the private sector to raise funds for grizzly bear conservation.
More recently, a Grizzly Bear Value Summary as part of the Cumulative Effects Framework was developed (BC Cumulative Effects Framework 2016). Broad, high-level objectives to inform the cumulative effects assessment and avoid long-term cumulative effects to grizzly bears based on a review of existing provincial management direction are the following:
• at the population scale, to manage for viable populations of grizzly bear and avoid populations becoming threatened; and
• at the landscape scale, maintain the distribution of grizzly bears and their habitats.
Recovery Plan for the North Cascades of BC The Recovery Plan for Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades of BC (North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team 2004) includes strategies for habitat management, movement and connectivity, and mortality risk. These strategies can be used to guide mitigation planning for the Project. Stand-scale habitat management strategies identified in the Recovery Plan, such as maintaining or providing cover habitat using vegetated buffers between roads and important grizzly bear habitats are considered in the development of this Plan. Given routing of the Project along Highway 5 for much of the length through the North Cascades GBPU, there is limited interaction between the Project and high value habitats for grizzly bear.
The Recovery Plan also identifies strategies to maintain connectivity of the North Cascades GBPU with other populations (particularly the Stein-Nahatlatch GBPU), including identifying viable linkages across Highway 5. Grizzly bear habitat connectivity and movement are considered in Project mitigation planning, including minimizing temporary barriers to grizzly bear movement during construction.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 8
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Key recovery objectives related to minimizing the potential for grizzly bear-human conflict and human-caused mortality of grizzly bears identify best practices and strategies to help achieve recovery goals. Strategies considered and incorporated into Project planning and mitigation, include:
• responsible management of attractants, such as garbage;
• education of people working in grizzly bear habitat; and
• effective response to grizzly bear-human conflict situations.
These strategies are consistent with the provincial Bear Smart program, which also identifies bear-human conflict prevention actions such as bear-proof waste management, education and effective response to conflicts (Davis et al. 2001). Although these strategies are designed for communities, they are relevant to mitigation planning for the Project.
Grizzly bear hunting in BC is regulated under the BC Wildlife Act. As a Threatened GBPU, the North Cascades GBPU is closed to hunting (BC MOE 2012).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 9
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
4.0 PROJECT INTERACTION Information on the specific components of the Project Footprint as defined in Section 1.1 (temporary construction lands and infrastructure, pipeline construction footprint, reactivation, facilities, access roads, contingency alternate routes and variances) is provided below. The location of the Project is shown on Figures 1 to 3. Trans Mountain has made all reasonable efforts to utilize existing roads to access the Project and limit new access construction.
Trans Mountain has made all reasonable efforts to utilize existing roads within all BMAs and GBPUs to access the Project and limit new access construction. Access to most of the pipeline easement will be via existing roads that either cross or are located adjacent to the pipeline easement. Existing linear corridors (e.g., pipeline rights-of-way, transmission lines and fibre optic line rights-of-way), as well as the construction right-of-way will also be used as access. New temporary access roads and upgrades to existing access roads are necessary to allow equipment, vehicles and emergency response to safely reach the pipeline easement. This is based on information available for Project access roads as of April 3, 2017.
4.1 Grande Cache BMA Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure Two office/yard site options (Hinton Office/Yard - Fleming Drive “Site A” and Hinton Office/Yard “Site B”) associated with temporary construction lands and infrastructure are located within the Grande Cache BMA.
Pipeline Construction Footprint The length and area of direct Project interaction of the pipeline route within the Grande Cache BMA is provided in Table 2.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF DIRECT PROJECT INTERACTION WITH GRANDE CACHE BMA
Length and KP Length contiguous with existing Length contiguous with BMA Range1 Area (ha)2 linear feature3 TMPL Right-of-Way Grande Cache 25.7 km 140.1 15.9 km (61.7%) 14.6 km (56.9%) KP 295.8 to KP 310.9 KP 327.5 to 338.0 Notes: 1 KPs are approximate and are based on route version SSEID005.1. Calculated based on the length of the pipeline centreline. 2 This includes the pipeline construction footprint and does not include existing or new temporary access roads. The total area of the pipeline construction footprint does not account for overlap with the existing TMPL right-of-way where this is paralleled, or for other existing anthropogenic disturbances that may overlap the Project Footprint (e.g., road). Therefore, the area represents an overestimate of Project disturbance. 3 The percentage of the centreline that is parallel to existing linear disturbance includes lengths of the centreline that occur within a 20 m buffer of the centreline or abutted against the footprint of existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, transmission lines, fibre-optic line rights-of-way, and the existing TMPL right-of-way). Following spatial analysis, areas of parallel were visually verified using aerial imagery. Crossings of existing linear features at greater than 45 degree angles were excluded, so as to not artificially inflate the percentage parallel.
Reactivation The Grande Cache BMA interacts with the Hinton to Hargreaves reactivation segment for a total of 79.9 km.
Facilities The Hinton Pump Station is located within the Grande Cache BMA.
New Temporary Access Approximately 3.7 km of new temporary access is planned within the Grande Cache BMA.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 10
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Access Roads that Require Upgrades Approximately 25.3 km of existing roads requiring upgrades will be used within the Grande Cache BMA.
Contingency Alternate Routes Contingency alternate routes are not located within the Grande Cache BMA.
Variances There are no variances located within the Grande Cache BMA.
4.2 Yellowhead BMA Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure The Yellowhead BMA does not interact with temporary construction lands and infrastructure.
Pipeline Construction Footprint The length and area of direct Project interaction of the pipeline route within the Yellowhead BMA is provided in Table 3.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF DIRECT PROJECT INTERACTION WITH THE YELLOWHEAD BMA
Length contiguous with existing Length contiguous with BMA Length and KP Range1 Area (ha)2 linear feature3 TMPL Right-of-Way Yellowhead 16.6 km 78.6 1.5 km (9.0%) 1.3 km (7.9%) KP 310.9 to KP 327.5 Notes: 1 KPs are approximate and are based on route version SSEID005.1. Calculated based on the length of the pipeline centreline. 2 This includes the pipeline construction footprint and does not include existing or new temporary access roads. The total area of the pipeline construction footprint does not account for overlap with the existing TMPL right-of-way where this is paralleled, or for other existing anthropogenic disturbances that may overlap the Project Footprint (e.g., road). Therefore, the area represents an overestimate of Project disturbance. 3 The percentage of the centreline that is parallel to existing linear disturbance includes lengths of the centreline that occur within a 20 m buffer of the centreline or abutted against the footprint of existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, transmission lines, fibre-optic line rights-of-way, and the existing TMPL right-of-way). Following spatial analysis, areas of parallel were visually verified using aerial imagery. Crossings of existing linear features at greater than 45 degree angles were excluded, so as to not artificially inflate the percentage parallel.
Reactivation The Yellowhead BMA interacts with the Hinton to Hargreaves reactivation segment for a total of 8.3 km.
Facilities There are no facilities located within the Yellowhead BMA.
New Temporary Access Approximately 1.4 km of new temporary access is planned within the Yellowhead BMA.
Access Roads that Require Upgrades Approximately 4.0 km of existing access requiring upgrades will be used within the Yellowhead BMA.
Contingency Alternate Routes Contingency alternate routes are not located within the Yellowhead BMA.
Variances There are no variances located within the Yellowhead BMA.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 11
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
4.3 Robson GBPU Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure Two stockpile site options (Valemount Stockpile Site and Valemount Yellowhead Stockpile Site C), three camp and/or office yard site options (Valemount Camp and Office / Yard Alternative, Valemount Camp - Whiskey Hill Road and Valemount Yellowhead Helicopters Office - Site B) associated with temporary construction lands and infrastructure are located within the Robson GBPU.
Pipeline Construction Footprint The length and area of direct Project interaction of the pipeline route within the Robson GBPU is provided in Table 4.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF DIRECT PROJECT INTERACTION WITH THE ROBSON GBPU
Length contiguous with existing Length contiguous with GBPU Length and KP Range1 Area (ha)2 linear feature3 TMPL Right-of-Way Robson 54.5 km 256.8 48.3 km (88.5%) 33.9 km (62.1%) KP 489.2 to KP 543.7 Notes: 1 KPs are approximate and are based on route version SSEID005.1. Calculated based on the length of the pipeline centreline. 2 This includes the pipeline construction footprint and does not include existing or new temporary access roads. The total area of the pipeline construction footprint does not account for overlap with the existing TMPL right-of-way where this is paralleled, or for other existing anthropogenic disturbances that may overlap the Project Footprint (e.g., road). Therefore, the area represents an overestimate of Project disturbance. 3 The percentage of the centreline that is parallel to existing linear disturbance includes lengths of the centreline that occur within a 20 m buffer of the centreline or abutted against the footprint of existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, transmission lines, fibre-optic line rights-of-way, and the existing TMPL right-of-way). Following spatial analysis, areas of parallel were visually verified using aerial imagery. Crossings of existing linear features at greater than 45 degree angles were excluded, so as to not artificially inflate the percentage parallel.
Reactivation The Robson GBPU interacts with the Hinton to Hargreaves reactivation segment for a total of 62.1 km.
Facilities The Hargreaves Trap Site is located in the Robson GBPU.
New Temporary Access Approximately 3.9 km of new temporary access is planned within the Robson GBPU.
Access Roads that Require Upgrades Approximately 34.2 km of existing access requiring upgrades will be used within the Robson GBPU.
Contingency Alternate Routes Contingency alternate routes are not located within the Robson GBPU.
Variances There are no variances located within the Robson GBPU.
4.4 Wells Gray GBPU Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure Camps located within the Wells Gray GBPU are: Blue River Camp, Clearwater McMahon Camp, Office and Yard (Option B) and Clearwater Camp (Camp 2 Road) (Option A) and Clearwater Camp Old Mill Site.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 12
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
The Blue River Office/Yard and Vavenby Stockpile Site (partially) are also located within this GBPU. Pipeline Construction Footprint.
Pipeline Construction Footprint The length and area of direct Project interaction of the pipeline route within the Wells Gray GBPU is provided in Table 5.
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF DIRECT PROJECT INTERACTION WITH THE WELLS GRAY GBPU
Length contiguous with existing Length contiguous with GBPU Length and KP Range1 Area (ha)2 linear feature3 TMPL Right-of-Way Wells Gray 154.9 km 674.9 147.4 km (95.2%) 146.8 km (94.8%) KP 544.0 to KP 548.1 KP 557.3 to KP 559.9 KP 576.8 to KP 616.1 KP 617.6 to KP 617.7 KP 618.6 to KP 618.8 KP 621.1 to KP 627.2 KP 627.4 to KP 628.1 KP 628.4 to KP 630.5 KP 638.2 to KP 638.8 KP 646.5 to KP 676.3 KP 676.4 to KP 677.8 KP 678.5 to KP 705.0 KP 705.5 to KP 711.1 KP 711.3 to KP 747.6 Notes: 1 KPs are approximate and are based on route version SSEID005.1. Calculated based on the length of the pipeline centreline. 2 This includes the pipeline construction footprint and does not include existing or new temporary access roads. The total area of the pipeline construction footprint does not account for overlap with the existing TMPL right-of-way where this is paralleled, or for other existing anthropogenic disturbances that may overlap the Project Footprint (e.g., road). Therefore, the area represents an overestimate of Project disturbance. 3 The percentage of the centreline that is parallel to existing linear disturbance includes lengths of the centreline that occur within a 20 m buffer of the centreline or abutted against the footprint of existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, transmission lines, fibre-optic line rights-of-way, and the existing TMPL right-of-way). Following spatial analysis, areas of parallel were visually verified using aerial imagery. Crossings of existing linear features at greater than 45 degree angles were excluded, so as to not artificially inflate the percentage parallel.
Reactivation The Wells Gray GBPU does not interact with a reactivation segment.
Facilities The Blue River and McMurphy Pump Stations are located within the Wells Gray GBPU.
New Temporary Access Approximately 3.7 km of new temporary access is planned within the Wells Gray GBPU.
Access Roads that Require Upgrades Approximately 36.7 km of existing access requiring upgrades will be used within the Wells Gray GBPU.
Contingency Alternate Routes The Raft River Alternate is located within the Wells Gray GBPU. This contingency alternate route will be used only in the event the preferred primary crossing method (HDD) is unsuccessful and an alternate open cut contingency alignment is required.
Variances There are no variances located within the Wells Gray GBPU.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 13
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
4.5 Columbia-Shuswap GBPU Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure There are no camps located within the Columbia-Shuswap GBPU. The Vavenby Stockpile Site is partially located within the Columbia-Shuswap GBPU.
Pipeline Construction Footprint The length and area of direct Project interaction of the pipeline route within the Columbia-Shuswap GBPU is provided in Table 6.
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF DIRECT PROJECT INTERACTION WITH COLUMBIA-SHUSWAP GBPU
Length contiguous with existing Length contiguous with GBPU Length and KP Range1 Area (ha)2 linear feature3 TMPL Right-of-Way Columbia-Shushwap 48.6 km 217.9 34.3 km (70.8%) 31.1 km (64.1%) KP 543.7 to KP 544.0 KP 548.1 to KP 557.3 KP 559.8 to KP 576.8 KP 616.1 to 617.6 KP 617.7 to KP 618.6 KP 618.8 to KP 621.1 KP 627.2 to KP 627.4 KP 628.1 to KP 628.4 KP 630.5 to KP 638.2 KP 638.8 to KP 646.5 KP 676.3 to KP 676.4 KP 677.8 to KP 678.5 KP 705.0 to KP 705.5 KP 711.1 to KP 711.3 Notes: 1 KPs are approximate and are based on route version SSEID005.1. Calculated based on the length of the pipeline centreline. 2 This includes the pipeline construction footprint and does not include existing or new temporary access roads. The total area of the pipeline construction footprint does not account for overlap with the existing TMPL right-of-way where this is paralleled, or for other existing anthropogenic disturbances that may overlap the Project Footprint (e.g., road). Therefore, the area represents an overestimate of Project disturbance. 3 The percentage of the centreline that is parallel to existing linear disturbance includes lengths of the centreline that occur within a 20 m buffer of the centreline or abutted against the footprint of existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, transmission lines, fibre-optic line rights-of-way, and the existing TMPL right-of-way). Following spatial analysis, areas of parallel were visually verified using aerial imagery. Crossings of existing linear features at greater than 45 degree angles were excluded, so as to not artificially inflate the percentage parallel.
Reactivation The Columbia-Shuswap GBPU does not interact with a reactivation segment.
Facilities The Blackpool Pump Station is located within the Columbia-Shuswap GBPU.
No camps are located in this GBPU.
New Temporary Access Approximately 1.4 km of new temporary access is planned within the Columbia-Shuswap GBPU.
Access Roads that Require Upgrades Approximately 15.5 km of existing access requiring upgrades will be used within the Columbia-Shuswap GBPU.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 14
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Contingency Alternate Routes The Columbia-Shuswap GBPU does not interact with contingency alternate routes.
Variances There are no variances located within the Columbia-Shuswap GBPU.
4.6 North Cascades GBPU Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure There are two camps in the North Cascades GBPU: Hope Camp, Office and Yard, and Hope Stockpile Site and Camp. The Site B – Hope Office/Yard is also located within this GBPU.
Pipeline Construction Footprint The length and area of direct Project interaction of the pipeline route within the North Cascades GBPU is provided in Table 7.
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF DIRECT PROJECT INTERACTION WITH NORTH CASCADES GBPU
Length and KP Length contiguous with Length and % contiguous with GBPU Range1 Area (ha)2 existing linear feature3 TMPL Right-of-Way North Cascades 102.4 km 439.0 84.0 km (82.1%) 45.9 km (44.8%) KP 967.9 to 1032.9 KP 1040.4 to 1078.4 Notes: 1 KPs are approximate and are based on route version SSEID005.1. Calculated based on the length of the pipeline centreline. 2 This includes the pipeline construction footprint and does not include existing or new temporary access roads. The total area of the pipeline construction footprint does not account for overlap with the existing TMPL right-of-way where this is paralleled, or for other existing anthropogenic disturbances that may overlap the Project Footprint (e.g., road). Therefore, the area represents an overestimate of Project disturbance. 3 The percentage of the centreline that is parallel to existing linear disturbance includes lengths of the centreline that occur within a 20 m buffer of the centreline or abutted against the footprint of existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, transmission lines, fibre-optic line rights-of-way, and the existing TMPL right-of-way). Following spatial analysis, areas of parallel were visually verified using aerial imagery. Crossings of existing linear features at greater than 45 degree angles were excluded, so as to not artificially inflate the percentage parallel.
Reactivation The North Cascades GBPU does not interact with a reactivation segment.
Facilities The Hope Pressure Control Station is located within the North Cascades GBPU.
New Temporary Access Within the North Cascades GBPU, there are 32 segments of new temporary access ranging from 5 m to 670 m in length (total length of approximately 4.0 km). Many of these roads are small connectors from an existing secondary road to the pipeline construction footprint primarily to facilitate construction, and will be deactivated and reclaimed post-construction.
