MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING This section of the ESA presents a summary description of the existing biophysical and socio-economic environment potentially affected by the Project.

Results of field surveys conducted in 2012 and winter 2013 have been included in this ESA report. Vegetation and wildlife reconnaissance surveys were conducted in September 2012, and additional wildlife surveys were conducted in October 2012 and March 2013. Aquatic surveys were conducted in October 2012, and winter fisheries surveys were conducted in February 2013. Methods used to determine baseline conditions for each environmental or socio-economic resource are described in the relevant subsection.

The Project is located in northeast Alberta, approximately 35 km northwest of Fort McMurray. The Project footprint is located within the Northern Alberta Lowlands Physiographic Region, and crosses Crown land in the Green Area of Alberta, including two watercourses. 5.1 Study Areas The spatial boundaries or study areas considered in the description of environmental setting and assessment of potential Project effects on the environmental components include one or more of the following: Project footprint, LSA, RSA, and socio-economic study area. These study areas were used to capture the potential direct and indirect effects of the Project on each VC and their associated KI, as well as to understand the context within which the effects can occur. The LSAs and RSAs used in the effects assessment vary by environmental and socio-economic element. The LSAs were established to assess the potential, largely direct effects of the Project on the local environment. Each VC and baseline setting component is considered in defining the LSAs. The RSAs were established to assess the potential, largely indirect effects of the Project within the broader, regional context.

The study areas are summarized in Table 5.1-1, shown in Figure 5.1-1 and Figure 5.1-2, and the socio-economic study area is described in more detail in Section 5.1.1.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-1

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.1-1 Study Areas Used in the Environmental and Socio-economic Setting and Effects Assessment Area Valued Component Study Area Description / Rationale [ha] Physical area required for Project construction, operation and eventual decommissioning and abandonment All Project footprint 15.6 (i.e., pipeline ROW (approximately 13.5 ha) plus the additional work areas required during construction (approximately 2.1 ha, including log decks) . Project footprint. . Direct effects will occur in the trench. Direct and Local Study Area (LSA) 15.6 indirect effects may occur within the Project footprint. As the ground is expected to be frozen during construction, effects on soil outside the Project footprint are unlikely.

Soil and Soil Productivity . The LSA extends 1,000 m on each side of the pipeline centreline (centreline). . This scale is sufficient to document the soils that Regional Study Area (RSA) 1,310 occur in the area, and is suitable for accessing (equivalent to the Terrestrial LSA) effects to potential land uses that rely on soil productivity, such as forestry. . No regional effects on soil and soil productivity (e.g., acid precipitation) are anticipated. . Centered on the watercourses at the crossing locations and extends 100 m from each bank (to account for potential disturbance to the riparian zones). . Upstream extent is 200 m from the pipeline Aquatic (i.e., Surface LSA 142 centreline at each watercourse crossing. Water Quantity and Quality, Fish and Fish . Downstream extent is 2,000 m from the pipeline Habitat) centreline at each watercourse crossing (to account for potential effects from sediment transport during construction). Fully encompasses the LSA and includes the entire RSA 5,765 drainage area of an unnamed watercourse that drains the LSA and flows into Beaver Lake. LSA 1,310 1,000 m on each side of the centreline. Groundwater Quantity and No separate RSA was considered necessary since Quality (Groundwater) RSA (equivalent to the LSA) 1,310 potential groundwater effects are only local (within 1,000 m of the centreline).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-2

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.1-1 Study Areas Used in the Environmental and Socio-economic Setting and Effects Assessment (continued) Area Valued Component Study Area Description / Rationale [ha] The LSA for terrestrial environmental components (vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat) extends 1,000 m on each side of the centreline. The terrestrial LSA 1,310 LSA encompasses the Project footprint. The purpose of the terrestrial LSA is to assess the potential direct Project effects and small-scale indirect Project effects on all terrestrial environmental components. . The RSA for terrestrial environmental components (vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat) extends 7,000 m on each side of the centreline. Terrestrial (i.e., Vegetation, . The RSA boundary was defined based on vegetation Wetlands, Wildlife and classification boundaries and the provincially Wildlife Habitat) designated Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone. . It encompasses the home range of a white-tailed 2 RSA 22,368 deer which has an average home range of 8.5 km (Lesage et al. 2000), and it also encompasses an area with the capacity to contain the home ranges of approximately two moose, each with an average of 11 km2 in Alberta (De La Mare 2012, pers. comm.). . The purpose of the terrestrial RSA is to assess the contribution of the Project effects on all terrestrial environmental components within the broader regional context. The area within 5,000 m of the ROW centerline, based on LSA 12,800 the guidance provided by Alberta Environment (AENV 2009) for air assessments in Alberta Air Quality No separate RSA was considered necessary as the LSA is sized such that predicted concentrations at the study RSA 12,800 area boundary are essentially the same with or without (equivalent to the LSA) the Project emissions (i.e., Project effects on air quality are not expected to extend beyond the LSA boundary). 1,500 m on each side of the centreline based on guidance provided by Energy Resources Conservation Board LSA 2,201 (ERCB) Directive 038: Noise Control (EUB 2007) for noise assessments in Alberta No separate RSA was considered necessary. As noise Acoustic Environment attenuates with distance, potential noise effects are confined to the LSA. In the area beyond the LSA, noise RSA 2,201 emissions from Project construction are expected to (equivalent to the LSA) attenuate to a level below the ambient sound level, resulting in a negligible contribution. Noise emissions are not expected from Project operation.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-3

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.1-1 Study Areas Used in the Environmental and Socio-economic Setting and Effects Assessment (continued) Area Valued Component Study Area Description / Rationale [ha] . Boundary corresponds to the boundary of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, in which the Project falls, and includes the communities within it. Study Area 6,647,632 . Potential social, infrastructure, economic and employment effects are typically experienced within the municipal jurisdiction in which a Project lies. Socio-economic (i.e., Human Occupancy . For hunting, trapping and fishing activities. and Resource Use, . The resource use baseline and effects assessment Quality of Life, Human Resource use LSA 1,310 LSA is the same as the terrestrial LSA (Vegetation, Health, Infrastructure and Wetlands, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) as Services, and effects on resource use are closely linked to effects Employment and on these environments and the resources therein. Economy) . For hunting, trapping and fishing activities. . The resource use baseline and effects assessment Resource use RSA 22,368 RSA is the same as the terrestrial RSA (Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) as effects on resource use are closely linked to effects on these environments and the resources therein. . Project footprint. LSA 15.6 . Any direct or indirect Project effects on historic resources will result from ground and soil Heritage (Historic) disturbance. Resources Extends 1,500 m on each side of the centreline and into portions of 18 sections including: Sections 19-22 and RSA 4,662 27-34 Twp 91 Rge 11 W4M and Sections 23-26 and 35-36 Twp 91 Rge 12 W4M. The TLU study areas are the same as the terrestrial LSA and RSA, as the terrestrial study areas consider plants and wildlife, which are important resources for TLU, and Project effects on these resources have the potential to affect traditional harvesting activities. Traditional fishing is also important, and is also discussed in Traditional Land and the context of the terrestrial study areas. Resource Use Refer to the Description / Rationale for the Terrestrial LSA 1,310 Valued Components Refer to the Description / Rationale for the Terrestrial RSA 22,368 Valued Components

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-4

^_ I:\CLIENTS\TRANSCANADA\12-1334-0055\Mapping\MXD\General\StudyAreas_20130612.mxd

Tp. 92 Rg. 9 Rg.14 Rg.13 Rg.12 Rg.11 Rg.10 W4M STEEPBANK RIVER

TAR ISLAND^_

BEAVER LAKE RUTH LAKE ³

ATHABASCA RIVER

MACKAY RIVER

à EK Ä RE C 63 E H C L Moosa Exchange EG A GETT CREE Meter Station # Pelican Mainline Tie-in C K

POPLAR CREEK

Tp. 91

R E V BE R I AV E R

INDEX

^_! Fort McMurray Alberta

Edmonton !

B IR C ! Calgary HW O O D CRE JA E ISKEY CK K WH CR EEK SCALE 1:50,000,000

LEGEND 5 0 5 # FACILITY LOCAL STUDY AREAS (LSA) ^_ HAMLET STUDY ROUTE* ACOUSTIC LSA PRIMARY HIGHWAY SCALE 1:175,000 KILOMETRES AIR LSA LOCAL ROAD AQUATIC LSA WATERCOURSE PROJECT RESOURCE USE AND TERRESTRIAL LSA TAILINGS POND MOOSA CROSSOVER REGIONAL STUDY AREAS (RSA) WATERBODY AQUATIC RSA TITLE HISTORIC RESOURCES RSA RESOURCE USE AND TERRESTRIAL RSA BIOPHYSICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES SOILS RSA STUDY AREAS NOTE PROJECT 12-1334-0055 FILE No. *MOOSA CROSSOVER CENTRELINE 20121102 DESIGN CL 13 Mar. 2013 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 REFERENCE GIS JC 06 Jun. 2013 ROADS OBTAINED FROM GEOBASE®. HYDROLOGY OBTAINED FROM ALTALIS, MODIFIED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. CHECK KM 11 Jun. 2013 HAMLETS OBTAINED FROM IHS ENERGY INC. FIGURE: 5.1-1 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12N DATUM: NAD 83 REVIEW CC 11 Jun. 2013 I:\CLIENTS\TRANSCANADA\12-1334-0055\Mapping\MXD\SocioEconomic\SocioEconomic_StudyArea_20130612.mxd

Rg.9 Rg.8 Northwest Territories Rg.7 Rg.6 Rg.5 Rg.4 Rg.3 Rg.2 Rg.1 Rg.23 Rg.22 Rg.21 Tp.126 W5M Rg.20 Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16 Rg.15 Rg.14 Rg.13 Rg.12 Rg.11 Rg.10 Rg.9 Rg.8 Rg.7 Rg.6 Rg.5 Rg.4 Rg.3 Rg.2 Rg.1 KILOME LAKE W4M CHARLES LAKE FITZGERALD ^_ Tp.125

SLAVE RIVER TAZIN LAKE Tp.124 ³ SNAKE LAKE Tp.123

THULTUE LAKE CONIBEAR LAKE Tp.122 Colin-Cornwall Lakes Wildland COLIN LAKE

Tp.121

Tp.120 La Butte Creek Wildland Tp.119

Wood Buffalo Caribou Mountains Wildland National Park Tp.118 Fidler-Greywillow Wildland Tp.117

Tp.116 WENTZEL LAKE LAKE ATHABASCA Fidler-Greywillow Wildland I.D. NO. 24 (WOOD BUFFALO) SANDY POINT 221 Tp.115 Egg Island

DEVIL'S GATE 220 Tp.114 DOG HEAD 218 ALLISON BAY 219 PEACE RIVER Tp.113

GARDEN CREEK BARIL LAKE

^_ Fidler-Greywillow Wildland Tp.112 Ã FORT CHIPEWYAN Ä ^_ CHIPEWYAN 201B 58 Tp.111 MAMAWI LAKE LAKE CLAIRE JOHN D'OR PRAIRIE Tp.110 ^_ FOX LAKE ^_ CHIPEWYAN 201A ADAMS LANDING CHIPEWYAN 201 ^_ ^_LITTLE RED RIVER RUIS LAKE Tp.109

RICHARDSON LAKE Tp.108 BIRCH RIVER MACKENZIE COUNTY OLD FORT 217 Tp.107

Harper Creek Maybelle River Wildland Tp.106 Athabasca Dunes

Tp.105 Richardson River Dunes Wildland Tp.104 CHIPEWYAN 201F Alberta Saskatchewan

Tp.103 CHIPEWYAN 201G Tp.102

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF Tp.101 WOOD BUFFALO Marguerite River Wildland Tp.100 SAND LAKE BIG ISLAND LAKE Tp.99

GARDINER LAKES Birch Mountains Wildland NAMUR RIVER 174A Tp.98 ATHABASCA RIVERMCCLELLAND LAKE LEGEND LAKE NAMUR LAKE Tp.97 FORT MCKAY 174C NAMUR LAKE 174B VU955 Tp.96