Access Roads that Require Upgrades Approximately 29.0 km of existing roads will be used (i.e., 113 segments ranging from 5 m to 2.1 km in length). Many of these roads will only require grading and widening of travel surfaces where necessary to ensure corners and slopes are safe for transport of Project vehicles and equipment and for the installation of temporary water crossing structures (where necessary).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 15
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Contingency Alternate Routes Contingency alternate routes are not located within the North Cascades GBPU.
Variances The Kawkawa Lake variance is located within the North Cascades GBPU.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 16
118°0'0"W 117°30'0"W 117°0'0"W¯
GRANDE Sundance Provincial CACHE Park
William A. Switzer Obed Lake Provincial Provincial Park Park !. KP 280 KP 300 53°30'0"N
!. 53°30'0"N
Hinton
Rock Lake - Solomon Creek Wildland !. Park KP 320
Brule
!. KP 338.1 OP47 YELLOWHEAD Robb
Jasper OP40 National OP16 Park
Cadomin 53°0'0"N Whitehorse 53°0'0"N Wildland Park
118°0'0"W 117°30'0"W 117°0'0"W
BMA Trans Mountain Expansion Project .! Railway BRITISH ALBERTA Kilometre Post (KP) COLUMBIA Grande Cache Trans Mountain Expansion Project Watercourse FIGURE 1 Dawson Proposed Pipeline Centreline Creek Grande (!2 Prairie Yellowhead !97 YELLOWHEAD AND GRANDE CACHE ( (!43 City/Town BEAR MANAGEMENT AREAS Edmonton Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) Prince NOTE: Jasper National Park is George (!16 Hinton Edson considered a Grizzly Bear TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC Quesnel Recovery Zone in the Alberta TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT Valemount Jasper Red !(1 Highway Park/Protected Area Deer Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Blue River 2 Williams (! Lake (!97 Calgary MAP NUMBER PAGE Darfield (!1 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N. 201706_MAP_CH2M_WL_01043_FIG1_REVC SHEET 1 OF 1 Kamloops KPs, Proposed Pipeline - SSEID005.1 provided by UPI March 20, 2017; Existing TMPL Route Revision 0 provided by KMC May 2012; Transportation: BC FLNRO DATE CH2M REF. REVISION 2012, NRCan 2012; Hydrology: USNIMA 2000, Canvec 2015; Geopolitical Boundaries: BC MCSDC 2016, ESRI 2005, NRCan 2003; March 2018 687945 C Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008. Kelowna SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE (!3 1:300,000 11x17 WL Vancouver (Burnaby) Hope DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any SL DJN PMS USA other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Km 0 5 10 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE 122°0'0"W 120°0'0"W 118°0'0"W
BRITISHCOLUMBIA Kakwa River GRANDE CACHE Summit Narraway River er ¯ Lake iv ALBERTA R y k o m M S cg re go r R 54°0'0"N W R iv ron iver e il w r l o o B w Purden 54°0'0"N R Lake i
v e PRINCE r GEORGE OP16
Morkill River
Stony Lake KP 338.1 Isaac MCBRIDE Jasper Lake National Bowron Park Ahbau Lake aring R Lake Sn iv WELLS Kinney e 97 r OP Lake KP 489.2 OP26 Lanezi KP 500 16 Sandy OP Lake Fraser River QUESNEL Lake ROBSON
KP 520 Mitchell YELLOWHEAD Cariboo Lake Lake North Thompson River KP 540
Quesnel Lake Hobson KP 560 Lake Azure McLeese Angus Lake Horne Lake Fortress Lake KP 580 Horsefly Lake Lake Kinbasket Crooked WELLS GRAY Lake Lake KP 600 Mud Lake BLUE RIVER Clearwater Meldrum WILLIAMS LAKE Lake Lake Murtle 52°0'0"N Lake KP 620 Mahood
52°0'0"N Lake 20 OP Canim KP 640 Lake Chilcotin River COLUMBIA- KP 660 CLEARWATER KP 680 OP5 SHUSWAP KP 720
100 MILE Horse r
HOUSE Lake e v
KP 700 i R
KP 740 e OP24 r Green Dunn Adams River o m Revelstoke, Lake Lake y Humamilt e Lake KP 760 Lake S 97 OP Bonaparte KP 764.6
Lake C
BARRIERE o l Adams u REVELSTOKE m CLINTON Lake b Shuswap i a Lake Tsintsunko 1 R OP 23 i Lake OP v e KP 806.5 SUN PEAKS r
Carpenter 99 White SICAMOUS OP KP 820 CHASE Lake Kamloops Lake CACHE Thompson River Lake KAMLOOPS SALMON ARM CREEK Mabel Seton 1 1 97A OP UV KP 840 Niskonlith UV Lake Lake Lake 97B LILLOOET ASHCROFT UV 122°0'0"W 120°0'0"W
.! Trans Mountain Expansion Project Watercourse GBPU or BMA Kilometre Post (KP) BRITISH ALBERTA COLUMBIA Grande Cache Trans Mountain Expansion Project Waterbody FIGURE 2 Proposed Pipeline Centreline Columbia-Shuswap Dawson Creek Grande (!2 Prairie ROBSON, WELLS GRAY AND !97 Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) ( (!43 Robson COLUMBIA-SHUSWAP GRIZZLY BEAR City/Town POPULATION UNITS Edmonton Prince !(1 Highway Yellowhead George (!16 Hinton Edson TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC Quesnel Red TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT Valemount Jasper Deer Railway Provincial Boundary Wells Gray Blue River 2 Williams (! Lake (!97 Calgary MAP NUMBER PAGE Darfield (!1 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N. 201706_MAP_CH2M_WL_01043_FIG2_REVC SHEET 1 OF 1 Kamloops KPs, Proposed Pipeline - SSEID005 provided by UPI January 10, 2017; Existing TMPL Route Revision 0 provided by KMC May 2012; Transportation: BC FLNRO DATE CH2M REF. REVISION 2012, NRCan 2012; Hydrology: USNIMA 2000, Canvec 2015; Geopolitical Boundaries: BC MCSDC 2016, ESRI 2005, NRCan 2003; March 2018 687945 C Grizzly Bear Population Units: BC MOE 2012; Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008. Kelowna SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE (!3 1:1,300,000 11x17 WL Vancouver (Burnaby) Hope DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any SL DJN PMS USA other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Km 0 15 30 45 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE 201706_MAP_CH2M_WL_01043_FIG3_RevC.mxd
49°15'0"N 49°30'0"N 49°45'0"N Morgan LakeMorgan LakeKinnear Mill LakeMill
Pine Lake Pine Sayres LakeSayres
Devils LakeDevils S MISSION
¯ Hayward LakeHayward
Golden Ears Golden t
Provincial a F
v
i
Florence
r Park e S
L
e
Lake l
R
i
C
Alouette Lake Alouette l
Kunzelman l
o i
o r
R
o v e
q i
Cannell LakeCannell e u t v
KP 1120 KP e e
e e k
Lake r T t r Whiskey L i C
Tretheway p Stave LakeStave o Lake Kenyon Lake Kenyon e r ABBOTSFORD s l e
Lake e
t la k
C D
Hatzic C r o Lake DavisLake e Provincial
OP ek r u
Salsbury LakeSalsbury e 7 Park
ek g l
a
s
C
Harrison r
e e Little k
Blinch LakeBlinch GARIBALDI-PITT T W re Lake Winslow Winslow Lake t
Statlu LakeStatlu h i ew
Wilson LakeWilson n a slo y C w r Cr e Dickson Lake e e e k k
Norris S
h C t
a
ProvincialPark r t KP 1100 KP
e l
e u k Errock Cultus
Lake C
Lake r
Elbow Lake Elbow
e 122°0'0"W
S
e t
k o
k MehatlCreek
k
122°0'0"W e k C e
e
r Provincial C
Provincial h e Park h LakeChehalis
Kilby
Park a T
l w
i Lake Lookout s Lake Weaver
R e
Cultus Cultus Lake H i
KP 0 KP n
CHILLIWACK v
a e t
r r y r M NahatlatchLake iso SPRINGS HOT
OP i
HARRISON l n e Provincial
7 R i C
OP v Park ProvincialPark er 1 Big Si Chilliwack r lv e River
e r
ek C r
e e
k C
l
STEIN-NAHATLATCH E
FerryIsland e l k Provincial Harrison LakeHarrison
Trout LakeTrout H a
C Park r
KENT o
r r C
C n
e OP r
e e KP 1080 KP
h
9 t e k e k
i C l
l
r i
T
w e
a e
k
a l
Slollicum c Bridal Bridal VeilFalls ProvincialPark
c C
k r Hicks LakeHicks Lake e
KP 1060 KP
Sasquatch e Provincial R k
i Park v
e U r r
Pierce Pierce Lake
q
Deer Deer Lake S u
u c
b z y z C R y
W u
r C
e r G h
a e e
F.h. Barber a a
k e Provincial
h r n
e
l t r k C
e r
e t a Park e
F k
ch C C
o Cr o r
e g
l e k b e Wahleach e u
r
e r e n C e y k k
C Lake r e e Schkam LakeSchkam
k LakeWotten
121°30'0"W Ling LakeLing S
Inkawthia
p u
HOPE Lake z
121°30'0"W E z
m u Swanee Lake Swanee
o m
r
y C OP r
C
7 e
r e e k OP
e
A
1
k OP n
Greendrop
1
Flora Lake Flora d
e
s a
r AlexandraBridge r
Y e F
o ProvincialPark R i
r r
l v Silver LakeSilver e
Lake a C s
Coquihalla o ProvincialPark KP 1040 KP
r Kawkawa
Provincial
e n EmoryCreek
Canyon
e R
i v r k Park e SilverLake
Provincial
Lake Chilliwack
S Park i
l
v e
r
h
Lake o ChilliwackLake
ProvincialPark p
e
C
r CoquihallaRiver
e ProvincialPark
e E k LakeEaton
ProvincialPark
NicolumRiver a
s
t
A K
l
n
e U
OP s d
3 z
e
i r t
l s l i
k o
u w
KP 1020 KP
aselpanik n
M C s
reek a R
C
R
S i
SkagitValley u v
r Provincial e
i lo Ri m l v e
a er r C v e Park
e k r o
q u Falls LakeFalls ihall RecreationArea
a Coquihalla
R Summit
S iv J
o e 1000 KP
w r u M
a l Lake Murray
q i a e u k
t a
C a
V r Cre CASCADES e e
N C u e k
e LakeGillis
r i NORTH k e
p e c k h o P
C 121°0'0"W
p o re
d e
e k
k S u 980 KP
KP 960 KP u k
n Co ColdwaterRiver mC a l ProvincialPark
121°0'0"W k d
r w Brook g
e Lake
e a
i
k C t t e
R r r i
T R
v e
e iv
e u
r
k L
l e
a
Thunder LakeThunder a
m
w r
e
l
e
e
n
s
R B
Andys
s
i r
Lake
v OP
C o
e
r o
r 5
E.c. E.c. Manning e k V
e C Provincial k reek o OP S
3 g
Park k h
ai t st
R C
Thynne LakeThynne
i
v r
e e r e
Otter Lake Otter k Otter Lake Provincial
G Lake Boss N LakeThalia r Park
a Lake Goose Lightning n e
it w W e
Lake C t o n
h r Ot e LakeFrembd t i ek er C reek p re C s F n Davis Lake a c hy Creek re Lake Shea w ek Lodwick LakeLodwick
C r e
e k Dry Dry Lake Kump Garrison Lake C Kentucky LakeKentucky AllisonLake Alleyne Lake Alleyne Lakes Provincial o Allison
p Park p Lake e r
C
r Ketcham
e A LakeRound
MacKenzie LakeBluey
s Upper
e p
PRINCETON k Lake
C
r Lake
e LakeLoon e k
OP
P
a 5A
OP
s
a y
t 3 e
n 120°30'0"W A
R Sh l
P i
l r v i i Missezula s m
o e r
n p Vinson LakeVinson
Summers to o
C C
n t
r Lake S r h
r e C
e e ek
i e re
120°30'0"W m v k o
meen W
i a Ri o
P l k e l l
f
a
e l c R k
C a
e mpar
r t e OP UV
r C
e r
97C
3
e e C C k e
k r
r
e e e k e k
49°15'0"N 49°30'0"N 49°45'0"N SCALE DATE MAP NUMBER MAP to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without recipient written the other any to provided be to is not and to KMC DRAWN MFLNRO 2007, IHS Inc. 2010, NRCan 2003 & ESRI2005; & 2010, Inc.MFLNRO 2003 2007, NRCan IHS the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary information This only. recipient intended the Hydrology: 2008;ParksFLNROProtected andBC Areas: 201706_MAP_CH2M_WL_01043_FIG3_REVC MOE 2012; Hillshade: TERA Environmental Hillshade: MOEConsultants TERA 2012; This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) Inc. Morgan by use for Kinder by provided is document This with the data used to generate this product or in productthe or users itself, of product this generate to used data the with Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated there that believe to reason no is there Although Existing TMPL Routeprovided Revision byKMC 0 May 2012; Proposed Pipeline SSEID005 & KPs provided by KPs & 2012;ProposedSSEID005 Pipeline TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION MOUNTAIN PROJECT TRANS consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveyinglegal, for used be to not is It KMC. of consent BC MFLNRO 2008; Grizzly PopulationBC BC Bear MFLNRO 2008; Units: March2018 UPI January 10, 2017; Geopolitical Boundaries: BC Boundaries: 10,UPI2017;Geopolitical January purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC'sor pipelines on and work any doing for nor purposes, Vancouver (Burnaby) 1:400,000 UMBIA LU O C 0 Grizzly Population Unit Bear Transportation:2012; NRCan 2012, FLNRO BC these data are advised that errors in the datathe may present. be in errors that advised are data these facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. KMC's require which of all facilities, TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC PIPELINE MOUNTAIN TRANS BEAR GRIZZLY CASCADES NORTH TISH IT R B !( George Prince . ! SL Quesnel 1 Lake Williams Projection: NAD 1983 UTMZone10N. Projection: 1983 NAD ( ! ALLLOCATIONSAPPROXIMATE 97 Kamloops POPULATION UNIT POPULATION Dawson Watercourse Municipality Stein-Nahatlatch Garibaldi-Pitt North Cascades Waterbody Watercourse / or Conservancy Area Protected Park, Provincial Area Railway Highway PipelineTrans Mountain (TMPL) Proposed Centreline Pipeline Expansion ProjectTrans Mountain (KP) Post Kilometre Expansion ProjectTrans Mountain Valemount Creek PAGE SIZE PAGE CHECKED River Blue CH2M REF. CH2M ( ! 5 97 ( ! 16 Hope FIGURE 3 FIGURE 687945 11x17 DJN Darfield Hinton Kelowna Prairie Grande 10 Jasper ( ! RTA E B AL 43 ( ! 1 Edmonton PAGE DISCIPLINE REVISION DESIGN Edson SA US SHEET 1 SHEET1 1 OF ( ! 2 Calgary CMR ( ! WL 3 Deer C Red 15 ( ! 2 km Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
5.0 MITIGATION Project planning and mitigation development considered the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, minimize and restore on-site as described in the following sections. Since the primary Project interaction with grizzly bear is associated with mortality risk, the focus of the mitigation is associated with managing access on the pipeline easement and access roads. To reduce Project-related grizzly bear mortality risk, Trans Mountain is also preparing an Access Management Plan (NEB Condition 47) (Section 2 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Key components of the Access Management Plan are incorporated into this Plan.
The Riparian Habitat Management Plan and the Reclamation Management Plan (Sections 8.7 and 9.1, respectively, of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) include habitat reclamation measures that will be implemented to restore natural vegetation and achieve the third goal of this Plan. Key measures from these plans are incorporated into this Plan, and references to these plans are provided for further detail.
Trans Mountain does not currently have plans to conduct supplemental field surveys specific to grizzly bear. Contingency measures included in the Wildlife Species of Concern Encounter and Discovery Contingency Plan will be implemented if grizzly bear or occupied habitat is encountered during construction. Mitigation and reclamation planning considers the information collected during Project field studies (e.g., wildlife field work for birds, amphibians, wildlife habitat features, weeds, vegetation, wetlands).
5.1 Avoid During the pre-construction phase, available strategies to avoid adverse effects to grizzly bear include routing and siting, and scheduling. The strategies of avoidance that have been considered in Project planning are described below.
5.1.1 Project Routing The pipeline corridor and route selection process for the Project is described in the Application (Section 2.8 of Volume 4A). In general, the primary objective was to locate the pipeline route contiguous to and share construction workspace with the existing TMPL right-of-way wherever practical. The pipeline route is located within existing transportation corridors for most of its length within the BMAs/GBPUs (i.e., Highways 16 and 5). The length parallel to the TMPL right-of-way, as well as other linear features in each BMA/GBPU is provided in Section 4.0. Within the Threatened North Cascades GBPU, deviations from the existing TMPL right-of-way were necessary to address use of existing access, safety and terrain and geohazard concerns. The most prominent deviation extends from approximately KP 981 to KP 1016. It was determined that it was not possible to construct parallel to the TMPL right-of-way along this length due to insufficient workspace for construction, proximity to the Coquihalla River and geotechnical challenges associated with steep and unstable terrain that posed an unnecessary risk to Project personnel and the operating pipeline. As a result, a number of potential alternative corridors were examined. The existing transportation and utility corridor was selected since it provides an existing corridor with linear disturbance (e.g., highway, other utility right-of-way), and a safer option (Figure 3). Additionally, this route along Highway 5 provides improved access for both construction and operation of the pipeline and reduces the need for new temporary access.