Marguerite River FORT MCKAY INDIAN RESERVE NO. 174D Wildland Tp.95

FORT MACKAY ^_ Tp.94 FORT MCKAY 174 La Saline Tp.93 MILDRED LAKE ^_ TAR ISLAND CHIPEWYAN LAKE ^_ Tp.92 CHIPEWYAN LAKE ^_ Moosa Exchange # Pelican Mainline Tie-in MINK LAKE Meter Station Tp.91 STUDY ROUTE

Tp.90 VU686 PEERLESS LAKE FORT MCMURRAY Tp.89 ^_ Whitemud Falls Wildland PEERLESS LAKE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF Grand Rapids Wildland DRAPER OPPORTUNITY NO. 17 ^_ CLEARWATER 175 ^_ Tp.88 Gregoire Lake ^_ TROUT LAKE Provincial Park Gipsy Lake Wildland Tp.87 GORDON LAKE Gipsy Lake Wildland Grand Rapids Wildland Hangingstone GREGOIRE LAKE Recreation Area Tp.86 TEEPEE LAKE ^_ANZAC GIPSY LAKE

GREGOIRE LAKE 176

Maqua Lake BIRCH LAKE

KINOSIS Tp.85 BAT LAKE Recreation Area Ã Ä 155 ^_ Gipsy Lake GARSON LAKE VU CHEECHAM HOUSE RIVER 63 ^_ Wildland Tp.84 INDIAN CEMETERY 178 Stony Mountain Wildland MUSKWA LAKE Tp.83 QUIGLEY

Engstrom Lake ^_ Tp.82 PETER POND LAKE NORTH WABASCA LAKE Recreation Area KETTLE RIVER WABASCA - DESMARAIS Tp.81 ^_ DESMARAIS JANVIER 194 COWPER ^_ LAKE 194A Tp.80 SOUTH WABASCA LAKE PINGLE ^_ ^_!( Crow Lake BOHN LAKE Fort McMurray PELICAN PORTAGE CHARD Tp.79 SANDY LAKE Provincial Park ^_ ^_PELICAN LAKE Alberta ^_ LEISMER Tp.78 Edmonton VU754 ^_ VU881 !(

Tp.77 VU813 LAC LA BICHE COUNTY WINEFRED CONKLIN Calgary LAKE 194B !( MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF ^_ CHRISTINA LAKE LESSER SLAVE RIVER NO. 124 Tp.76 Lesser Slave Lake ^_ DEVENISH Provincial Park GLOVER LAKE ^_ WINEFRED LAKE Tp.75 ^_ ^_^_^_LEGEND ^_ # FACILITY HAMLET / SUMMER VILLAGE / CITY 50 0 50 ^_ UNINCORPORATED MUNICIPALITY STUDY ROUTE* INDIAN RESERVE PRIMARY HIGHWAY SCALE 1:1,500,000 KILOMETRES SOCIO-ECONOMIC MUNICIPAL DISTRICT STUDY AREA SECONDARY HIGHWAY PARK / PROTECTED AREA PROJECT RAILWAY WATERBODY WATERCOURSE MOOSA CROSSOVER

TITLE

NOTE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AREA *MOOSA CROSSOVER CENTRELINE 20121102

REFERENCE PROJECT 12-1334-0055 FILE No. POPULATED PLACES, HYDROLOGY AND INDIAN RESERVES OBTAINED FROM IHS ENERGY INC. ALBERTA HIGHWAYS OBTAINED FROM GEOBASE®. DESIGN CL 13 Mar. 2013 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 SASKATCHEWAN HIGHWAYS AND ALBERTA RAILWAYS OBTAINED FROM CANVEC. PROVINCIAL PARK/RECREATION AREAS OBTAINED FROM PARKS DIVISION - ALBERTA TOURISM, PARKS AND RECREATION, GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA. PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OBTAINED FROM GIS MP 04 Jun. 2013 © GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA 2012. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. CHECK KM 11 Jun. 2013 FIGURE: 5.1-2 DATUM: NAD 83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12 REVIEW CC 11 Jun. 2013 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.1.1 Socio-economic Study Area The boundaries of the socio-economic study area correspond to the area within which it can be reasonably expected that socio-economic effects may occur. The VCs considered in the socio-economic study area are Human Occupancy and Resource Use, Quality of Life, Human Health, Infrastructure and Services, and Employment and Economy. The boundary of the socio-economic study area corresponds to the boundary of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) within which the Project falls, and includes the communities within it (Figure 5.1-2, Table 5.1-2), as economic, infrastructure, service and population effects have the potential to affect the entire administrative unit.

The Project is located approximately 35 km northwest of Fort McMurray, approximately 30 km southwest of Fort MacKay and 21 km west of the Athabasca River. Given the remote location of the Project and the short (i.e., 15 weeks) winter construction schedule, the potential for communities to experience socio-economic effects is geographically and temporally limited. Interaction between Project components and/or personnel and communities is not expected for centers far (i.e., more than 50 km) from the Project, with the exception of potential traffic effects. Any Project traffic entering the socio-economic study area from Edmonton will do so by Highway 63. Traffic between Fort McMurray and the Project will also use Highway 63, and will be limited to the portion of the highway between Fort McMurray and Fort McKay. For these reasons, the discussion of quality of life, human health, infrastructure and services and employment will be focused on the communities of Fort McMurray, Fort MacKay and the Fort McKay Indian Reserves (IR) 174 and 174d. Economic and population effects will be experienced at the Regional Municipality (RM) level, and will be discussed accordingly.

The study areas for the land and resource use baseline and effects assessment are equivalent to the terrestrial (vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat) study areas, as described in Section 5.1 and shown in Figure 5.1-1, as effects on land and resource use are closely linked to terrestrial resources.

The Fort McKay IRs 174 and 174d are the only IRs near the Project that may experience socio-economic effects. Other IRs are not expected to experience Project related effects to the socio-economic VCs given their distance from the Project, and the unlikelihood of Project personnel and traffic travelling to or beyond them.

Labour force, income, and educational data reported for the socio-economic study area is regional (to the RMWB) in extent. Data for land and resource use, population and traffic is available on a more local scale, and so will be discussed in a local context (local being those areas within which it can be reasonably expected that socio-economic effects may occur as a result of the Project – i.e., the LSA and RSA).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-7

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.1-2: Communities Considered in the Socio-economic Study Area Distance from Population Community the Project Rationale for Inclusion in the Socio-economic Assessment (2012) [km] Regional Municipality of n/a 116,407 The Project is located within the RMWB Wood Buffalo (RMWB)

(a) The largest community closest to the Project where it is expected that Fort McMurray 15 77,136 some of the Project workforce and goods and services will be obtained. Aboriginal community in the socio-economic study area which may Fort McKay IR 174 27 n/a experience some Project effects Community in the socio-economic study area which may experience Fort MacKay 28 59 some Project effects Community in the socio-economic study area which may experience Fort McKay IR 174d 30 n/a some Project effects Draper 45 197 Community in the socio-economic study area Saprae Creek 47 925 Community in the socio-economic study area Anzac >50 714 Community in the socio-economic study area Gregoire Lake Estates >50 275 Community in the socio-economic study area Hamlet of Janvier >100 171 Community in the socio-economic study area Hamlet of Conklin >100 318 Community in the socio-economic study area Fort Chipewyan >200 1,008 Community in the socio-economic study area Fort Fitzgerald >200 n/a Community in the socio-economic study area (a) Includes the shadow population residing in urban campgrounds, hotels and rental accommodations. n/a = Not available. Source: RMWB 2008, 2012.

5.2 Physical and Meteorological Environment This section provides a summary of the physical and meteorological environment baseline setting, including the climatic, physiographic and geologic conditions documented for the soil and soil productivity and terrestrial (i.e., vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife and wildlife habitat) LSA and RSA. 5.2.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Information for this section was collected from publically available government reports and geographic information. 5.2.2 Baseline Conditions Climate The climate of a region is defined as the average meteorological conditions, including wind, temperature and precipitation, measured over a period of thirty years. The Project is located in a region which is generally described as having a cool, continental climate (NRC 2006). Environment Canada’s Fort McMurray Airport station is the station closest to the Project for which climate normal or average data (from 1971 to 2000) is available. Therefore this data (Table 5.2-1) has been used to represent the climate conditions in the region.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-8

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.2-1 Fort McMurray Airport Climate Normals (1971 to 2000) Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Temperature Daily Average [°C] -18.8 -13.7 -6.5 3.4 10.4 14.7 16.8 15.3 9.4 2.8 -8.5 -16.5 0.7 Daily Average Maximum -13.6 -7.6 0.3 10 17.4 21.4 23.2 21.9 15.4 7.8 -4.2 -11.6 6.7 [°C] Daily Average -24 -19.8 -13.2 -3.3 3.3 7.9 10.2 8.6 3.3 -2.2 -12.8 -21.4 -5.3 Minimum [°C] Extreme Maximum [°C] 13.1 15 18.9 30.2 34.8 36.1 35.6 37 32.4 28.6 18.9 10.7 Extreme Minimum [°C] -50 -50.6 -44.4 -34.4 -13.3 -4.4 -3.3 -2.9 -15.6 -24.5 -37.8 -47.2 Precipitation Rainfall [mm] 0.5 0.8 1.6 9.3 34.2 74.8 81.3 72.6 45 18.8 2.4 1.1 342.2 Snowfall [cm] 27 20.6 20.4 14.5 2.9 0 0 0 2.4 13.1 29 25.9 155.8 Total Precipitation [mm] 19.3 15 16.1 21.7 36.9 74.8 81.3 72.7 46.8 29.6 22.2 19.3 455.5 Extreme Daily Total 16 13.2 29.7 26.8 39.4 50 52.5 94.5 60.5 29.4 15.7 22.6 Precipitation (mm) Days with precipitation >= 12.3 10.3 9.2 8.1 10.9 14.1 15.8 13.5 12.6 11.1 12.2 12.4 142.6 0.2 mm Wind Average Speed [km/hr] 8.4 9.1 9.6 10.9 10.8 9.7 9 8.7 9.7 10.5 9 8.6 9.5 Most Frequent Direction E E E E E E SW SW E E E E E – = Not applicable. Wind direction: E = easterly; SW = southwesterly. Source: Environment Canada (2013a).

The highest average daily temperature occurs in July. The average temperature in July is +16.8°C. The lowest winter temperatures occur in January when the average is -18.8°C. The annual average temperature for Fort McMurray is +0.7°C. Most of the precipitation occurs between May and September. The annual average precipitation for Fort McMurray is approximately 455.5 mm. The predominant wind direction for Fort McMurray is from the east. Physiography Pettapiece (1986) mapped Alberta’s physiography at a scale of 1:500,000. Based on this mapping, the Project will be located in the Northern Alberta Lowlands Physiographic Region, within the McMurray Lowland section and the Dover Plain district. The McMurray Lowland generally has elevations that are 300 to 450 m above sea level (masl). The district is characterized by level and inclined glaciolacustrine deposits. Bedrock Geology The Project is underlain by the Clearwater Formation of the lower Cretaceous period. The Project location is shown as a red line in Figure 5.2-1. The Clearwater Formation (Kc) is primarily composed of dark grey, fossiliferous, silty shale; laminated siltstone and fine-grained cherty sandstone; and, glauconitic sandstone (Wabiskaw Member) near base. This formation is marine in origin (AGS 2012). The geotechnical drilling program found bedrock at depths of 10 to 12 m but drilling was not deep enough to confirm the formation.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-9

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Figure 5.2-1 Bedrock Geology of the Region

Source: AGS (2012). Note: The red line indicates the location of the Moosa Crossover Project.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-10

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Surficial Geology The surficial material in the terrestrial LSA is glaciolacustrine clay and silt, containing pebbles and till-like layers (Bayrock and Reimchen 1973). Results of the vegetation field surveys and geotechnical drilling revealed overlying organic deposits in low areas. Mapped aggregate resources have been identified east of the Project, shown as a red line, in Twp 91 Rge 10 and Twp 92 Rge 10 W4M, and to the northwest, in Twp 92 Rge 12 W4M (Figure 5.2-2, AGS 2012).