5.1.2 Scheduling Project scheduling considers a multitude of factors, such as access requirements and landowner agreements, contractor and equipment availability, progressive linear construction methods, and other sensitive timing windows for wildlife and fish. Clearing for the Project is generally scheduled to occur in fall or early spring. In specific areas, such as the North Cascades GBPU where there is high snowfall levels and avalanche risk, Project clearing and construction will avoid the winter and occur in summer and fall. This will avoid the period when grizzly bears are denning and potential interactions with occupied grizzly bear dens.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 20
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
5.2 Minimize and Restore Onsite Project planning considerations during the pre-construction phase provided the opportunity to minimize Project effects and facilitate habitat restoration following Project construction. Examples of planning considerations that are reviewed in the early stages of a Project include adjusting the configuration of TWS to avoid or reduce clearing of vegetation and using existing access or rights-of-way to avoid creating new corridors. Input on Project planning and design was reviewed and discussed with Trans Mountain engineers, Construction Supervisors, the Lead Environmental Inspector and Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.’s (KMC) operations staff to determine the applicability and feasibility of mitigation measures. Project planning within BMAs/GBPUs focused on consideration of opportunities to minimize new clearing and limit the creation of new access.
Reclamation work will be carried out following final clean-up. The reclamation measures detailed in the Reclamation Management Plan promote the re-establishment of natural ecosystems that are compositionally and functionally similar to the early seral species of the native plant community that occurred pre-disturbance, or a vegetative cover compatible with surrounding vegetation and land uses (see Section 9.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Similarly, the mitigation and reclamation measures in the Riparian Habitat Management Plan have been developed to establish and support a successional trajectory that will, in time, return riparian habitat to pre-construction or equivalent function (see Section 8.7 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). These plans have been developed in conjunction with this Plan, in consideration of grizzly bear habitat. The reclamation measures will establish a trajectory to natural vegetation that will, over time, provide habitat for grizzly bear foraging, security and movement.
The following revegetation strategies or combination thereof will be used, dependent on existing land use, landowner agreements on privately owned lands and site-specific conditions:
• natural regeneration;
• seeding with a native grass seed mix and short-lived cover crop;
• tree and shrub plantings; and
• weed management.
Native vegetation will be allowed to revegetate, and a short-lived cover crop or native grass seed mix will be used to minimize soil erosion and weed establishment in areas that are prone to these issues. Species that may attract bears to the right-of-way (e.g., clover, legumes) are not included in the seed mixes developed for the BMAs/GBPUs (see Section 9.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Tree seedlings will be planted within TWS in areas where forested habitat is present prior to construction. Only low-growing species (herbaceous vegetation, low shrubs) will be used for revegetation within the pipeline easement immediately over the buried pipes to maintain required operational access and visibility for monitoring the operational pipeline. Temporarily disturbed areas, including TWS, will not be needed for ongoing operation of the pipeline and therefore will be reclaimed to allow for growth of both seeded and naturally regenerating native woody species over time.
Watercourse riparian areas crossed by the pipeline construction footprint and Project access have been rated for riparian habitat function (Riparian Habitat Management Plan in Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Reclamation of Moderate and High riparian habitat function sites will include measures that will add diversity and structure for the benefit of plant communities of concern and wildlife. Application criteria, targeted species diversity and density, and planting locations are detailed in the Riparian Habitat Management Plan. Further detail regarding the criteria for implementation of each revegetation strategy and seed mixes are provided in the Reclamation Management Plan (Section 9.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) and Riparian Habitat Management Plan (Section 8.7 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Weeds will be managed along the length of the pipeline route as described in the Weed and Vegetation Management Plan (Section 5.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) and Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (KMC 2016).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 21
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Following completion of Project construction, new temporary access no longer required for safe pipeline operations will be permanently deactivated, unless otherwise directed by the Appropriate Government Authority or landowner. Appropriate deactivation techniques will vary depending on site-specific conditions as determined in the field at the time of deactivation. Deactivation may include:
• removal of vehicle crossings at watercourses and reclaiming associated disturbances;
• removal of cross drainage culverts;
• restricting access (e.g., locked gates, rock piles/boulders, berms, rollback or other method);
• recontouring;
• planting seedlings; and
• seeding disturbed areas with an approved cover crop and/or grass mix and weed control. The Access Management Plan provides additional details regarding deactivation of temporary access roads. Similar measures will be applied to those existing roads that were upgraded for the Project and are no longer needed.
The measures in Table 8 describe mitigation and habitat restoration measures applicable to BMAs/GBPUs. Table 8 includes applicable mitigation measures from the Pipeline EPP, as well as new measures. Selected measures from the Pipeline EPP are repeated in Table 8 for emphasis and to demonstrate their relevance specific to areas where grizzly bears may occur. The measures in Table 8 consider applicable regulatory guidelines and best management practices (see Section 3.3), as well as consultation with Appropriate Government Authorities and species experts (see Appendix A). The measures repeated from the Pipeline EPP are identified in Table 8 with a reference to the Pipeline EPP section where the measures can be found. This Plan will be provided as part of the Environmental Management Plans (Section 6 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). The Construction Manager, in conjunction with an Environmental Inspector, will ensure that the protection measures are implemented. Decisions made regarding the implementation of site-specific mitigation and habitat restoration measures and their final locations will be tracked by the Environmental Inspector and the Construction Manager through a compliance tracking and reporting system and reported in Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring (PCEM) reports (see Section 7.4).
TABLE 8
MITIGATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION MEASURES WITHIN BMAS/GBPUS
Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Education and 1. Controlled copies of the Pipeline EPP and associated environmental documents Awareness are required to be reviewed by key construction and Contractor personnel prior to construction and will be available to all key Contractor staff members during construction (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 2. Report any sightings of bears to the Environmental Inspector. Refer to Appendix E for more detail. 3. Implement the Environmental and Compliance Education Program as described in the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans.
4. Implement the Wildlife Conflict Management Plan (Section 6.5 of Volume 6 of the
Environmental Plans).
5. All field personnel that will be on the pipeline construction footprint will receive bear awareness training.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 22
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Education and 6. An Environmental Inspector is responsible for monitoring compliance with Awareness environmental and socio-economic commitments, undertakings and conditions of (cont’d) permits and approvals, as well as applicable environmental legislation, Trans
Mountain’s policies, procedures, and industry-accepted standards. An Environmental Inspector may designate responsibility for environmental and socio-economic compliance monitoring in certain cases based on the nature of the activity and the availability of appropriate alternative personnel (e.g., Activity Inspector) (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 7. An Environmental Inspector will organize on-site meetings in consultation with the Construction Manager or designate and, as the need arises, to address resource-specific issues, as well as review construction methodologies (see Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). Consultation 8. An Environmental Inspector will liaise with Appropriate Government Authorities and the Aboriginal Monitors assigned to the Project in co-operation with the Construction Manager or designate and the Project Environmental Manager (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 9. Trans Mountain will consult with a Wildlife Resource Specialist in the event a grizzly bear den is found on the Project Footprint to discuss available measures. Scheduling 10. Avoid disturbance of occupied grizzly bear dens by completing Project activities in the North Cascades GBPU outside the winter denning period. Species 11. In the event that a grizzly bear is observed or a grizzly bear den is discovered, Disturbance and implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Encounter and Discovery Attraction During Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP). Construction 12. Do not harass or feed wildlife. Do not store food in beds of pick-up trucks or areas readily accessible to wildlife. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 13. Store all garbage in wildlife-proof containers when potential wildlife/human conflicts may occur. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 14. Prohibit all Project personnel from having pets on the pipeline construction footprint. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 15. Prohibit the recreational use of all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles by construction personnel on the pipeline construction footprint. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] Reduce Habitat 16. Confine all clearing/mowing within the staked/flagged boundaries. Clear vegetation Loss from only those areas essential for construction. Adhere to clearing/mowing restrictions associated with riparian buffer areas, and in areas where sensitive environmental features have been identified as outlined on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Volume 8 of the Environmental Plans). [Section 8.0 Survey and Clearing]
17. Coordinate access and new clearing requirements with other industrial users in the
area to minimize human activity within grizzly bear habitat.
18. For blasting, implement guidelines contained within the Pipeline EPP, including: • visually scan for wildlife in the blasting area. If wildlife is spotted within the blasting area, use measures recommended by a Wildlife Resource Specialist to displace wildlife prior to blasting; and
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 23
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Reduce Habitat • utilize warning sirens, blasting mats, blasting controls and monitoring to Loss (cont’d) reduce potential injury to wildlife and humans. [Section 11.0 Stringing, Welding, Trenching and Lowering-in] 19. Limit grading on steep longitudinal slopes to the area needed to allow the safe and efficient passage of equipment, excavation of the trench and installation of the pipe. [Section 10.0 Topsoil/Root Zone Material Handling and Grading] 20. Restrict root grubbing to areas where soil removal is necessary (e.g., trench line and areas to be graded) to reduce surface disturbance and encourage re-sprouting/natural regeneration of trees and shrubs. [Section 8.0 Survey and Clearing] 21. Where grubbing and grading are not necessary, salvage stumps for rollback and mow surface vegetation (i.e., shrubs and small trees) to ground level to preserve topsoil/root zone material and establish a smooth working surface. [Section 8.0 Survey and Clearing] Barriers to 22. Maintain a tight construction spread (i.e., stringing to backfilling) and construct the Movement During pipeline in an efficient manner to limit the duration of sensory disturbance to Construction wildlife. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] Traffic and 23. Existing access roads and trails are planned for use, where feasible and safe, Access rather than develop new access. [Section 9.0 Access Roads for Pipelines] Management 24. Transport construction personnel to and from the Project Footprint by multi- passenger vehicle, to the extent practical, to limit the potential for vehicle/wildlife interactions. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 25. Deactivate and reclaim temporary construction access that does not have a third- party disposition, to native vegetation. Implement access controls on deactivated temporary roads. 26. Where rollback is needed for access management, erosion control or habitat enhancement, ensure that a sufficient supply of rollback is set aside for this purpose during final clean-up. Weeds 27. Ensure that equipment arrives at construction sites clean and free of soil or vegetative debris. Inspect, verify, and document clean equipment. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 28. Flag areas identified as having high weed infestations prior to commencement of construction. Control weeds (i.e., using proper application of chemical, mechanical or manual measures, or a combination of all) at locations identified within the pre-construction weed survey and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Volume 8 of the Environmental Plans) to a level that is consistent with current weed management practices on land adjacent to the Project Footprint to reduce the potential for weed infestations following construction. Mitigation measures to be implemented for weeds can be found in: • Section 7.0 of the EPP; • the Weed and Vegetation Management Plan (Section 5.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans); • the Agricultural Management Plan (Section 2.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans); and • the Biosecurity Management Plan (Section 2.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). [Section 6.0 Pre-Construction Activities]
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 24
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Habitat 29. Use natural regeneration, seeding and planting of tree seedlings and shrubs as Restoration specified in the Reclamation Plans (Section 9.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Seed mixes, species lists, and seeding/planting prescriptions are provided in these plans. The reclamation strategy chosen should be compatible with the existing land use and the construction Line List. 30. Avoid agronomic species (e.g., clover, legumes) that may attract bears to the Project Footprint. 31. Revegetate as soon as feasible to reduce or avoid soil erosion, and establish long- term cover. [Section 13.0 Construction Clean-up and Reclamation] 32. Implement measures to reduce access along the right-of-way following construction. Measures may include but are not limited to planting tree seedlings and/or shrubs in select locations to facilitate rapid regeneration of natural vegetation, and blocking access entry points by mounding, rollback, boulder barriers, supported timber berms or locked gates. Access control site selection and methods are described in the Access Management Plan (Section 2 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Documentation 33. An Environmental Inspector will review, collect, organize and disseminate all environmentally-related information and documentation that arises during construction, and will be responsible for the preparation of daily Environmental Inspection reports (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 34. Environmental information (e.g., erosion concerns or natural drainage patterns) will be collected throughout construction for documentation and the assessment of effectiveness of procedures/measures used to aid or inform the decision-making process during post-construction (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 35. The Environmental Inspector will document construction methods, decisions related to implementation and location of mitigation measures and final reclamation measures and issues encountered, as well as communication records with regulatory agencies. 36. Ensure sighting records for grizzly bear are provided to the Environmental Inspector. Records will be maintained and made available for reporting to applicable regulatory agencies. Operations 37. Implement the appropriate vegetation management measures in select areas (e.g., revegetation prescriptions specific to riparian areas identified in the Riparian Habitat Management Plan).
38. Close access roads no longer needed for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline. Where warranted and requested by the Appropriate Government
Authority or private landowner, implement measures to deactivate and reclaim
the access road including:
• remove vehicle crossings at watercourses and reclaim associated disturbances;
• remove cross drainage culverts and excavate a shallow ditch;
• block off the access with the use of permanent fences with locked gates,
boulders, ditches, rollback or other methods suitable for the site;
• alleviate compaction if warranted, recontour the road right-of-way and replace salvaged topsoil/root zone material;
• install permanent erosion control structures such as cross ditches and berms; and
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 25
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Operations • seed disturbed areas with an approved cover crop and/or grass mix and, (cont’d) where warranted, install biodegradable erosion control measures. [Section 9.0 Access Roads for Pipelines] PCEM 39. Monitor and implement remedial measures, if warranted, to ensure restoration is adequate. Mitigation measures implemented will be monitored for effectiveness as discussed in Section 6.0 and Section 7.0 below.
5.3 Integration with the Access Management Plan The Access Management Plan, prepared in accordance with NEB Condition 47, outlines specific strategies and measures to control access during Project construction and operations. The Access Management Plan uses a series of decision frameworks that show how access management locations and measures are selected and how corrective measures will be implemented as part of an adaptive management process.
5.3.1 Selection of Access Management Locations Existing and future access needs, land ownership, spatial configuration of the pipeline construction footprint, and identified environmental and socio-economic factors are key considerations in selecting and prioritizing access management locations.
Low priority locations for access management include segments of the pipeline construction footprint that will not create new access, including:
• areas contiguous with a third party linear disturbance where there are no existing access management measures already in place;
• areas contiguous with the TMPL right-of-way and a third party linear disturbance where there are no existing access management measures already in place; and
• areas within or adjacent to existing permanent disturbance features including urban areas, commercial or industrial facilities, or buildings.
These areas are considered low priority since the pipeline construction footprint is unlikely to increase access, and access management measures would be ineffective. Access management will not be implemented in low priority locations.
Priority increases with potential for the Project to create new access and with sensitive environmental or socio-economic factors that warrant protection. Suitable locations for access management on the Project Footprint are considered high priority for access management within the North Cascades GBPU, and in Special Access Zones within the Yellowhead and Grande Cache BMAs. Access management measures will not be implemented in priority locations if access is required for safe pipeline operations, or if existing access has been identified and should be maintained (e.g., third-party industry access, traditional access identified by Aboriginal groups or registered trappers, designated recreational trails).
Candidate locations for access management measures have been identified in the Access Management Plan using a decision framework (Figure 4), Project context and baseline information (e.g., mapping, field reconnaissance, aerial overflights, TEK/TLU information provided by Aboriginal groups and consultation), and experience implementing and maintaining access management measures on a previous Trans Mountain project (e.g., the TMX Anchor Loop Project). Candidate access management locations for each BMA/GBPU along the Project route focus on non-contiguous segments of the pipeline construction footprint, and are summarized in Appendix C.
Determination of final locations and measures requires flexibility to address site-specific conditions and construction constraints at the time of implementation. The candidate site-specific locations for access management will be refined based on factors such as availability of material and storage space and
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 26
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
construction techniques. As-built construction information that validates site-specific conditions and input from the Trans Mountain construction and operation/maintenance staff, resource specialists, and Appropriate Government Authorities will inform the final selection of the access management locations and measures.
5.3.2 Selection of Access Management Measures The selection of access management measures is not necessarily related to the priority of the location described above and in Figure 4. Rather, the method will be selected to suit site-specific conditions. Access management measures that may be applied to linear developments were reviewed for effectiveness and their suitability for the Project (see Appendix B of the Access Management Plan in Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Based on this review, the access management measures that are determined suitable for the Project include:
• constructed timber berms/barriers;
• bioengineering;
• gates and fencing;
• natural regeneration through implementation of reduced ground disturbance construction techniques where site conditions allow, as approved by the Environmental Inspector;
• road deactivation;
• rock piles or boulders;
• signs;
• tree seedling or shrub planting;
• vegetation screens; and
• woody debris rollback. Most types of berms (i.e., earth berms, woody debris berms and earth/debris berms) are not suitable for use in GBPUs and BMAs for access management. Supported timber berms are a type of constructed barrier made from trees cleared from the Project footprint and stacked into fence-like structures. Trans Mountain successfully used these types of barriers on the TMX Anchor Loop Project in Jasper National Park to redirect wildlife movement off the right-of-way. Supported timber berms can immediately reduce line-of-sight and may deter human access, particularly when used in conjunction with other measures such as woody vegetation plantings or signs.