Figure 5.2-2 Aggregate Resources of the Region

Source: AGS (2012). Note: The red line indicates the location of the Moosa Crossover Project.

Natural Hazards Natural hazards can be defined as elements of the physical environment (e.g., atmospheric, hydrologic, geologic or wildfire phenomena) which, due to location, frequency and areas prone to severity, have the potential to affect humans, structures or activities in an adverse way.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-11

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

The terrestrial LSA is located within an area that may have isolated patches (0-10%) of permafrost (NRC 2009). No recorded landslides causing fatalities have occurred within the terrestrial LSA (NRC 2009). The terrestrial LSA is in a region of low earthquake hazard (NRC 2009). The terrestrial LSA is not in a floodway or flood range zone, as defined by ESRD (2013). The terrestrial LSA crosses areas of low to moderate fire danger rating (ESRD 2012). Project construction is scheduled during frozen conditions when fire hazard is not a concern. The pipeline will be underground, reducing its exposure to a fire hazard during operations. 5.3 Soil and Soil Productivity This section presents a summary of the soil landscapes, soil resources and characteristics found within the terrestrial LSA. The terrestrial LSA is located in the Central Mixedwood Area of Central and Northern Alberta Soil Correlation Area (SCA 20) (Bock et al. 2006). 5.3.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Information for this section was collected from publicly available Alberta government reports about northern ecosystems. Additional information was obtained from a survey conducted in September 2012 to field verify vegetation and wetlands, and a geotechnical drilling program performed for the Project in March 2013. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping completed for the vegetation assessment (Section 5.4.1) integrates soil and vegetation components into homogeneous map units at various scales The ELC mapping approach for the terrestrial LSA, as it relates to the soil baseline, consists of the following:  conversion of Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) polygons to ELC map units Beckingham and Archibald (1996, National Wetland Working Group 1997) as described in Section 5.4.1;  conversion of any existing ROW located within the Project footprint, from “ROW” classification to the most likely ELC classification, thus allowing a prediction of soil types;  interpretation of the ELC map units to the expected general soil types using the factsheets from Beckingham and Archibald (1996), soil mapping (Turchenek and Lindsay 1982), and data from the 2012 vegetation and wetlands field survey; and  prediction of the soil risk ratings, including compaction, rutting, trench instability, salinity, and wind and water erosion, for each ELC map unit, using the Beckingham and Archibald (1996) factsheets, other data sources (Coote and Pettapiece 1989; Pedocan 1993; Wall et al. 1997), and professional experience.

Ground-truthing during the vegetation and wetlands surveys focused on confirming ELC map units. The soil properties are interpreted from the mapped ELC units and additional data collected during the ELC verification survey, as listed in Table 5.3-1.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-12

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.3-1 Data Collected During 2012 Field Survey to Verify Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Units Data Collected Parameters ELC classification Slope Aspect Site conditions Slope position Moisture regime Nutrient regime Thickness of organic layer Soil conditions Texture of mineral soil Dominant plant species Vegetation conditions Cover class Non-native and invasive plant species (weeds) Site photographs UTM coordinates

5.3.2 Baseline Conditions Terrain The terrain in the terrestrial LSA is undulating, with slope lengths generally less than 800 m and dominant slope gradients ranging from 2 to 5% (Turchenek and Lindsay 1982). Approach slopes at the watercourse crossings as identified in Section 5.5 are less than 5%. Soil Characteristics The predominant soil classification of each ELC map unit is presented in Table 5.3-2, along with its areal extent within the terrestrial LSA and Project footprint. Gray Luvisols occur in the uplands, although Brunisols or Solonetzic soils may also be present. Gleysols and gleyed subgroups occur in the imperfectly to poorly drained transitional areas. Organic soils occur in the bog and fen ELC map units.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-13

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.3-2 Extent of Soil Map Units Located Within the Terrestrial Local Study Area (LSA) and Project Footprint Terrestrial LSA Project Footprint Ecological Land (a) Predominant Soil Classification Area Area % of Project Classification % of LSA % of LSA [ha] [ha] Footprint c1 Gray Luvisols, (Brunisols, Solonetzic) 10 0.7 1.0 7 <0.1 d1 Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) 183 13.9 1.9 12 0.1 d2 Gray Luvisols, (Brunisols, Solonetzic) 317 24.2 2.2 14 0.2 d3 Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) 23 1.8 0.0 0 0 e1 Gleysols, Gleyed Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) 97 7.4 2.0 13 0.1 e2 Luvic Gleysols and Gray Luvisols (Solonetzic) 5 0.4 0.0 0 0 e3 Luvisols, Gleysols, (Solonetzic) 5 0.4 0.0 0 0 g1 Gleysols, Gleyed Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) 4 0.3 0.5 3 <0.1 Cutblock (CC) Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) 1 0.1 0.0 0 0 BFNN Organic 6 0.4 0.0 0 0 BTNN Organic 294 22.5 3.3 21 0.3 FONG Organic 11 0.8 0.3 2 <0.1 FONS Organic 26 2.0 0.3 2 <0.1 FTNN Organic 84 6.4 0.9 5 <0.1 SONS Gleysols 55 4.2 0.3 2 <0.1 STNN Gleysols 114 8.8 3.0 20 0.2 Flooded Non-soil and Gleysols 5 0.4 0.0 0 0 Disturbed (DIS) Varies 70 5.4 0.0 0 0 Total Area 1,310 100 15.6 100 1.2 (a) Derived from Beckingham and Archibald (1996), Turchenek and Lindsay (1982), and 2012 field surveys. Additional possible soil classifications are shown in brackets. Note: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the sum of the individual values.