The Decision Framework for Selection of Access Management Measures (Figure 5) will guide selection of the appropriate measures to mitigate access on the pipeline construction footprint and temporary construction access roads in the North Cascades GBPU. A combination of access management measures will be implemented.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 27
Figure 4 Decision Framework for Selection of Access Management Locations SCENARIO 6: Spatial Project Context SCENARIO 6: Environmental and Socio-Economic Factors Configuration
Scenario 1: Low Priority: do not Deflection Points: Identified environmental or socio-economic sensitivities: Temporary implement access Pipeline construction • High sensitivity watercourse crossings (not HDD); wetlands High Priority: Implement access management on the construction access management footprint deflects • Rare plant/ecological community YES non-contiguous pipeline construction footprint near is existing with no from existing • Native grassland or OGMA (BC) deflection points. access control and disturbance to create • Identified wildlife areas or habitats: has a third party non-contiguous right- • Sowaqua Spotted Owl WHA (BC) disposition or is of-way • North Cascades GBPU (BC) privately owned; or • Special Access Zones in the Yellowhead and access is existing Grande Cache BMAs (AB) and requires no • Wells Gray-Thompson Caribou Local Population upgrades for Project Unit (BC) Moderate Priority: Implement access management on the non-contiguous pipeline construction footprint near use; or access is an • Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (AB) NO identified/ designated • Special Access Zones (AB) deflection points, if the length of non-contiguous footprint access trail/road • Final or proposed critical habitat for SARA-listed is greater than 200 m in length. (e.g., for TLU, guide species (BC) or trapper, or • Park, heritage site or identified TLU site where access recreational trail) control is required or requested • Habitat restoration sites Scenario 2: High Priority: New construction deactivate and access or upgraded reclaim temporary deactivated/ access; manage Intersection Points: Identified environmental or socio-economic sensitivities: High Priority: At intersections with other linear overgrown access is access at main entry Non-contiguous • High sensitivity watercourse crossings (not HDD); wetlands disturbances, maintain access on the intersecting linear not needed for points (start/end of pipeline construction • Rare plant/ecological community YES disturbances and implement access management on the Project operations road) and footprint intersects • Native grassland or OGMA (BC) pipeline construction footprint on both sides of the intersections with existing linear • Identified wildlife areas or habitats: intersection. disturbances (roads, • Sowaqua Spotted Owl WHA (BC) At intersections with clearings/open habitats that could rights-of-way, etc.) or • North Cascades GBPU (BC) allow access to high elevation areas in identified caribou Scenario 3: Low Priority: do not with clearings that • Special Access Zones in the Yellowhead and core areas in the Wells Gray-Thompson Local Population Pipeline construction implement access enable access to Grande Cache BMAs (AB) Unit, implement access management along edge of footprint does not management sensitive or • Wells Gray-Thompson Caribou Local Population footprint for the entire width of the clearing/open habitat. create new access: restricted areas Unit (BC) contiguous with third • Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (AB) party right-of-way or • Special Access Zones (AB) TMPL/third party • Final or proposed critical habitat for SARA-listed right-of-way with no species (BC) Moderate Priority: Implement access management on the existing access • Park, heritage site or identified TLU site where access NO pipeline construction footprint on one or both sides of management; within control is required or requested intersection with linear disturbances, if the length of non- or adjacent to • Habitat restoration sites contiguous footprint is greater than 200 m in length. permanent features (e.g., urban, industrial/ commercial facility) Existing Access Identified environmental or socio-economic sensitivities: Control Points: • High sensitivity watercourse crossings (not HDD); wetlands High Priority: Repair or replace existing access controls if modified during construction and extend access control Scenario 4: Moderate Priority: Contiguous (parallel) • Rare plant/ecological community YES Pipeline construction repair or replace pipeline construction • Native grassland or OGMA (BC) across the pipeline construction footprint (tie-in to existing footprint is within existing access footprint intersects or • Identified wildlife areas or habitats: access management on the adjacent disturbance); install privately owned or controls at locations parallels a • Sowaqua Spotted Owl WHA (BC) additional access management measures (e.g., signs) if leased property and identified by disturbance with • North Cascades GBPU (BC) directed by provincial government agencies. has potential to landowner/ lessee existing access • Special Access Zones in the Yellowhead and create new access management Grande Cache BMAs (AB) measures or • Wells Gray-Thompson Caribou Local Population conditions that deter Unit (BC) Scenario 5: High Priority: or prohibit access • Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (AB) Restoration activities implement access • Special Access Zones (AB) Moderate Priority: Implement access management on the are implemented on management at • Final or proposed critical habitat for SARA-listed NO pipeline construction footprint; tie-in to existing access the pipeline potential entry points species (BC) management on the adjacent disturbance. construction footprint to the restoration/ • Park, heritage site or identified TLU site where access or deactivated reclamation area control is required or requested temporary • Habitat restoration sites construction access
Scenario 6: Pipeline Go to Spatial construction footprint Configuration (next is on public land and column) to determine has potential to access management create new access locations on the (non-contiguous or pipeline construction contiguous with footprint in public existing disturbance lands with access control) or is contiguous with TMPL only (no third party right-of-way) Figure 5 Decision Framework for Selection of Access Management Measures
Use existing access YES Implement interim measures in order of preference, depending Avoid creating new access Upgrade existing Can new deactivated/overgrown access; Are temporary on site conditions, accessibility for equipment, and availability access be YES avoid creating new access (interim) access of materials: avoided by Can existing deactivated/overgrown controls necessary 1. Remove temporary bridges/ramps NO YES using existing access be upgraded to avoid creating during construction 2. Repair existing fence or gate access? new access? NO phase? 3. Install rock or jersey block barrier Limit creation of new access to 4. Install gate the maximum extent feasible 5. Install signs that will enable safe construction and operations of the Project Maintain Access Access Roads NO Is the road needed for YES ongoing operations? permanent access according to permit NO conditions; install gate(s) if required by permit When road is no longer needed for construction, reclamation or monitoring, deactivate and reclaim upgraded or new conditions temporary access that is not required for operations, according to landowner/ permit-holder agreement or permit conditions, and in compliance with all applicable regulations: • Remove bridges and culverts • Re-establish contours, restore natural drainage • Decompact and stabilize soil, control erosion • Revegetate with seedlings, stakes and/or seed according to the Reclamation Management Plan and in specified habitat areas (e.g., critical habitat), the species-specific mitigation and habitat restoration plans • Manage weeds
Do terrain, engineering, YES Retain existing vegetation construction Use minimum disturbance constraints techniques to regenerate vegetation Implement measures to regenerate Protect regenerating vegetation with allow for Can minimum disturbance YES additional access management NO screen vegetation screen using species vegetation techniques be used to enhance suited to the site (refer to measures screen natural regeneration of vegetation NO Is the site suitable for Reclamation Management Plan and retention? screen? YES bioengineering, tree seedling species-specific mitigation and planting or shrub planting to create restoration plans) NO vegetation screens? Are there existing gates or fences that will deter access?
NO YES Project Footprint on Lands Crown Project Footprint
• Rollback woody debris Is woody debris rollback feasible: • Consider installing educational YES • material of sufficient volume and size is available • Repair, signage at key access points • there is space to store the material until needed rebuild or to improve effectiveness of • waiver or alternate authorization permits use of merchantable timber retain rollback NO • fire and forest pest hazards do not prohibit rollback of woody debris existing • equipment can access site to install materials fence or gate • location does not have standing water or soils that do not support the material (e.g., • Consider wetland, saturated peat) installing educational signage at key access Are the soils suitably dry and stable to support a barrier (e.g., constructed berm, barrier, • Install barrier using an YES points to rock or boulder piles)? and available material appropriate improve Is suitable material is available? and to the site effective- Can equipment can access the site to install the control measure? • Consider installing educational ness of signage at key access points barrier to improve effectiveness of NO barrier
Install gate, fence, signs or combination of these measures Project Footprint on Private Lands Project Footprint
YES Repair, rebuild or retain existing fence or gate according to landowner specifications Are there existing gates or fences that will deter access? Determine appropriate access control measures, if any, in consultation with landowner NO Install measures according to landowner specifications Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
6.0 MEASURING MITIGATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION SUCCESS Mitigation measures will be monitored to evaluate effectiveness. Monitoring will measure performance indicators to determine if the targets outlined in Table 9 are met. The targets act as triggers for implementation of corrective measures if the mitigation measures are found to be underperforming. The performance indicators and targets presented in Table 9 may be adjusted based on further review of information and consultation with the Appropriate Government Authorities. The goals and targets related to managing access are similar to those presented in the Access Management Plan (Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans).
TABLE 9
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MEASURABLE TARGETS FOR NORTH CASCADES GRIZZLY BEAR
Goal Performance Indicator Measurable Target 1. Avoid Project-caused • Project-related bear-human conflict incidents • No incidents causing grizzly bear mortality or injury reported during grizzly bear mortality • Environmental and Compliance Education construction and operations. during construction and Program • No bear-human conflict incidents requiring bear relocation. operations activities • Compliance tracking and documentation • 100% of construction, supervisory and monitoring personnel receive environmental and compliance education that includes a bear-human conflict avoidance and response component. • 100% compliance with reporting and documentation protocols, environmental issues tracking and reporting, and informing provincial regulatory authorities of bear activity and potential bear- human conflict incidents. • Inclusion of bear mortality avoidance mitigation in operations procedures and protocols. 2. Manage access to During construction: • 100% of personnel receive environmental and compliance mitigate potential for • Compliance tracking and documentation education that includes a component on the importance and increased grizzly bear • Environmental and Compliance Education purpose of access management. mortality associated with Program • 100% compliance with reporting and documentation protocols, the pipeline and • Evidence of unauthorized access on the Project including environmental issues tracking and reporting that will be Project-related access Footprint during construction used to inform final selection of access management locations roads during construction and measures. and operations1 • Destruction or loss of integrity of access management measures • Temporary access management measures are effectively deterring unauthorized access on the pipeline construction • Compliance tracking and documentation footprint. • Evidence of unauthorized access on the pipeline − construction footprint, facilities or reclaimed Unauthorized access on the pipeline construction footprint is not evident (observations/reports, trails or tracks, soil or temporary access, measured by: vegetation damage). − data captured by remote cameras • Ineffective access controls are repaired, modified or − damage or impairment of reclamation supplemented during the construction phase, as soon as (e.g., compaction, rutting, vegetation conditions permit. trampling) caused by motorized access • Occurrence of unauthorized access detected by remote cameras − destruction or loss of integrity of access operated over the PCEM period is absent or limited at monitored management measures locations with access management (less than five incidents per − evidence of access trails around access monitoring year). management measures (e.g., drive-around • Short-term access management measures (e.g., rollback, gates, to bypass access controls) or forded berms, road deactivation) retain integrity and function until long- crossings of watercourses term measures (e.g., revegetation) are established. Integrity − evidence of unauthorized access on the targets include: reclaimed Project Footprint − revegetation within reclaimed areas is not damaged by • Routine operations monitoring and maintenance access; activities use existing or permanent Project − access measures are intact and undamaged; access − no established bypasses around access barriers; and − access trails, tire rutting, compaction or compromised soil stabilization measures are not evident on reclaimed areas with access management. • No evidence of riparian or instream damage from forded crossings of watercourses where temporary construction access (e.g., span bridge) is removed. • Inclusion of access management monitoring and adaptive management in operations procedures and protocols.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 30
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
TABLE 9 Cont'd
Goal Performance Indicator Measurable Target 2. Manage access to • See above • Revegetation targets for long-term access measures mitigate potential for (e.g., vegetation screens) include2: increased grizzly bear − minimum woody vegetation (tree/shrub) height of 2 m; and mortality associated with − vegetation density restricts motorized access the pipeline and Project (e.g., minimum 50% coverage). related access roads • during construction and No access management or deactivation measures are removed or destroyed for routine operational activities. operations1 (cont’d) • Any access management measures removed or destroyed to facilitate emergency access to the Project Footprint are restored when the access is no longer needed. 3. Restore disturbed Vegetation community composition and cover measured • Agronomic species (e.g., clover, legumes) that may attract bears to vegetation to natural by layer: the right-of-way are absent. vegetation communities. • vegetation species list • For Grande Cache, Yellowhead, Robson, Wells Gray and • % cover native species Columbia-Shuswap BMAs/GBPUs, a minimum 75% cover of • % cover seeded non-native species (agronomic regenerating native (natural regeneration, seeded or planted) and grasses; does not include species that attract seeded non-native (agronomic) vegetation and litter (< 25% bare 3 bears such as clover, legumes) ground) . • % cover, density and distribution invasive • For North Cascades GBPU, a minimum 85% cover of regenerating non-native (weed) species native (natural regeneration, seeded or planted) and seeded non-native (agronomic) vegetation and litter (<15% bare ground)3 • % leaf litter • No new introduced invasive species/noxious weeds; extent of • % cover bare ground weeds is maintained or reduced from pre-construction conditions. • % cover rock Note: 1 The goal, performance indicators and targets for access management are aligned with the Access Management Plan (NEB Condition 47) (Section 2 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). 2 The targets for minimum woody vegetation (tree/shrub) height of 2 m and minimum vegetation density of 50% for vegetation screens are based on recent research related to the development of techniques designed to avoid or reduce potential interactions with human access and grizzly bears (see Table B 1 in the Access Management Plan, Filing ID A82635). Applied research of human and predator use of revegetating seismic lines in west central Alberta (Finnegan et al. 2014; MacNearney et al. 2015, Pigeon et al. 2016 in review) found a marked reduction in human use at vegetation heights of 2 m, decreasing to no use when vegetation is > 5 m tall; and vegetation cover >50% to 75% and soil type (wet soils) were important indicators of lower human use. 3. The targets for regenerating vegetation were developed based on the following: ° the Yellowhead and Grande Cache BMAs are in Montane and Lower Foothills Natural Subregions of Alberta, where the mean annual precipitation is approximately 590 mm and the mean annual temperature is approximately 1.8 to 2.3°C (Downing and Pettapiece 2006). The Robson GBPU is in the Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS) zone, where mean annual precipitation is 440-900 mm and the mean annual temperature ranges from approximately 1.7 to 5°C (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). The Project route in the Wells Gray and Columbia- Shuswap GBPUs is located in the SBS BEC zone north of approximately KP 550. The Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) zone is the most common along the route in these GBPUs. The ICH zone is characterized by mean annual precipitation of approximately 500 to 1200 mm, and mean annual temperatures range from 2 to 8.7°C (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). Southern portions of the route in these GBPUs occurs in the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) zone, where the mean annual precipitation ranges from 300 mm to 750 mm and the mean annual temperature is approximately 1.6-9.5°C (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). The target for revegetation cover in these GBPUs and BMAs will be 75% cover of regenerating native and seeded non-native (agronomic) vegetation and litter (<25% bare ground). This target is appropriate to the climatic and soil moisture conditions and achievable as demonstrated on the TMX - Anchor Loop Project, located within Jasper National Park and Mount Robson Provincial Park, where five-year post-construction monitoring results show an average of 75% cover of litter, native and non-native plants within the Project Footprint (TERA Environmental Consultants 2013). ° the North Cascades GBPU is in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone, where the mean annual precipitation of 1,000-4,400 mm is higher compared to the other GBPUs, and the mean annual temperature is warmer than the other GBPUs (about 8°C and ranges from 5.2 10.5°C among the CWH subzones) (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). For this reason, the target for revegetation cover will be 85% cover of regenerating native and seeded non-native (agronomic) vegetation and litter (<15% bare ground).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 31
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
7.0 MONITORING Trans Mountain will monitor the effectiveness of the measures implemented in the BMAs/GBPUs to determine if the goals of this Plan have been met, and to identify the need for corrective measures. Ground-based field work and review of compliance tracking, as well as tracking any potential outstanding and new environmental issues will be used to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation.
7.1 Monitoring Timeframe Monitoring will occur during the construction period and in the first, third and fifth growing seasons following completion of final clean-up. Trans Mountain will complete a final evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation upon completion of the five-year PCEM period and will determine if targets have been met and whether additional monitoring may be warranted. For example, if corrective measures are needed at site-specific locations, additional monitoring will be completed following their implementation until targets are met.
7.2 Monitoring Strategy The intent of monitoring is to measure performance indicators to determine the effectiveness of mitigation, and inform the need for corrective measures. The measurable targets list above in Table 9 (Section 5.0) act as triggers for implementation of corrective measures if the mitigation measures are found to be underperforming. Table 10 summarizes the monitoring strategy that will be applied for each goal. Additional explanation is provided in the following subsections.
TABLE 10
MONITORING STRATEGY
Goal Monitoring Strategy 1. Avoid Project-caused grizzly bear mortality during construction and • Environmental issues tracking and reporting operations activities • Compliance tracking and reporting 2. Manage access to mitigate potential for increased grizzly bear mortality • Selective use of remote cameras associated with the pipeline and Project-related access roads during • Aerial patrols/monitoring construction and operations. • Ground-based field surveys: • Vegetation sampling • Point-surveys at selected mitigation locations 3. Restore disturbed vegetation to natural vegetation communities. • Vegetation sampling • Meandering transect (weed patch location, species density and distribution)
7.2.1 Bear-Human Conflict Monitoring The first goal of this Plan will be achieved by avoiding bear-human conflict situations, and enabling efficient and effective response to potential conflict situations. Mitigation success will be monitored by tracking and reviewing any new or outstanding environmental issues documented during the construction phase of the Project. Environmental issues documentation will be reviewed for information specific to grizzly bear, including:
• any bear-human conflict situations, the regulatory reporting procedure followed, mitigation implemented;
• records of site inspections to ensure properly installed and functional mitigation for avoiding wildlife attraction to the work site (e.g., materials and waste storage);
• environmental and compliance education training compliance, including bear awareness training; and
• communications and reporting to provincial regulatory agencies (e.g., AEP, BC MOE and BC MFLNRO).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 32
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
In the event that there are repeated sightings or interactions with grizzly bear in the BMAs/GBPUs, Trans Mountain will consult with the Appropriate Government Authority to discuss the need for additional measures to monitor the situation depending on the site-specific circumstances. In GBPUs, BC MOE has specifically recommended that Trans Mountain consider two approaches for monitoring.
• Repeated Sightings/Interactions: in response, remote cameras and hair snags could be deployed and monitored. The details on when this action is necessary will be dependent on site-specific circumstances and discussed with BC MOE.
• Fixed Station Monitoring: at sites recommended by BC MOE.
This will provide information on bear activity in the area, bear-human conflict avoidance, and potential Project-effects related to interactions and displacement of bears from preferred seasonal habitats. Trans Mountain will continue to consult with BC MOE on this monitoring approach, and the results will be reported in NEB Condition 151 (PCEM reporting).
7.2.2 Access Control Monitoring The second goal of this Plan will be achieved by implementing access management measures as described in the Access Management Plan (Section 2 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Interim access management measures will be implemented during construction, where appropriate, to deter unauthorized access during periods of inactivity (e.g., when the pipeline construction footprint or temporary construction access are not needed until the following season). Following completion of Project construction, access management will be implemented on the pipeline construction footprint and new temporary access no longer required for safe pipeline operations will be permanently deactivated, unless otherwise directed by the Appropriate Government Authority or landowner.
The strategy for monitoring access management effectiveness during and following construction is designed to determine if site-specific access management measures are intact and working. The monitoring methods will employ a combination of aerial overflights and ground surveys, supplemented by selective use of remote cameras, as well as review of compliance and communications documentation. Each of these monitoring methods are described and in the Access Management Plan (Section 2.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans).
Monitoring during the construction period will focus on observations by construction staff and Environmental Inspectors and review of compliance and communication documentation. Periodic aerial patrols of the adjacent TMPL right-of-way will be used as needed to supplement monitoring information during construction.
The monitoring methods during the five-year PCEM period will employ a combination of aerial overflights and ground surveys, supplemented by selective use of remote cameras, as well as review of compliance and communications documentation.
Ongoing monitoring of access management over the operations phase will include regular review of communications from other land users (e.g., complaints regarding accessibility) and annual investigation of evidence of unauthorized access during Trans Mountain’s aerial monitoring or during site-specific maintenance activities. In the event that corrective measures are needed to address ineffective or destroyed access management during operations, Trans Mountain will implement corrective measures as soon as feasible, following the adaptive management process and decision framework described in the Access Management Plan (Section 2.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Trans Mountain will review the post-construction monitoring findings for the most efficient monitoring methods to be employed for ongoing monitoring of corrective measures.
Aerial Monitoring During construction, Trans Mountain will use aerial patrols of the adjacent TMPL right-of-way to supplement monitoring of non-Project related access on the TMEP pipeline construction footprint. Aerial overflights will also be completed in conjunction with other PCEM activities and routine aerial patrols (operations monitoring) following construction to collect data on integrity and effectiveness of the implemented access
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 33
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
management measures. Aerial monitoring will look for evidence of unauthorized access or changes in land use and development that affect access management on the Project Footprint.
Ground-based Monitoring During the construction period, construction staff and Environmental Inspectors will monitor unauthorized access on the pipeline construction footprint and construction access.
Ground-based monitoring will be completed at years one, three and five over the PCEM period. Point surveys will be completed at a subset of locations where access management measures are implemented. Field personnel will measure and record the performance indicators associated with integrity and function of access management. Measures of vegetation height and cover will also be completed by ground surveys.
Remote Cameras or Infrared Trail Monitors The use of remote cameras or infrared trail monitors (referred to as remote cameras in this report for simplicity) is an emerging tool used to monitor and measure effectiveness of access management measures. While remote cameras can provide the opportunity to continuously (seasonally and year-to-year) monitor areas for human use, there are limitations to their usefulness in evaluating the effectiveness of site- specific access management measures using a before-and-after study design. For example, priority access management locations include segments of the pipeline construction footprint that are not parallel to existing linear disturbances (i.e., non-contiguous). Measuring baseline motorized access where there is no existing linear feature to facilitate access is an inefficient and ineffective use of resources when assumptions of little or no motorized access at baseline are reasonable. Further challenges to use of remote camera data as a monitoring approach include determining an acceptable level of change. Setting proportionate levels of change is arbitrary without established guidelines, thresholds or recommendations set out by regional land or resource managers, which are currently lacking in the Project area.
Trans Mountain has considered the potential benefits and limitations of remote camera use to monitor human and wildlife access. The approach is to use remote cameras to supplement the other methods of monitoring. A subset of access management locations will be strategically selected for deployment of remote cameras following implementation of access management measures. At least one camera will be deployed to monitor access in the North Cascades GBPU. Camera locations will be determined following final selection of access management locations and measures.
Cameras will be deployed at the start of the five-year PCEM program and will continuously monitor access for a period of at least one year at each sample location. Depending on the resultant data, cameras may be moved to different locations at each subsequent monitoring interval during the PCEM period (i.e., at years three and five). This level of sampling is expected to support the evaluation of access management success by providing an indication of access over multiple seasons and allowing for identification of trends that can be related to site conditions or types of measures. The value of this information is in aiding the adaptive management process (Section 6.5).
Review of Consultation, Compliance and Documentation Trans Mountain will track and review:
• the Environmental Issues list maintained daily during the construction phase of the Project;
• compliance with environmental awareness training;
• documentation of consultation, engagement and communication records; and
• documentation of corrective measures implemented, rationale and timeframes for implementation.
Trans Mountain will continue to engage with Aboriginal groups, Appropriate Government Authorities, tenure holders and other stakeholders over the construction and operations phases of the Project, and will encourage communities to identify observations or concerns regarding access management.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 34
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
7.2.3 Habitat Restoration Monitoring The third goal of this Plan will be achieved by restoring disturbed vegetation to natural vegetation communities and avoiding introduction or spread of weeds or agronomic species that are attractive to bears such as clover. Within the pipeline easement, vegetation will be maintained as low-growing species (herbaceous vegetation, low shrubs) to maintain operational access and visibility for monitoring the operational pipeline. Within TWS, revegetation will include native woody species (trees, shrubs consistent with adjacent habitat) as well as the low-growing vegetation layer. The revegetation strategy within BMAs/GBPUs will be consistent with that presented in the Reclamation Management Plan (Section 9.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans), and will include a combination of natural regeneration, seeding with a native seed mix and short-lived cover crop, tree and shrub plantings, as well as weed management.
Restoration of natural vegetation communities will be monitored using a vegetation sampling protocol consistent with the PCEM program (refer to the Reclamation Management Plan, Section 9.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Vegetation sample site locations will be stratified by habitat type and reclamation strategy (e.g., seed mix, shrub transplant, nursery seedling planting), where there is variation in these factors. Each vegetation sample site will be comprised of a permanent 50 m transect perpendicular to the pipeline construction footprint. Along each 50 m transect, vegetation will be monitored by sampling four 1 m2 plots. Three sample plots will be evenly spaced within the pipeline construction footprint (minimum 5 m apart) and the fourth will be outside of the Project Footprint within the adjacent undisturbed habitat. Each 1 m2 plot centre will be marked with a pin-marker and a GPS location recorded to relocate the plot at the same location in subsequent monitoring years.
Habitat restoration monitoring will be completed by qualified professionals. The performance indicators for restoration of disturbed vegetation (Table 4) will be measured in each sample plot (e.g., vegetation cover, species, weeds). Weeds will be noted within the Project Footprint near each monitoring location using a method consistent with the BC Invasive Alien Plant Program standards (BC MFLNRO 2016) to allow detection of weed infestations or spread.
7.3 Corrective Measures The results of monitoring will inform the need for corrective measures. Depending on the performance indicator, evaluation against the measurable target may be conducted during construction, or at each monitoring year (i.e., years one, three and five). If, at any point during the five-year monitoring program, performance indicators are found to be underperforming and are unlikely to meet the measurable targets within the five-year timeframe, the corrective measures will be implemented as soon as feasible. The need for and type of corrective measures will be determined using the following systematic approach in Figure 6, which will be applied to each monitoring year during the monitoring program.
Figure 6 Adaptive Approach for the Application of Corrective Measures
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 35
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Corrective measures may include:
• implement modified or alternate mitigation;
• implement additional mitigation; and
• implement mitigation in an alternate location.
Corrective measures will be implemented in a timely manner. Where corrective measures may be implemented to achieve the targets and goals of this Plan, additional monitoring will be completed following their implementation until monitoring results indicate the target has been met.
The Adaptive Management Decision Framework (Figure 7) will guide the implementation of corrective measures to manage access. If at any point during the five-year monitoring program, access management measures are found to be underperforming and are unlikely to meet the measurable targets within the five-year timeframe, corrective measures will be implemented as soon as feasible. Most access management measures require the use of heavy equipment to either move materials into place (e.g., rollback, rock barriers) or create the access management measure (e.g., mounding). Implementation of corrective measures may be delayed until conditions are appropriate for the use of heavy equipment (e.g., dry or frozen soil conditions; not conflicting with sensitive timing windows for other resources). Trans Mountain will avoid corrective measures that would require additional disturbance (e.g., creating more access) to implement the measures, or importing materials that may introduce invasive species, contaminants or disease.
7.4 Reporting Results of PCEM for the BMAs/GBPUs will be submitted to the NEB on or before January 31 following the first, third and fifth complete growing seasons after completing final clean-up as per NEB Condition 151. The PCEM report will provide the results of the implementation of site-specific mitigation and habitat restoration measures, information on the indicators measured and their performance in reaching the measurable target, the monitoring methods used, and details of corrective actions taken (if any), as well as an updated consultation record with Appropriate Government Authorities and any potentially affected Aboriginal groups. The environmental monitoring report will be filed after the fifth full growing season after completing clean-up. The report will include information on the effectiveness of mitigation and corrective actions and how learnings are applied by Trans Mountain. The report will also include information on those goals that have not been achieved during the duration of the PCEM program and the need for any further corrective actions and monitoring.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 36
Figure 7 Adaptive Management Decision Framework for Access Management
Monitor Measure Against Targets Evaluate Corrective Measures
Modify existing access Evidence of Do any of the following occur on the pipeline Evaluate: Is the access management measure management measure (e.g., unauthorized access on construction footprint at monitored locations: • Is access for Project operations or appropriate for the location? NO extend, increase coverage or the pipeline construction • observations, reports or camera detections of maintenance needed? (see Figure 1) frequency, move) footprint during unauthorized access? • Is the location on a new third-party right- construction YES of-way/disposition? • trails, tracks, tire rutting, bypass? YES • soil or vegetation damage? • Were there repeated (3 or more) Destruction or loss of • forded stream crossings? breaches or failures over consecutive integrity of access • damage or removal of access control? monitoring intervals despite corrective Were access management measures Repair the access management measures measures being implemented after each implemented correctly, and are they intact NO management measure monitoring interval with a reported (not degraded or damaged)? Vegetation screen height failure? NO and cover YES
No corrective measures NO YES
Replace or supplement the YES Has the access management measure been Access management bypassed (e.g., trail through adjacent forest) access management location is not suitable; YES measure with alternate Is the vegetation screen on trajectory to meet these NO consider alternate location measure(s) targets during the 5-year PCEM period: (see Figure 1) • Min. woody vegetation height of 2 m? • Min. woody vegetation cover of 50%? NO NO
Evaluate reasons for ineffective access Project design, Is the access management location Are the following targets achieved: management to determine if repair, environmental suitable? (see Figure 1) • >90% temporary access is existing? modification, replacement or supplemental awareness training, • 100% compliance with third-party road use measures are needed environmental issues agreements? reporting and • Complaints have been addressed within 1 month documentation or as soon as conditions permit? YES YES • Corrective actions are documented? Compliance tracking and • 100% shooflies/water access, and ≥60% Implement access documentation temporary access is deactivated and reclaimed Is the previously unmanaged location Have access management measures is suitable for access management? management measure(s) within 2 years after construction? NO YES have been implemented? (see Figure 2) Communications • 100% temporary access is deactivated and (see Figure 1) records, complaints reclaimed within 2 years after PCEM? • Operations procedures and protocols include access management monitoring? NO • Routine operational activities have not destroyed access management measures? No corrective measures Continue to monitor until YES Evaluate reason target is not met NO targets are achieved Identify and apply appropriate corrective measures Document actions and communications No corrective measures Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
8.0 CONCLUSION This Plan identifies goals to minimize and mitigate potential Project effects on grizzly bear and their habitat within the BMAs/GBPUs. The goals are to avoid grizzly bear mortality, manage access to mitigate potential for increased grizzly bear mortality and restore disturbed vegetation to natural vegetation communities. Access management has been identified as the primary concern for grizzly bear and access management measures and monitoring will be a priority in the BMAs/GBPUs. Other Plans prepared for grizzly bear include EAO Condition 18 (Grizzly Bear Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – North Cascades Population) and EAO Condition 19 (Grizzly Bear Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Robson, Wells Gray and Columbia-Shuswap Populations).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 38
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
9.0 REFERENCES 9.1 Personal Communications Hobson, D. Senior Wildlife Biologist. Alberta Environment and Parks, Edson, Alberta.
9.2 Literature Cited Alberta Environment and Parks. 2016. Alberta Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Recovery Plan. Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 38. Edmonton, AB. 85 pp.
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014. Species Assessed by Alberta's Endangered Species Conservation Committee. Updated July 4, 2014. Fish and Wildlife Policy Branch. Edmonton, AB. 2 pp.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 15. Edmonton, AB. 68 pp.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2012. Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing – 2010. Updated January 2012. Fish and Wildlife Division, Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, AB. 242 pp.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2010. Status of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta: Update 2010. Wildlife Status Report No. 37. Edmonton, AB. 47 pp + Appendices.
Austin, M.A. 1995. British Columbia’s Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy: Progress to Date and Future Directions. Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
Austin, M.A. and C. Wrenshall. 2004. An Analysis of Reported Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Mortality Data in British Columbia from 1978-2003. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, BC. 16 pp.
Braid, A.C.R. 2015. Mitigating the Effects of Human Activity on Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos) in Southwestern Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 76 pp + Appendices.
British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2017. Provincial Red and Blue Lists. BC Ministry of Environment. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/red-blue.html. Accessed: February 2017.
British Columbia Cumulative Effects Framework. 2016. Grizzly Bear Value Summary, April 2016. Draft. 16 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2012. Plants and Animals: Grizzly Bear Population Status in B.C. (2012). Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly- bears.html. Accessed: November 2015.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2014a. Policy for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Policy). Working Document – May 13, 2014. Environmental Sustainability and Strategic Policy Division, Ecosystems Branch. Victoria, BC. 4 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2014b. Procedures for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Procedures). Working Document – January 9, 2014. Environmental Sustainability and Strategic Policy Division, Ecosystems Branch. Victoria, BC. 67 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. British Columbia Grizzly Bear Population Estimates for 2012. Victoria, BC. 9 pp.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 39
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2016. Invasive Alien Plant Program Reference Guide. Website: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/plants/RefGuide.htm. Accessed: October 2016.
British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission. 2015. Environmental Protection and Management Guideline. Version 2.1. October 2015. 71 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiv + 84 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2017. Canadian Species at Risk. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm. Accessed: February 2017.
Cristescu, B., G.B. Stenhouse and M.S. Boyce. 2014. Perception of human-derived risk influences choice at top of the food chain. PLoS ONE 8(12):e82738.
Davis, H., D. Wellwood and L. Ciarniello. 2001. “Bear Smart” Community Program: Background Report. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 101 pp.
Finnegan, L., K. Pigeon, J. Cranston and G. Stenhouse. 2014. Analysis and Restoration of Seismic Cutlines in Southern Mountain and Boreal Caribou Range in West-Central Alberta. 2013 Habitat Stewardship Program 6617. Foothills Research Institute Caribou and Grizzly Bear Programs. 103 pp.
Government of Alberta. 2017. Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions. April 28, 2017. Edmonton, AB. 85 pp.
Government of Canada. 2017. Species at Risk Public Registry. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca. Accessed: February 2017.