Interpreted soil texture and drainage for each ELC map unit is presented in Table 5.3-3.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-14

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.3-3 Interpreted Soil Properties of Ecological Land Classification Map Units in the Terrestrial Local Study Area (b) Ecosite or (a) Soil Texture (c) Soil Classification Soil Drainage Wetlands Type Surface Subsoil c1 Gray Luvisols, (Brunisols, Solonetzic) L L to C W, MW d1 Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) SiL, L C to CL to SiCL MW, W, I d2 Gray Luvisols, (Brunisols, Solonetzic) SiL to CL C to SCL to SiCL MW, W, I d3 Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) Si to C C, CL, SiC MW, W, I e1 Gleysols, Gleyed Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) SiCL SiCL to HC I, MW, P, W e2 Luvic Gleysols and Gray Luvisols (Solonetzic) SiL, CL, Si C, SiC, SiL I, MW, W, P e3 Luvisols, Gleysols, (Solonetzic) SiL, SiCL, L SiCL, C, CL I, MW, W, P g1 Gleysols, Gleyed Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) SiL to SCL, Organic C to SiC, Organic I, VP, P Cutblock (CC) Gray Luvisols, (Solonetzic) SiL, L C to CL to SiCL MW, W, I BFNN Organic Organic Organic P BTNN Organic Organic Organic P FONG Organic Organic Organic P, VP FONS Organic Organic Organic P, VP FTNN Organic Organic Organic P, VP SONS Gleysols SiCL, SCL SiCL, SiC, SCL or CL VP STNN Gleysols SiCL, SCL SiCL, SiC, SCL or CL VP Flooded Non-soil and Gleysols None None Not applicable Disturbance (DIS) Varies Varies Varies Varies (a) Derived from Beckingham and Archibald (1996), Turchenek and Lindsay (1982), and 2012 field surveys. Additional possible soil classifications are shown in brackets. (b) Soil Texture Abbreviations: C=Clay; CL=Clay Loam; HC= Heavy Clay; Loam; LS=Loamy Sand; S=Sand; SC=Sandy Clay; SCL=Sandy Clay Loam; SiC=Silty Clay; SiCL=Silty Clay Loam; SiL=Silt Loam; SL=Sandy Loam. (c) Soil Drainage Abbreviations: VR=Very Rapidly; R=Rapidly; W=Well; MW=Moderately Well; I=Imperfectly; P=Poorly; VP=Very Poorly.

Soil Risk Ratings Soil risk such as trench wall instability, rutting, compaction and erosion are affected by soil moisture conditions, soil texture and organic matter content. Coarse textured mineral soils and wet soils are the most susceptible to trench wall instability. Wet, fine textured (silt and clay-rich) and organic soils have the highest risk ratings for rutting and compaction. The factors influencing the potential for wind and water erosion include texture, available soil moisture, organic matter content, surface cover, slope, wind speed, and rainfall intensity. For example, sandy soils are susceptible to trench wall instability and have high risk of wind erosion, and on steeper slopes, sandy soils have a moderate risk of water erosion.

Management interpretations and risk ratings that suggest potential soil issues related to pipeline construction for soils mapped on the Project footprint are presented in Table 5.3-4. These interpretations and risk ratings apply specifically to construction during non-frozen conditions.

Wetness can affect stripping operations and trench wall stability (Pedocan 1993). Soils with imperfect or poor drainage and/or fine soil textures, as in the e1, g1 and wetland ELCs, have moderate to high risk of compaction and trench wall instability which can limit equipment operations. The fine textured wet mineral soils in the e1 and g1 ELCs have a high risk of compaction. Under frozen conditions, trench wall stability may be a factor in wet soils below the depth of freezing and the risks of compaction and rutting are reduced.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-15

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.3-4 Soil Management Interpretations and Risk Ratings for Ecological Land Classification Units Occurring within the Project Footprint

Ecological Land Risk of Trench (c) Compaction Water Erosion Wind Erosion Salinity within (a) (b) Rutting Risk (c) (d) (e) (f) Classification Wall Instability Risk Risk Risk Trench Depth c1 L-M L-M L-M L L L d1 L M M L L L d2 L M M L L L e1 M-H H H L L L g1 M-H H H L L L BTNN H H L L L L FONG H H L L L L FONS H H L L L L FTNN H H L L L L SONS H H L L L L STNN H H L L L L (a) Baseline ROW within the Project footprint was reclassified to the likeliest pre-existing ELC. ELC units d1, d2 and d3 are successional stages; and, ELC units d2 and d3 are expected to have the same soil type and risk ratings as ELC unit d1. Similarly, ELC units e2 and e3 are expected to have the same soil type and risk ratings as ELC unit e1. (b) From professional interpretation based on soil types indicated in Table 5.3-3. (c) From Beckingham and Archibald (1996). (d) Adapted from Wall et al. (1997) and Pedocan (1993). (e) Adapted from Coote and Pettapiece (1989) and Pedocan (1993). (f) Based on review of Turchenek and Lindsay (1982), Bock et al. (2006), Pettapiece and Dell (1996), colour orthophoto and geotechnical drilling logs. Note: Risk Ratings - L = Low, M = Medium, H = High.

All soil types on the Project footprint have low risk of wind and water erosion, due to:  protective surface organic layers, which will be replaced where stripped at the end of construction;  gentle slopes, which keep the velocity of surface water low; and  high clay content, which promotes adhesion of soil particles to each other. The Project is underlain by Clearwater Formation bedrock (AGS 2012), which lies at 10 to 12 m below surface and contains saline sodic shale (BGC Engineering 2010). Turchenek and Lindsay (1982) mapped part of the route as Joslyn soil series, a soil series associated with weakly saline subsoil (Bock et al. 2006). Contaminated Sites The terrestrial LSA does not contain any contaminated sites listed on the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2013).