Hamilton, A.N., Heard, D.C. and M.A. Austin. 2004. British Columbia Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Population Estimate. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 7 pp.
Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. 2016. Integrated Vegetation Management Plan. Website: http://www.kindermorgan.com/content/docs/kmc_row_ivmp.pdf. Accessed: June 2016.
Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon and H. Zuuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1395-1404.
MacNearney, D., M. Anderson, K. Pigeon and L. Finnegan. 2015. Analysis and Restoration of Seismic Cutlines in Southern Mountain and Boreal Caribou Range in West-Central Alberta: Phase 2. Habitat Stewardship Program 6699. Foothills Research Institute Caribou Program. 153 pp.
McKay, T., K. Graham and G. Stenhouse. 2014. Grizzly Bears and Pipelines: Response to Unique Linear Features. Year 2 (2013) Final Report. Alberta Upstream Petroleum Research Fund (No. 13 AU ERPC-03).
McLellan, B.N. 1990. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:57-64.
McLellan, B.N. 2015. Some mechanisms underlying variation in vital rates of grizzly bears on a multiple use landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 79(5):749-765.
McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: Effects of roads on behaviour, habitat use and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:451-460.
Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests, Special Report Series 6, ISSN 0843-6452. 330 pp.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 40
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Natural Regions Committee 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852.
North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team. 2004. Recovery Plan for Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades of British Columbia. 38 pp + Appendices.
Pigeon, K., M. Anderson, D. MacNearney, J. Cranston, G. Stenhouse and L. Finnegan. 2016 in review. Towards the Restoration of Caribou Habitat: Understanding Factors Associated with Human Motorized Use of Legacy Seismic Lines.
Stenhouse, G.B., J. Boulanger, M. Efford, S. Rovang, T. McKay, A. Sorenson and K. Graham. 2015. Estimates of Grizzly Bear Population Size and Density for the 2014 Alberta Yellowhead Unit (BMA 3) and South Jasper National Park. Prepared for Weyerhaeuser Ltd., West Fraser Mills Ltd., Alberta Environment and Parks, and Jasper National Park. 73 pp.
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2013. 2012 Post Construction Monitoring Report for the Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. TMX – Anchor Loop Project. Calgary, AB.
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2013. Trans Mountain Expansion Project, An Application Pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (Filing ID A3S2Q3). Calgary, AB.
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2014. Supplemental Wildlife Technical Report for the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Project (Filing ID A4H6C8). December 2014.
9.3 GIS Mapping References BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. Freshwater Atlas Bays and Channels (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: July 2012. Last Update Check: July 15, 2014.
BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. Freshwater Atlas Lakes (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: August 2011. Last Update Check: July 15, 2014.
BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. BC Freshwater Atlas Rivers (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: July 2011. Last Update Check: July 15, 2014.
BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. BC Freshwater Atlas Stream Network (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: July 2011. Last Update Check: January 20, 2014.
BC Ministry of Environment. 2012. Grizzly Bear Population Units (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: hhttps://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/grizzly-bear-population-units. Acquired: May 2013. Last Update Check: March 27, 2017 (provided via email from BC MOE).
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. Digital Road Atlas (DRA) - Master Partially Attributed Road Data (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: December 2015. Last Update Check: December 15, 2015.
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. Tantalis Conservancy Areas (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: September 2014. Last Update Check: November 20, 2014.
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2007. Tantalis Municipalities (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: May 2013. Last Update Check: November 20, 2014.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 41
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. Tantalis Parks, Ecological Reserves and Protected Areas (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: May 2014. Last Update Check: November 20, 2014.
ESRI. 2005. U.S. State Boundaries (digital data). Redlands, CA. Received: via DVD with ArcGIS software, visithttp://www.esri.com/data/data-mapsfor more info. Acquired: September 2006. Last update check: N/A.
IHS Inc. 2010. IHS Provincial Boundaries (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received: via DVD, visit http://www.ihs.comfor more info. Acquired: June 2011. Last Update Check: April 21, 2014.
Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. 2012. Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: May 9, 2012. Last Update Check: N/A.
Natural Resources Canada. 2003. Canadian Geographical Names (digital file). Ottawa, ON. Available: http://geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cgn/index.html. Acquired: December 2011. Last Update Check: December 2011.
Natural Resources Canada. 2012. CanVec -Transportation - 1020009 Railway (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/download/topographic.html. Acquired: June 2012. Last Update Check: November 2012.
Natural Resources Canada. 2015. National Road Network – Alberta (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/-/(urn:iso:series)geobase-national- road-network-nrn/?sort-field=relevance. Acquired: January 2016. Last Update Check: January 8, 2016.
Natural Resources Canada. 2015. National Road Network - British Columbia (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/-/(urn:iso:series)geobase- national-road-network-nrn/?sort-field=relevance. Acquired: January 2016. Last Update Check: January 8, 2016.
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008. Hillshade. Derived from Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Centre for Topographic Information. 2000-2008. Canadian Digital Elevation Data 250k (digital files). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cded/index.html. Acquired: 2008. Last Update Check: December 2010.
Universal Pegasus International. 2017. Proposed KPs, Centerline, Project Footprint SSEID005.1 (digital files). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: April 3, 2017. Last Update Check: N/A.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page 42
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX A
CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-1
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX A
CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
Consultation and engagement activities related to the Plan were completed with Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups, and species experts. Opportunities to discuss grizzly bear and identify issues or concerns were also provided to public stakeholders during meetings, workshops and ongoing engagement activities.
Consultation and engagement opportunities began in May 2012 with the Project announcement and are ongoing.
1.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW: DRAFT PLAN DEVELOPMENT Reports on public consultation activities completed between May 2012 and June 30, 2015 were filed with the NEB and are available in the Application (Volume 3A: Stakeholder and Volume 3B: Aboriginal; Filing ID A55987) as well as in Consultation Update No. 1 and Errata, Technical Update No. 1 (Filing ID A59343) / Consultation Update 2 (Filing IDs A62087 and A62088), Consultation Update 3 (Filing IDs A4H1W2 through A4H1W8) and Consultation Update 4 (Filing ID A72224). These reports include results of consultation conducted to June 30, 2015, identification of issues and concerns as well as Trans Mountain’s response and are included in Table A-1. Where appropriate, Trans Mountain’s response has been updated to reflect information developed since the original response was provided during the NEB proceeding for the Project.
Consultation and engagement activities completed between July 1, 2015 and March 2017 have not been filed on the public record with the NEB. Any new issues and concerns regarding grizzly bear identified during this period, as well as Trans Mountain’s response, are described below.
2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW: DRAFT PLAN The draft Plan was posted on www.transmountain.com/environmental-protection-plans on September 16, 2016. The comment period closed on January 13, 2017, although additional Appropriate Government Authority and potentially affected Aboriginal group feedback was considered up until March 2017. Email or mail notification regarding the Plan was sent to 141 public stakeholders, 17 regulatory authorities, 69 Aboriginal groups and all affected landowners. The notification included a summary description of the Plan, a request for review, the timing of the comment period and contact information. Aboriginal groups were offered the opportunity for an in-person meeting to review the Plan. See Appendix D for a complete list of notified stakeholders.
In addition to direct notification, the online posting of each Plan was promoted through Trans Mountain's weekly e-newsletter, Trans Mountain Today, which provides Project updates, regulatory information, stories and interviews to more than 6,000 subscribers. Each week Trans Mountain Today included a focus on a specific plan, or group of plans, as well as a reminder of all plans available for review.
2016:
• September 22 - Wildlife Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans;
• September 29 - Pipeline EPPs;
• October 6 - Air Quality Management Plans;
• October 13 - Watercourse and Water Ecosystems Plans;
• October 20 - Vegetation Management Plans;
• October 27 - Air Quality Plans;
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-2
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
• November 3 - Socio-Economic Effects Monitoring Plan;
• November 10 - Access Management Plan;
• December 22 - General promotion all plans; and
• December 29 - General promotion all plans.
2017:
• January 5 - General promotion all plans; and
• January 12 - General promotion all plans.
Trans Mountain is committed to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the Project. The start and end date for the review and comment period for each environmental management plan is defined. These timelines are required to allow time for preparation of the final Plan in order to meet regulatory requirements and NEB submission dates.
3.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT: ACTIVITIES AND FEEDBACK Consultation and engagement activities completed with identified stakeholder groups are described below, including: public stakeholders (Section 3.1); regulatory authorities (Section 3.2); and Aboriginal groups (Section 3.3).
Feedback on the draft Plan, Trans Mountain’s response, and where each issue or concern is addressed in the Plan has been outlined in each section according to stakeholder group.
3.1 Public Consultation 3.1.1 Public Consultation Summary – May 2012 to June 2015 No specific feedback regarding grizzly bear was received during public consultation and engagement activities between May 2012 and June 30, 2015.
General issues and concerns regarding wildlife received during this period were submitted to the NEB in the Application or in subsequent filings (Project proceedings). Table A-1 provides a summary of the key themes with relevance to grizzly bear.
TABLE A-1
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION - MAY 2012 TO JUNE 20151
Issue or Concern Summary Trans Mountain Response Where Addressed Potential Project effects to Potential Project effects, as well as mitigation to reduce residual Project effects to grizzly Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 4.0 of species at risk, including within bear have been considered in the development of this Plan, as well as the Access this Plan the Coquihalla Summit Management Plan. Recreation Area Protection of wildlife habitat and Project planning and implementation includes measures to avoid or reduce Project effects to Sections 7.2.10 and 7.2.11 species at risk wildlife and wildlife habitat, particularly for species at risk. The Application presented detailed of Volume 5A of the ESA mitigation measures specific to wildlife and wildlife habitat, as well as Project EPPs that detail Pipeline EPP (see environmental procedures and mitigation measures to be implemented during construction of Volume 2 of the the various components of the Project. The measures serve to avoid, reduce or mitigate Environmental Plans) potential adverse environmental effects. Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate Project This Plan (NEB effects to grizzly bear have been considered and developed as part of this Plan. Condition 56: Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan). Potential for habitat The primary objective of the route selection process was to locate the proposed pipeline Section 4.1.1 of this Plan fragmentation contiguous to the existing TMPL right-of-way wherever possible. This reduces fragmentation and clearing requirements. Section 2.8 of Volume 4A of the ESA Note: 1 Included in NEB Project Proceedings
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-3
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
3.1.2 New Interests, Issues, Concerns and Response – July 2015 to February 2017 Issues or concerns regarding grizzly bears identified during public consultation and engagement activities between July 2015 and February 2017 are provided in Table A-2.
TABLE A-2
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION – JULY 2015 to FEBRUARY 2017
Invited Stakeholder Date of Where Group/Agency Method of Consultation Trans Mountain Addressed Name Contact Activity Feedback/Stakeholder Response Response in the Plan Coast to Online December 16, 2016 I did not see any mention regarding firearms Wildlife monitors will not Section 4.0 Cascades Grizzly and/or the preferred use of non-lethal deterrents be armed. Conduct by Bear Initiative (e.g., bear spray) in the Plan, whether in and employees is provided in around camps or on the job site. There should the Worker also be a prohibition of firearm use by employees Accommodation Strategy in camps in their time off. Improving old motorized (Worker Code of Conduct) access or creating new access even if within (NEB Condition 59). Trans 500 m of major roads (e.g., Hwy 5) should be Mountain has attempted to avoided as it adds to the overall road density and use existing access where can incrementally reduce 'core areas.' possible. Coast to Online December 16, 2016 Regarding the Mammal Dens section of Table 4.3 In the event a grizzly bear Section 4.0, Cascades Grizzly of the Resource Specific Mitigation Tables: while it den is found, Trans Table 3 Bear Initiative is unlikely you will find a grizzly den in the North Mountain will consult with Cascades GBPU near your project, surely despite the Appropriate what the BC OGC recommends, 50m for a Government Authorities threatened population is insufficient. on the buffer to be applied.
3.2 Regulatory Consultation Trans Mountain has initiated consultation and will continue to work with Appropriate Government Authorities to ensure that the measures implemented to avoid, minimize and mitigate Project effects on grizzly bear align with relevant government policy. A summary of regulatory consultation related to wildlife and wildlife habitat is provided in Table 2.2.1 of the Wildlife Technical Report (Filing ID A3S2Q3) (Trans Mountain 2013) and Table 2.2.1 of the Supplemental Wildlife Report (Filing ID A4H6D2) (Trans Mountain 2014).
3.2.1 Regulatory Consultation Summary – May 2012 to June 2015 Consultation applicable to grizzly bear received during regulatory consultation and engagement activities between May 2012 and June 30, 2015 is summarized in Table A-3.
TABLE A-3
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GRIZZLY BEAR (MAY 2012 TO JUNE 2015)
Name and Title of Method of Where Incorporated Contact Contact Date Comments in the Plan BC MOE: Victoria Tony Hamilton, Large Telephone June 3, 2014 BC MOE provided an update on recent scientific information and Section 3.0 Carnivore Specialist work related to grizzly bear response to disturbance, in particular road (access) density. July 10, 2014: BC MOE provided an update on the status of a road density threshold publication (in final revision, likely published in September). BC MFLNRO: South Coast Region, Surrey Scott Barrett, Resource Telephone April 22, 2014 Discussed the North Cascades GBPU and grizzly bear Section 4.0 Stewardship Manager mitigation. BC MFLNRO noted that the province already has, or is developing research initiatives for grizzly bear. Trans Mountain would continue to stay updated on provincial initiatives.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-4
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
3.2.2 Feedback Regarding the Draft Plan A summary of consultation applicable to grizzly bear received during regulatory consultation and engagement activities between July 2015 and March 2017 as well as feedback received during the September 16, 2016 to March 2017 review and feedback period related to the draft Plan is described in Table A-4.
Aboriginal Engagement Since April 2012, Trans Mountain has engaged with Aboriginal communities that might have an interest in the Project or have Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project, based on the proximity of their community and their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the pipeline corridor to maintain a traditional lifestyle. The objectives of Aboriginal engagement are to:
• have an open, transparent and inclusive process that seeks to exchange information in a respectful manner;
• address concerns shared by those who might have an interest in the Project or have Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project;
• incorporate feedback into Project planning and execution; and
• provide opportunities to maximize Project benefits to Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups.
A comprehensive Aboriginal engagement process is led by experienced engagement advisors in Alberta and BC, specialized in the areas of Aboriginal relations, law, economic development, education, training, employment and procurement. Trans Mountain’s engagement process for the Project is flexible, allowing each community and group to engage in meaningful dialogue in the manner they choose and in a way to meet their objectives and values.
Each community had the opportunity to engage with Trans Mountain, depending on Project interests and potential effects. The following opportunities to engage have been provided:
• Project announcement;
• initial contact with Aboriginal community or Aboriginal group;
• meetings with Chief and Council and meetings with staff;
• host community information session(s);
• conduct TLU studies and socio-economic interviews;
• identify interests and concerns; and
• identify mitigation options.
Issues and concerns specific to grizzly bear raised during Aboriginal engagement between early 2012 to March 2017 are summarized in Table A-5 (note that the table below is focused on grizzly bear and therefore does not include issues or concerns that are generally related to wildlife or wildlife habitat).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-5
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/July 2017
TABLE A-4
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GRIZZLY BEAR (JULY 2015 TO MARCH 2017)
Invited Stakeholder Method of Where Addressed in the Group/Agency Name Contact Date of Consultation Activity Feedback/Stakeholder Response Trans Mountain Response Plan Alberta Environment and Parks Telephone October 19, 2015 Provided information on the population status of the Yellowhead and Grande Cache BMAs. Discussed grizzly bear populations and their status within Alberta, specifically relating to the Yellowhead Section 1.0 (AEP) (previously Alberta and Grande Cache BMAs (including core and secondary areas). Review NEB Draft Condition 45 (Grizzly Environment and Sustainable Bear Mitigation Plan – now NEB Condition 56) and Trans Mountain’s proposed approach. It was Resource Development) determined in discussion with AEP that since the estimated populations in the Yellowhead and Grande Upper Athabasca Region, Edson Cache BMAs appear to be increasing, and mitigation measures for grizzly bear are provided in the Dave Hobson, Wildlife Biologist Pipeline EPP and provincial guidelines, the primary focus of the Plan would be the Threatened North Cascades GBPU. BC MOE: Victoria Telephone April 7, 2016 BC MOE provided an update on relevant sources of information (e.g., Coast to Cascades Grizzly Bear Initiative; process underway to Trans Mountain provided a Project Footprint shapefile on July 29, 2016. Section 3.0 Tony Hamilton, Large Carnivore discuss potential environmental impacts of restoring a self-sustaining grizzly bear population to the United States portion of the North Specialist Cascades Ecosystem). BC MOE noted that the highest and most immediate priorities for mitigation relate to incremental motorized access created or facilitated by the Project.
BC MOE requested the Project Footprint (shapefile of spatial area) to review in relation to the Provincial Grizzly Cumulative Effects data layers. BC MFLNRO: Meeting in September 17, 2015 BC MFLNRO agreed that in BC, NEB Condition 56 is applicable only to the North Cascades GBPU. BC MFLNRO noted that there are Reviewed Draft Condition 45 (now NEB Condition 56) and the approach. Trans Mountain informed BC Sections 1.0 and 4.3 Thompson/Okanagan Region, Kamloops very few bears in the immediate area of the Project and the few bears in this GBPU spend their time elsewhere in the GBPU. It was MFLNRO that an Access Management Plan was also being prepared for the Project. Kamloops further discussed that the primary factor affecting grizzly bear was access. John Surgenor, Wildlife Biologist BC MFLNRO, BC OGC Meeting October 7, 2016 How have provincial wildlife habitat boundaries been taken into account? The plan appears to use federal boundaries only. There are This Plan uses the provincial boundaries of GBPUs. A Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery and Section 1.0 and Figure 1 no 'Wildlife find" contingency plans. How has BC's list of "Important Species" been identified? Encounter Contingency Plan is provided in Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP. Grizzly bear is listed by the in Section 3.0 BC OGC on their “List of High Priority Wildlife”. BC Parks Webinar February 16, 2017 Does the Access Management Plan (AMP) include new access roads within 500 m Hwy 5 as well as Highway 16? Yes, the AMP considers roads related to reactivation activities. Refer to AMP (NEB presentation Now that we have information on access, we can review carefully. Condition 47) BC MOE Webinar February 16, 2017 BC MOE provided comment on bear awareness training, tools that can be used (bear spray and air horns), and the conduct of Trans Mountain agreed to have a more detailed discussion outside of the Webinar, specifically to Covered in other Plans presentation workers. discuss the Worker Accommodation Strategy (Worker Code of Conduct) (NEB Condition 59), locations Worker Accommodation of camp sites and bear awareness information (see below). Strategy (NEB Condition 59), BC EAO Condition 19 and the Wildlife Conflict Management Plan BC MOE Telephone February 21, 2017 As a follow-up to the Webinar on February 16, 2017, discussed in greater detail the Wildlife Conflict Management Plan, the Worker Trans Mountain will review this information and apply accordingly to other plans, specifically the BC EAO Same as above Accommodation Strategy and the location of camp sites. BC MOE provided web-links with information related to bear awareness Condition 19, Wildlife Conflict Management Plan and the Worker Accommodation Strategy. training and deterrents that will be useful for the Project. Examples included: • https://wildsafebc.com/; • https://www.bcforestsafe.org/files/Bear%20Safety%20Resource%20Package.pdf; and • http://www.bearsmartbc.com/services/worker-safety-training/. BC MOE Telephone March 17, 2017 BC MOE provided detailed comment on camp options and their preference (that incorporated input from local government biologists Trans Mountain will consider BC MOE’s review in final camp site selection, and noted that although a Same as above and Conservation Officers), worker training, measures to reduce wildlife conflicts, and the Worker Accommodation Strategy, camp was originally not going to be located in the North Cascades GBPU, a camp would now be in the specifically, the Worker Code of Conduct. vicinity of Hope. BC MOE noted this was acceptable since the camps were not in grizzly bear habitat.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-6
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
TABLE A-5
SUMMARY OF ABORIGINAL CONCERNS REGARDING GRIZZLY BEARS
Issue or Concern Summary Aboriginal Community Summary Trans Mountain Response Where Addressed Disturbance of bear dens Lheidli T’enneh First Nation Disturbance to occupied grizzly bears dens will be Section 5.0 of this Plan during construction Simpcw First Nation avoided where possible through scheduling of Project Chawathil First Nation (Stó:lō) activities. In the event an occupied den is found on the Scowlitz First Nation (Stó:lō) Project Footprint, Trans Mountain will consult with a Wildlife Resource Specialist to discuss available Leq’á:mel First Nation (Stó:lō) mitigation options. Concerned about the Adams Lake Indian Band NEB Condition 56 requires Trans Mountain to file a This Plan (NEB Condition 56: cumulative effects of the Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan. Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan) Project on grizzly bear NEB Condition 47 requires Trans Mountain to file an Sections 7.2.10 and 7.2.11 of mortality and about the Access Management Plan. Within the Access Volume 5 of the ESA. adequacy of mitigation and Management Plan, Trans Mountain has considered Access Management Plan monitoring plans for grizzly access control measures related to grizzly bear (Section 2 of Volume 6 of the bears Environmental Plans) Effects of increased Lower Nicola Indian Band motorised access on grizzly (Nlaka’pamux Nation) bear mortality and displacement Disturbance of grizzly bear Ermineskin Cree Nation Disturbance to occupied grizzly bears dens will be Section 5.0 of this Plan habitat and occupied grizzly Samson Cree Nation avoided where possible through scheduling of Project bear dens during Montana First Nation clearing activities. In the event an occupied grizzly bear construction Louis Bull Tribe den is found on the Project Footprint, Trans Mountain will consult with a Wildlife Resource Specialist to discuss Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation available mitigation options. Paul First Nation Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada Sunchild First Nation
Trans Mountain continues to liaise with Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, the Government of Canada’s Major Projects Management Office, the BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and the Alberta Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to provide updates regarding Trans Mountain’s engagement activities with Aboriginal groups.
3.3.1 Identifying Aboriginal Groups for Consultation Trans Mountain used the First Nations Consultative Area Database Public Map Service to identify the Aboriginal groups with traditional territories that cross the Columbia Shuswap GBPU, North Cascades GBPU, Robson GBPU, Wells-Gray GBPU, and Alberta BMAs. Listed below are the Aboriginal groups identified for consultation.
• Adams Lake Indian Band
• Aitchelitz First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Alexander First Nation
• Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation
• Aseniwuche Winewak Nation
• Ashcroft Indian Band (Nlaka'pamux Nation)
• Asini Wachi Nehiyawak
• Aitchelitz First Nation
• Ashcroft Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-7
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
• Boothroyd Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Boston Bar First Nation (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• British Columbia Métis Federation
• Canim Lake Band (Tsq’escenemc)
• Canoe Creek (Stswecem'c Xgat'tem) First Nation
• Chawathil First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Cheam First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Coldwater Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Cook’s Ferry Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Enoch Cree Nation
• Ermineskin Cree Nation
• Foothills Ojibway Society;
• Gunn Métis Local 55 (Lac Ste Anne Métis)
• High Bar First Nation
• Horse Lake First Nation (Treaty 8)
• Kanaka Bar Indian Band
• Katzie First Nation
• Kelly Lake Cree Nation
• Kelly Lake First Nation
• Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society
• Leq'á:mel (Lakahahmen, Nicomen) First Nation
• Lhtako Dene Nation
• Lheidli T’enneh First Nation
• Ktunaxa Nation
• Kwantlen First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation
• Kwikwetlem First Nation
• Musqueam Indian Band
• Leq’a:mel First Nation
• Lheidli-T’enneh First Nation
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-8
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
• Lhtako Dene Nation
• Little Shuswap Indian Band
• Louis Bull Tribe
• Lower Nicola Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Lower Similkameen Indian Band
• Lytton First Nations (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Matsqui First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Métis Nation of British Columbia
• Métis Regional Council Zone IV of the Métis Nation of Alberta
• Michel First Nation
• Montana First Nation
• Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada
• Nicola Tribal Association (Shackan Indian Band [Nlaka’pamux Nation], Nooaitch Indian Band [Nlaka’pamux Nation], and Nicomen Indian Band)
• Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council
• Neskonlith Indian Band
• Nooaitch Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• O’Chiese First Nation
• Okanagan Indian Band
• Oregon Jack Creek Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Paul First Nation
• Penticton Indian Band
• Peters Indian Band (Stó:lō)
• Popkum First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Saddle Lake Cree Nation
• Samson Cree Nation
• Scowlitz First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Seabird Island Band (Stó:lō)
• Shackan Indian Band
• Shxw’ōwhámel First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Shuswap Indian Band
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-9 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
• Shuswap Nation Tribal Council
• Simpcw First Nation
• Siska Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Skawahlook First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Shxwha:y Village (Skwah First Nation) (Stó:lō)
• Siska Indian Band (Nlaka'pamux Nation)
• Skeetchestn Indian Band
• Skwah First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Skowkale First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Skuppah Indian Band (Nlaka'pamux Nation)
• Soowahlie First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Splatsin First Nation
• Spuzzum First Nation (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Stó:lō Collective
• Stoney Nakoda First Nation
• St'uxwtews (Bonaparte Indian Band)
• Sucker Creek First Nation
• Sumas First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Squamish Nation
• Squiala First Nation (Stó:lō)
• St'at'imc Chiefs Council
• Stoney Nakoda First Nation
• Sts'ailes Band (Chehalis Indian Band)
• Sunchild First Nation
• Sumas First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Tk'emlups te Secwepemc (Kamloops)
• Toosey Indian Band
• Treaty 8 Nations of Alberta
• Tsilhoqu'tin National Government
• Ts'kwaylaxw (Pavillion Indian Band)
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-10
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
• Tsuu T’ina Nation
• Tzeachten First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Union Bar First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Upper Nicola Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)
• Upper Similkameen First Nation
• Westbank First Nation
• Whispering Pines/Clinton Indian Band
• Whitefish (Goodfish) Lake First Nation #128
• Williams Lake (T'exelc) Indian Band
• Xat’sull First Nation (Soda Creek Indian Band)
• Yakweakwioose Band;
• Yale First Nation (Stó:lō)
• Zone IV of the Métis Nation of Alberta
• Whitefish (Goodfish) Lake First Nation #128
3.3.2 Consultation Activities A letter was sent to the Aboriginal groups listed above with a copy of the draft Plan in September 2016. A copy of the draft Plan was sent out to additional BC Aboriginal groups on June 28, 2017 with a deadline of July 28, 2017 for feedback and on July 6, 2017 to Alberta Aboriginal groups with a deadline of August 6 for feedback. Where appropriate and upon request, a follow up meeting was arranged to discuss this Plan in more detail and address any concerns. No feedback specific to this Plan has been received to date. Should there be any feedback, it will be reported in the next filing of Condition 96 – Reports on Aboriginal Engagement.
Trans Mountain has summarized the feedback received through Trans Mountain’s engagement on this Plan in Table A-4 and the summary includes how Trans Mountain responded to and addressed the concern or issue. It should be noted that although the engagement process also provided for opportunities for general discussion about Project construction and associated Aboriginal issues and opportunities; only feedback/issues directly related to grizzly bear are provided in this Plan. Other issues and topics raised have been captured in the corresponding mitigation plan as appropriate.
This final Plan will be shared with the Aboriginal groups at the same time as it is filed with the NEB in 2017.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page A-11
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF TLU AND TEK ACTIVITIES COMPLETED WITHIN TRADITIONAL TERRITORIES THAT CROSS THE BMAS/GBPUs
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page B-1
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF TLU AND TEK ACTIVITIES COMPLETED WITHIN TRADITIONAL TERRITORIES THAT CROSS THE BMAS/GBPUs
Aboriginal Traditional Wildlife Field Studies TEK Territory Participation TLU Participation Ashcroft Indian Band None Traditional Land and Resource Use (TLRU) study not requested by Ashcroft Indian Band. Adams Lake Indian Band None TLRU study not requested by Adams Lake Indian Band. Alexander First Nation Alexander First Nation conducted a TLU map review on October 4, 2012 and interviews on October 18 and 20, 2012; an overflight on October 30, 2012 and ground reconnaissance on October 30 to November 1, 2012. Alexander First Nation’s results review mitigation meeting occurred on November 28, 2013. Aseniwuche Winewak Independent, third-party TLRU study. Final report was received on November 18, 2013. Nation Asini Wachi Nehiyawak Independent, third-party TLRU study received and filed as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Alexis Nakota Sioux First Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation elected to conduct a third-party TLU study. Final report was received Nation on December 15, 2014.
Aitchelitz First Nation Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Cheam First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and, Yakweakwioose First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. BC Métis Federation None Independent third-party engagement report. Final report was received on April 24, 2014. Boston Bar First Nation None Joint third-party TLRU underway with Siska Indian Band, Coldwater Indian Band and Cooks Ferry Indian Band. Finalized in Quarter 1 of 2015. Chawathil First Nation May 28 to June 7, 2013 Independent, third-party TLRU study (underway). Interim report received on February 27, 2014. June 13 and 14, 2013 Additional independent, third-party TLRU work conducted with Cheam First Nation filed as June 28, 2013 evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. September 9 and 10, 2013 Cheam First Nation None Additional independent, third-party TLRU work conducted with Chawathil First Nation filed as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Cultural Use Assessment draft provided February, 2014. Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and, Yakweakwioose First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Coldwater Indian Band None Independent, third-party Preliminary Ethnographic and Historic Overview and Traditional Use Study received and field as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Independent, third-party TLU and Traditional Knowledge Study of Coldwater Indian Reserve #1 and Preliminary Ethnographic and Historic Overview and Traditional Use Study were filed confidentially with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Originally written in February 2015, updated April 2015. Joint, third-party TLRU underway with Siska Indian Band, Boston Bar First Nation and Cooks Ferry Indian Band. Finalized in Quarter 1 of 2015. Cook’s Ferry Indian Band None Joint, third-party TLRU underway with Siska Indian Band, Coldwater Indian Band and Boston Bar Indian Band. Enoch Cree Nation Enoch Cree Nation conducted a TLU map review on June 7, 2013 and interviews on August 29 to 30, 2013; an overflight on September 7, 2013 and ground reconnaissance on September 18 to 26, 2013. An interim results review memo was sent to Enoch Cree Nation results on November 28, 2013. Ermineskin Cree Nation Ermineskin Cree Nation conducted a TLU a map review and interviews on September 4, 2012; an overflight September 5 to 7, 2012 and ground reconnaissance on September 5 and 6, 2012. Ermineskin Cree Nation’s results review mitigation meeting occurred on October 31, 2013. Foothills Ojibway Society None Declined TLRU study participation; identified preliminary interests on June 5, 2013. Gunn Métis Local 55 (Lac None Independent, third-party engagement report complete. Final report received on August 21, 2014. Ste Anne Métis) TLRU Field Reconnaissance conducted on May 13 and July 8, 2015. Horse Lake First Nation None Katzie First Nation None Funding for a TLRU study has been discussed but the parties have been unable to reach agreement. Independent, third-party Cultural Background Report was filed as confidential evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page B-2
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Aboriginal Traditional Wildlife Field Studies TEK Territory Participation TLU Participation Kelly Lake Cree Nation None TLRU study not requested by Kelly Lake Cree Nation. Kelly Lake Métis Settlement None TLRU study not requested by Kelly Lake Cree Nation. Society Kwantlen First Nation May 23 to June 7, 2013 Independent third-party TLU study complete. Final report received on November 18, 2014. Kwantlen First Nation filed additional TLU information as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First None Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Cheam Nation First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and, Yakweakwioose First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Leq’á:mel: First Nation May 23 to 28, 2013 Leq’á:mel: First Nation conducted a TLU map review and interviews on April 23, 2013; overflight May 28 to June 7, 2013 on September 11, 2013 ground reconnaissance on September 11 to 13, 2013 and had their July 23 to August 1, 2013 results review mitigation meeting on November 8, 2013 Lhtako Dene Nation Lhtako Dene Nation conducted a TLU map review and interviews on November 13 to 14, 2014.
Lheidli T’enneh First Nation June 3 to 14, 2013 Independent, third-party TLRU study, Interim report received on November 20, 2013. Louis Bull Tribe TLRU study not requested by Louis Bull Tribe. Lower Nicola Indian Band None Independent, third-party TLRU study complete. Final report received on November 12, 2014. Lower Similkameen Indian None TLRU study not requested by Lower Similkameen Indian Band. Band Lytton First Nations None TLRU study not requested by Lytton First Nation. Métis Nation BC None Independent, third-party expansion report. Final report was received on May 23, 2014. Musqueam Indian Band None Musqueam Indian Band submitted written evidence to the NEB on May 27, 2015. Michel First Nation None Independent Treaty Rights study. Final report was received on May 28, 2014. Montana First Nation September 28 to 29, 2012 Montana First Nation conducted a TLU a map review and interviews on August 7 to 8, 2013 and March 5 to 10, 2013 ground reconnaissance on November 17 to 21, 2014. Montana First Nation’s results review July 4 to 9, 2013 mitigation meeting occurred on March 3, 2015. Nicola Tribal Association June 12 to 14, 2013 Joint TLRU study with Shackan Indian Band, Nicomen Indian Band and Nooaitch Indian Band (Shackan Indian Band, led by Nicola Tribal Association. Interim report received on February 17, 2014. Final report Nooaitch Indian Band and received July 15, 2014. Nicomen Indian Band). Nakcowinewak Nation of March 5 to 10, 2013 Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada conducted a TLU a map review and interviews September 19 Canada June 18 to 27, 2013 to 20, 2013 and ground reconnaissance from September 21 to 26, 2013 and November 5 to 6, 2013. Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada’s results review mitigation meeting occurred on November 25, 2013. Nooaitch Indian Band None Joint TLRU study with Nicomen Indian Band and Shackan Indian Band led by Nicola Tribal Association. Interim report received on February 17, 2014. Final report received July 15, 2014. O’Chiese First Nation None Independent, third-party TLRU study. Final report was received on September 25, 2013. Oregon Jack Creek Band None TLRU study not requested by Oregon Jack Creek Band. Paul First Nation March 7 to 10, 2013 Paul First Nation conducted a TLU a map review and interviews on November 14, 2012; and an June 18 to 27, 2013 overflight and ground reconnaissance on December 3, 2012. Paul First Nation’s results review July 4 to 9, 2013 mitigation meeting occurred on November 8, 2013. July 26 to August 1, 2013 Penticton Indian Band None TLRU study not requested by Penticton Indian Band. Peters Indian Band None Independent third-party TLU study complete. Final report received May 11, 2015. Popkum First Nation May 28 to June 7, 2013 Popkum First Nation conducted a TLU map review and interviews on April 24, 2013; ground July 23 to August 1, 2013 reconnaissance on November 13 to 14, 2013 and had their results review mitigation meeting on November 28, 2013. Seabird Island Band September 9 and 10, 2013 Independent, third-party TLRU study (underway). Seabird Island Band submitted an intent to provide a final Aboriginal Interests and Use Study to KMC as evidence to the NEB on May 27, 2015. Shackan Indian Band None Joint TLRU study with Nicomen Indian Band and Nooaitch Indian Band led by Nicola Tribal Association. Interim report received on February 17, 2014. Final report received July 15, 2014. Shxwha:y Village (Skwah None Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First First Nation) Nation, Cheam First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and, Yakweakwioose First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Saddle Lake Cree Nation June 18 to 27, 2013 Independent, third-party Traditional Land Use (TLU) study complete. Final report received on July 4 to 9, 2013 January 23, 2015.