A search of the Abadata database indicates that no spills or complaints have been submitted to the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) for locations within the terrestrial LSA (Abacus Datagraphics Ltd. 2013). The Project will run parallel to two existing pipelines – one carrying fuel gas, and one carrying natural gas – for its entire length. Several abandoned wells occur in the terrestrial LSA but outside the Project footprint. These pipelines and abandoned wells are potential sources of contamination within the terrestrial LSA.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-16

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.4 Vegetation This section provides a summary of the terrestrial vegetation baseline setting, including plant community composition and distribution within the terrestrial LSA as described in Table 5.1-1. Terrestrial vegetation described in this section includes plant communities in upland and riparian areas that occur outside of water bodies and wetlands. Detailed information on wetlands vegetation within the terrestrial LSA is included in Section 5.7. 5.4.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Vegetation Mapping and Classification Ecological land classification (ELC) was used to define and map vegetation units in the LSA. Ecological land classification is a standardized approach to mapping ecosystems within a given geographical region based on the systematic treatment of ecological information (e.g., vegetation, soils, landforms and water) (Marshall et al. 1999). In Alberta, the ELC framework is based on a hierarchical ecological classification system in which the broadest level of the classification, natural subregions, are defined on the basis of eco-climatic factors. At the site level, ecosites are ecological units that develop under similar environmental influences, defined on the basis of climate, soil nutrients and soil moisture regime (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). A similar classification approach is used to define wetlands types as discussed further in Section 5.7.

A preliminary terrestrial vegetation map delineating ELC units was prepared from AVI data and overlain on an orthophoto image of the terrestrial LSA area using a GIS system. Information on tree canopy species composition and moisture regime from the AVI data was used to classify terrestrial vegetation to ecosite phase, as defined in the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). This information was used as a basis to map and describe ELC units within the terrestrial LSA. However, watercourses are not necessarily identified as individual polygons, as they must exceed 20 m in width to be delineated as a distinct polygon according to provincial AVI standards (ASRD 2005). Thus, many of the smaller watercourses are often included with adjacent stands and cannot be distinguished as a separate ELC unit. Results from the ELC mapping for the Project are provided on the Environmental Alignment Sheet in Appendix B. Desktop Review of Listed Plant Species and Ecological Communities A review of provincial and federal listed species (ASRD 2011, COSEWIC 2012, SARA 2012) was carried out in relation to both the terrestrial LSA and terrestrial RSA boundaries prior to undertaking field investigation. A review of the Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) database was also completed to identify listed plant species and ecological communities that are on the ACIMS tracking or watch lists (ACIMS 2012). Field Surveys Vegetation ecologists conducted ground reconnaissance surveys within the terrestrial LSA on September 6, 2012 to confirm ecological boundaries and site classifications according to the ecosite guide (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) and the Alberta Wetlands Inventory (AWI) Standards (Halsey et al. 2004). Preliminary field surveys were also undertaken to search for listed plant species and listed ecological communities (ACIMS 2012; ESRD 2012; COSEWIC 2012; SARA 2012), and to determine the presence and location of prohibited noxious and noxious weed species (Government of Alberta 2011). Field data were recorded at nine sites within the terrestrial LSA, including two sites where incidental field data were recorded.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-17

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Ground Reconnaissance Surveys Field survey points were pre-selected and mapped as a guide to target survey areas to confirm ELC mapping. For each site surveyed, information collected included slope position, moisture regime, nutrient regime, dominant and indicator plant species, and weeds, percent cover of vegetation layers, vegetation classification, description of disturbances, and additional notes. Location coordinates were taken at each survey site with a global positioning system (GPS) unit. Listed Plant Species and Ecological Communities Surveys Provincial and federal agencies maintain lists of plant species and ecological communities of conservation concern. Provincially, the ACIMS maintains tracking and watch lists of species (ACIMS 2012) and ecological communities (Allen 2012). Species on the tracking list are of high priority because they are rare or of conservation concern in some other way (Kemper 2009). Species on the watch list are not of immediate conservation concern, but ACIMS endeavours to gather more information about their abundance and distribution throughout the province.

Similarly, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses and designates plants and fungi (and animals) that are in danger of disappearing from Canada (COSEWIC 2012). There are seven COSEWIC status categories: Extinct, Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, Not At Risk, and Data Deficient. The federal government periodically reviews the COSEWIC list to determine if a listed species should be protected by law. The Species at Risk Act (SARA) establishes Schedule 1 as the official List of Wildlife (including plants and fungi) species at risk (SARA 2012). Any vascular or non-vascular plant species listed in SARA Schedule 1 that occurs within the Project footprint will be assessed during the environmental assessment process for the Project.

Due to the timing of the field work in early September, it was not possible to complete surveys for listed (rare) vascular plants in accordance to the Alberta Native Plant Council (ANPC) Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (ANPC 2012). Preliminary work to identify locations with potential to support listed species was conducted during the ELC ground reconnaissance surveys, and supplemental surveys for listed vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens are planned for July 2013 (Table 8.1-1). Invasive Plant Surveys Invasive plants in Alberta are defined as either regulated or unregulated. A schedule of regulated invasive plants has been designated as either prohibited noxious or noxious under the Alberta Weed Control Regulation (Government of Alberta 2010). These weeds are required, under the Alberta Weed Control Act (Government of Alberta 2011), to be either destroyed (prohibited noxious weeds) or controlled (noxious weeds), and not spread to other areas.

A list of unregulated invasive plants in Alberta has been compiled by the ANPC (2000). These plants are exotic (alien) species that may displace native plants due to their aggressive nature or lack of predators and pathogens. While these plants are unregulated, there may be management benefits to collecting baseline data on these species.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-18