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page B-3
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Aboriginal Traditional Wildlife Field Studies TEK Territory Participation TLU Participation Samson Cree Nation September 28 to 29, 2012 Samson Cree Nation conducted a TLU a map review and interviews on September 20, 2012; an March 5 to 10, 2013 overflight on March 22 to 23, 2013 and ground reconnaissance from November 6 to 9, 2012; June 18 to 27, 2013 September 26 to October 3, 2013. Samson Cree Nation’s results review mitigation meeting occurred on December 4, 2013. Additional draft TLU study received February 27, 2015, and filed as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Shxw'ow'hamel First Nation May 28 to June 7, 2013 Final independent, third-party Traditional Use and Occupancy Study and Cultural Heritage July 23 to August 1, 2013 Impact Assessment received April 27, 2015 and filed as evidence with the NEB on September 9 and 10, 2013 May 27, 2015. Siska Indian Band None Joint, third-party TLRU underway with Coldwater Indian Band, Boston Bar First Nation and Cooks Ferry Indian Band. Finalize in Quarter 1 of 2015. Skawahlook First Nation None TLRU study not requested by Skawahlook First Nation. Skowkale First Nation None Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y Village (Skwah First Nation), Cheam First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and Yakweakwioose First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Soowahlie First Nation None Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Yakweakwioose First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Cheam First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited (underway). Final report received on March 26, 2014. Spuzzum First Nation None TLRU study not requested by Spuzzum First Nation. Squiala First Nation None Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y Village (Skwah First Nation), Cheam First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and, Yakweakwioose First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Stó:lō Collective None Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Cheam First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and, Yakweakwioose First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Stoney Nakoda First Nation None TLRU study not requested by Stoney Nakoda First Nation. Sucker Cree First Nation None TLRU study not requested by Sucker Creek First Nation. Map of TLRU features received from Sucker Creek First Nation in November 2015. Sunchild First Nation September 28 to 29, 2012 Independent, third-party TLU report received and filed as evidence with the NEB on March 5 to 10, 2013 May 27, 2015. June 18 to 27, 2013 Revised independent, third-party TLU report filed with the NEB on December 31, 2015. Sumas First Nation None Joint third-party ICA with Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Cheam First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and, Yakweakwioose First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Treaty 8 Nations of Alberta None TLRU study not requested by Treaty 8 Nations of Alberta. Tsuu T’ina Nation None TLRU study not requested by Tsuu T’ina Nation. Tzeachten First Nation None Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Cheam First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation and, Yakweakwioose First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Union Bar First Nation None TLRU study not requested by Union Bar First Nations. Upper Nicola Band None Third-party TLRU study complete. Final report received on December 8, 2014. Upper Nicola Indian Band has requested confidentiality in its engagement in the Project. Yakweakwioose First None Joint third-party ICA with Sumas First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Cheam First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Yale First Nation July 28 to August 1, 2013 Independent, third-party Traditional Knowledge Study complete. Interim report received June 1 to 7, 2013 May 2014. Final report received September 1, 2014. June 13 and 14, 2013 June 28, 2013 September 9 and 10, 2013
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page B-4
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Aboriginal Traditional Wildlife Field Studies TEK Territory Participation TLU Participation Zone IV of the Métis Nation None Independent, third-party engagement report complete. Final report received on August 21, 2014. of Alberta Whitefish (Goodfish) Lake None TLRU study not requested by Whitefish (Goodfish) Lake First Nation #128 First Nation #128
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page B-5
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE ACCESS MANAGEMENT LOCATIONS IN BMAs/GBPUs
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page C-1
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE ACCESS MANAGEMENT LOCATIONS IN BMAs/GBPUs
GBPU/BMA Candidate Locations (KP) Access Management Considerations and Measures Yellowhead KP 315.31 Non-contiguous segments of the pipeline construction footprint are prioritized KP 316.72 for access management (see Figure 4). Priority locations for access KP 316.76 management measures will include the divergence points and intersections KP 317.42 with other linear disturbances, including Project temporary access. KP 317.48 Suitable site-specific access management locations and measures will be KP 317.74 determined using the Decision Frameworks (Figures 4 and 5) and consultation KP 317.77 outcomes as a guide. KP 310.9 to KP 327.5 On private lands, the extent of access management measures will vary based Grand Cache KP 295.8 to KP 310.9 on agreements with the landowner. KP 327.5 to KP 338.0 Standard access management measures will be implemented during Robson KP 521.94 construction (refer to the Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure KP 529.11 EPP [Volume 1] and Pipeline EPP [Volume 2]). Temporary access management measures will be implemented, where warranted, to block KP 529.21 unauthorized use of new or upgraded deactivated/overgrown temporary KP 529.59 construction access and the pipeline construction footprint when not needed for Wells Gray KP 576.73 construction or reclamation work until the following season. KP 576.78 During PCEM, effectiveness of access management measures will be KP 581.26 documented. If at any point during the five-year monitoring program, access KP 581.31 management measures are found to be underperforming and are unlikely to KP 581.84 meet the measurable targets within the five-year timeframe, corrective KP 582.46 measures will be implemented as soon as feasible, using the Adaptive KP 583.10 Management Decision Framework (Figure 5) as a guide. KP 583.81 • Temporary access management measures will be implemented at suitable KP 587.31 locations to block unauthorized use of new or upgraded KP 590.07 deactivated/overgrown temporary construction access and the pipeline construction footprint when not needed for construction or reclamation KP 590.14 work until the following season. KP 590.91 • Following construction, access management measures will be KP 590.93 implemented and may include one or more of the following at identified KP 591.39 sites: KP 594.68 – constructed timber berms/barriers KP 721.3 to KP 723.4 – bioengineering Columbia-Shuswap KP 633.8 to KP 634.5 – gates and fencing North Cascades KP 989.4 to KP 997.6 – vegetation screens and barriers (e.g., natural regeneration KP 997.8 to KP 1002.1 through reduced ground disturbance construction; tree seedling or shrub planting) – road deactivation (e.g., at access points to the right-of-way) – rock piles or boulders – signs – woody debris rollback During operations, aerial monitoring of the effectiveness of access management will be done in conjunction with Trans Mountain’s periodic aerial inspections of the right-of-way. This and any information from ongoing communications will inform the need for corrective measures during operations. Note: Based on SSEID005.1 Project data and disturbance data compiled for the cumulative effects analysis for the Project. Contiguous features are defined as adjacent (within 10 m to account for data error).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page C-2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX D
RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER NOTIFICATIONS OF PLAN
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page D-1
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX D
RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER NOTIFICATIONS OF PLAN
Contact Name (if Regulator/Stakeholder Group applicable) Date Method of Contact Landowners N/A September 11, 2016 Letter Aboriginal Groups (please refer to Appendix B) N/A September 26, 2016 Letter Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Tim Blair September 20, 2016 Email Jasper National Park of Canada Mayabe Dia September 20, 2016 Email Alberta Environment and Parks Corinee Kristensen September 20, 2016 Email Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Lisa Gow September 20, 2016 Email BC Parks Ken Morrison September 20, 2016 Email BC OGC Brian Murphy September 20, 2016 Email Ministry of Natural Gas Development Linda Beltrano September 20, 2016 Email Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Andrea Mah December 22, 2016 Email Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Susan Fitton September 20, 2016 Email Fraser Valley Air Quality Coordinating Committee Roger Quan October 21, 2016 Email ECCC Phil Wong October 21, 2016 Email ECCC Rachel Mayberry October 28, 2016 Email ECCC Coral Deshield December 21, 2016 Email ECCC Phil Wong December 21, 2016 Email Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Patrick Coates September 20, 2016 Email Department of Fisheries and Oceans Sandra Hollick-Kenyon December 3, 2016 Email Department of Fisheries and Oceans Alston Bonamis December 3, 2016 Email City of Edmonton N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Spruce Grove N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Municipality of Jasper N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Parkland County N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Strathcona County N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Town of Edson N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Town of Hinton N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Town of Stony Plain N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Wabamun N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Yellowhead County N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Kamloops N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Kamloops RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Kamloops Hotel Association N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Kamloops Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Kamloops Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, Skills Training N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Merritt N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Merritt RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Clearwater Employment Services N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Tourism Wells Grey N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Clearwater Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter District of Clearwater N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter District of Clearwater RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Interior Health N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Merritt Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Northern Health N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Regional District of Fraser Fort George N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Thompson Nicola Regional District N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Town of Blue River N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Venture Kamloops N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Valemount N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Valemount RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Valley District N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Valemount Learning Centre N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Work Skills BC- Valemount N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page D-2
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Contact Name (if Regulator/Stakeholder Group applicable) Date Method of Contact Valemount and Area Recreational Development Association N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Valemount Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Grassland’s Conservation Council N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Abbotsford Police Department N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Abbotsford Soil Conservation Association N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Invasive Species N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Ministry of Children and Family Development N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Ministry of Social Development N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Nature N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Wildlife Federation N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Burnaby Board of Trade N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Burnaby RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Chilliwack Economic Partners N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Abbotsford N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Burnaby N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Chilliwack N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Coquitlam N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of New Westminster N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Port Coquitlam N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Port Moody N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Surrey N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Coquitlam RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Corporation of Delta N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter District of Hope N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Eagle Creek N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Valley Invasive Plant Council N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Valley Regional District N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Glen Valley Watershed Society N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Hope Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Hope Community Policing Office N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Langley Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Langley Environmental Partners Society N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Coordinating Committee N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Metro Vancouver N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Newton RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter RCMP Division ‘E’ N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Sapperton Fish and Game N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Stoney Creek N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Surrey Board of Trade N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Surry Environmental Partners N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Surrey RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Township of Langley N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Township of Langley RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter TriCities Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Upper Fraser Valley Regional Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Anmore N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Belcarra N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Yorkson N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter ACGI Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Barnett Marine Park N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Ambulance N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Chamber of Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Coast Pilots N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Burnaby Residents Opposed to KMC Expansion N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Canadian Pacific Rail N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page D-3
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Contact Name (if Regulator/Stakeholder Group applicable) Date Method of Contact Canexus- Ero- Newalta-Univar Community Advisory Panal N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Canexus Chemicals N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Chevron N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Canadian National Rail N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Council of Marine Carriers N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter District of North Vancouver N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Empire Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Erco Worldwide N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter First Nation Emergency Services Society N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter First Nation Health Authority N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Health Authority N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Inchcape Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Island Tug and Barge N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Kask Brothers N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Ledcor Resources and Transportation Limited Partnership N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Mason Agency (Shipping Service) N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) – Burnaby Lougheed N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA – Burnaby North N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA – Coquitlam – Burke Mountain N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA - North Vancouver Lonsdale N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA – North Vancouver Seymour N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA – Port Moody - Coquitlam N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Member of Parliament (MP) – Delta N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – North Burnaby Seymour N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – North Vancouver N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – Vancouver Centre N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – Vancouver East N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – Vancouver Quadra N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter North Shore NOPE N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Pacific Coast Terminal N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Pacific Pilotage Authority N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Pacific Wildlife Foundation N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Peter Kiewit Infrastructure Co. N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Seaspan N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Shell Terminal N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Simon Fraser University N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter SMIT Marine N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Suncor Terminal N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter UBC Stellar Sea Lion (Marine Mammal) Research Centre N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Aquarium N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Board of Trade N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Coastal Health Authority N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Pile and Dredge N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Westward Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Wild Bird Trust N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Metro Vancouver Regional District Ali Ergudenler September 19 to 23, 2016 Email Metro Vancouver Regional District Roger Quan September 19 to 23, 2016 Email
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page D-4
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX E
CONTACT INFORMATION AND RECORDING BEAR SIGHTINGS
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page E-1
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
APPENDIX E
CONTACT INFORMATION AND RECORDING BEAR SIGHTINGS
Alberta Contacts Fish and Wildlife Area Office Nearest Medical Centre Edmonton 780 427-3574 University of Alberta Hospital 8440 112 St NW Edmonton, AB 1-780-407-8822 Hinton 780 865-8264 Hinton Healthcare Centre 1280 Switzer Drive Hinton, AB 1-780-865-3333 Jasper National Park Jasper 780-852-6176 Seton – Jasper Healthcare Centre 518 Robson St Jasper, AB 1-780-852-3344 British Columbia Contacts (Important: In BC, the first contact in the event of a human-wildlife conflict is the Report All Poachers and Polluters (RAPP) hotline. The RAPP hotline (1-877-952-7277) is toll free and always available (24/7). BC Ministry of Environment – Conservation BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Camp Location Officer Service (COS) Resource Operations Nearest Medical Centre Valemount Craig McCulloch, Omineca Region Kevin Hoekstra Valemount Health Centre Prince George, BC Omineca Region 1445 5 Avenue Telephone: 250-614-9916 Prince George, BC Valemount, BC Email: [email protected] Telephone: 250 614-7527 (250) 566-9138 Email: [email protected] Blue River Warren Chayer, Thompson-Nicola Region Kevin Hoekstra Dr. Helmcken Memorial Clearwater, BC Omineca Region Hospital Telephone: 250-587-6795 Prince George, BC 640 Park Drive, RR#1 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 250 614-7527 Clearwater, BC Email: [email protected] (250) 674-2244 Kevin Van Damme, Thompson-Nicola Region John Surgenor Kamloops, BC Thompson/Okanagan Region Telephone: 250-371-6331 Kamloops, BC Email: [email protected] Telephone: 250 614-7527 Email: [email protected] Clearwater Same contacts as Blue River (listed above) John Surgenor Dr. Helmcken Memorial Thompson/Okanagan Region Hospital Kamloops, BC 640 Park Drive, RR#1 Telephone: 250-371-6306 Clearwater, BC Email: [email protected] (250) 674-2244 Merritt Paul Pike, South Okanagan Region John Surgenor Nicola Valley Health Merritt, BC Thompson/Okanagan Region Centre Telephone: 250-378-8492 Kamloops, BC 3451 Voght Street Email: [email protected] Telephone: 250-371-6306 Merritt, BC Email: [email protected] 250-378-2242 Hope Jack Trudgian, South Coast Region Joshua Malt Fraser Canyon Hospital Surrey, BC South Coast Region 1275 7 Avenue Telephone: 877 952-7277 Telephone: 604-586-5647 Hope, BC Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] (604) 869-5656 Note, for bear sightings with the North Cascades GBPU contact Hope Mountain Learning Centre at: 1-855-464-7479 (http://hopemountain.org/conservation/grizzly-bear-reporting/; ttp://www.coasttocascades.org/sightings).
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page E-2
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/March 2018
Fill in this form if a bear sighting occurs and provide to the Environmental Inspector.
The Environmental Inspector is responsible for:
• immediately reporting an “incident” (i.e., unexpected encounter, bear reacts assertively) to BC MOE, Conservation Officer Service;
• ensuring all observations (sighting and incidents) are entered into a spreadsheet; and
• sharing the spreadsheet (all sighting and incidents) with BC MOE and BC MFLNRO on a weekly basis if there is information entered.
Bear Sighting Form
Name of Observer Date of Observation Location of Observation (Kilometre Post on TMEP) or Location Name (if applicable) Description of Observation Location (e.g., beside Highway, near stream in thick bush) UTM of Observation (UTM Zone, Easting, Northing) Bear Observation Details Provide as much information as possible such as black bear or grizzly bear; how many individuals, size, gender, age specifically for cubs of year and yearlings. *Include photographs if taken. Type of Encounter (e.g., surprise encounter at a close distance, or observed at a safe distance). If possible, provide estimate of distance. Bear Behavior Describe what bear was doing and reaction to worker observation (e.g., feeding on berries), and the reaction of the bear (e.g., no reaction and continued with activity, ran away, curious and approached, became assertive). Additional Comments Name of Environmental Inspector Sighting Form Submitted To Date of Submission to Environmental Inspector
01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0009 Page E-3