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Invasive plant surveys were undertaken concurrently with ELC ground reconnaissance surveys, and were targeted in areas with a moderate to high potential of finding invasive plants, such as existing disturbances (e.g., well sites, seismic lines, pipeline ROW and roads), edges of native habitat adjacent to disturbance areas, and other areas where human activity has altered the original disturbance regime. Incidental weed observations were recorded at two sites, TMWK06 and TMWK07 within the terrestrial LSA. Weed surveys will be completed in conjunction with the listed plant surveys prior to construction (Table 8.1-1). Quality Assurance and Quality Control Standardized methods and datasheets were used in accordance with the applicable Golder technical procedure (Golder 2006) and specific work instructions (SWIs) to maintain consistency and accuracy in data collection. Field training and Quality Assurance/Quality Control protocols were also used to facilitate consistency and accuracy among surveyors. Datasheets were reviewed in the field through an exchange of datasheets between field crews or team members to confirm that all fields were completed in accordance with technical procedures and SWIs. Further data review was conducted at the end of each day and following data entry to check for errors or omissions. All calculations were independently reviewed to verify that the correct formulas, procedures and data sources were used. 5.4.2 Baseline Conditions Vegetation Communities The terrestrial LSA is located in the Central Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Forest Region of Alberta (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Vegetation in this subregion is typified by pure stands of aspen and aspen-white spruce mixedwoods on upland sites, with jack pine occurring on drier sites (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Wetter areas tend to be dominated by peatlands, including black spruce bogs and black spruce–tamarack dominated fens (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Terrestrial vegetation and anthropogenic disturbances in the terrestrial LSA are estimated at 746.2 ha (56.9%) of the terrestrial LSA (Table 5.4-1), while wetlands and open water are estimated at 564.3 ha (43.1%) of the terrestrial LSA (Section 5.7). Table 5.4-1 Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Units in the Terrestrial Local Study Area (LSA) Total (a) ELC Unit Map Code Area Composition of LSA [ha] [%] Terrestrial 610.5 46.6 Disturbance 135.6 10.4 Wetlands and Open Water 564.3 43.1 Total 1,310.5 100.0 Notes: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the sum of the individual values. Terrestrial and disturbance ELC units are identified in Table 5.4-2.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-19

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

A total of 10 terrestrial and disturbance ELC units were observed and mapped in the terrestrial LSA; including eight terrestrial ELC units and two disturbance ELC units (Table 5.4-2; Figure C-1 in Appendix C). The dominant terrestrial ELC units in the LSA are the low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) and low-bush cranberry aspen (d1) ecosite phases, estimated to be 23.3% (305.7 ha) and 13.2% (172.7 ha) of the terrestrial LSA, respectively. The remaining terrestrial ELC units are estimated to be10.2% of terrestrial ELC units in the terrestrial LSA. Disturbances are estimated to be 10.3% (135.6 ha) of the terrestrial LSA, with anthropogenic features such as wellsites, seismic lines, pipeline ROW or roads estimated to be 10.2% (134.2 ha), and the remaining less than 1% being associated with cutblocks (1.4 ha). Results of the ELC mapping are provided on the Environmental Alignment Sheets in Appendix B. Descriptions of each ELC unit are summarized in Appendix C.

Table 5.4-2 Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Units in the Terrestrial Local Study Area (LSA) Area Composition of LSA ELC Units Description [ha] [%] Terrestrial Ecosite Phases and Non-Treed Vegetation Types c1 Labrador tea–mesic jack pine-black spruce 6.4 0.5 d1 Low-bush cranberry aspen 172.7 13.2 d2 Low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce 305.7 23.3 d3 Low-bush cranberry white spruce 23.2 1.8 e1 Dogwood balsam poplar-aspen 91.5 7.0 e2 Dogwood balsam poplar-white spruce 4.8 0.4 e3 Dogwood white spruce 3.7 0.3 g1 Labrador tea−subhygric black spruce-jack pine 2.6 0.2 Terrestrial sub-total 610.5 46.6 Disturbances CC Cutblock 1.4 <1 DIS Disturbance 134.2 10.2 Disturbances sub-total 135.6 10.3 Total Terrestrial and Disturbance ELC units 746 57 Total Wetlands and Open Water ELC units 564 43 Total 1,310 100 (a) Wetlands and Open Water ELC units are fully described in Section 5.7. Note: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the sum of the individual values.

Listed Plant Species A review of provincial and federal listed species (ACIMS 2012; ASRD 2011; COSEWIC 2012; SARA 2012) was carried out in relation to both terrestrial LSA and terrestrial RSA boundaries. No documented occurrences of listed species were found within the terrestrial LSA; however, two historical observations of provincially listed plant species were documented as occurring at two locations in the terrestrial RSA (Table 5.4-3; Figure 5.4-1).

These two species are listed on the ACIMS tracking list (ACIMS 2012), but are not listed federally (COSEWIC 2012; SARA 2012).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-20

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.4-3 Listed Plant Species Historical Occurrences Recorded in the Terrestrial Regional Study Area (ACIMS 2012) ACIMS ACIMS Provincial Date of UTM UTM Common Name Scientific Name (a) (b) (c) (d) Habitat Status Rank Status Observation Easting Northing Stream banks and Chrysosplenium golden saxifrage T S3? Sensitive Jun-2008 699543 6310148 marshy ground, in iowense shade Mosses and Lichens Confined to dung flagon-fruited Splachnum T S2 Secure Aug-1987 705114 6316344 (usually moose) in splachnum moss ampullaceum bogs and fens (a) ACIMS (2012). T = tracked elements; W = watched elements; N = not on tracking or watch lists. (b) An S1 ranking indicates 5 or fewer occurrences or especially vulnerable to extirpation due because of other factor(s). An S2 ranking indicates there are 6 to 20 known occurrences in Alberta or with many individuals in fewer occurrences and as such species may be especially vulnerable to extirpation because of some factor of its biology. ? indicates an inexact rank; applied when the rank is most likely appropriate but for which some conflicting information or unresolved questions remain (ACIMS 2012). (c) ASRD (2011). (d) Coordinates are associated with UTM zone 12 and NAD 83 datum.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-21

I:\CLIENTS\TRANSCANADA\12-1334-0055\Mapping\MXD\Vegetation\ListedPlants_20130612.mxd

ATHABASCA RIVER

TAR ISLAND ^_

Tp. 92 Rg.10 Rg.13 Rg.12 Rg.11 W4M BEAVER LAKE RUTH LAKE ³

")

MACKAY RIVER

à 63 Ä Moosa Exchange REEK Pelican Mainline Tie-in HE CCreek Meter Station # !( ACche !( C Ca

POPLAR CREEK ")

Tp. 91 ER IV R R E V A INDEX E B

^_! Fort McMurray Alberta

Edmonton !

! Calgary

Tp. 90 SCALE 1:50,000,000

Tp. 90 Rg.13 Tp. 90 Rg.12 Tp. 90 Rg.11 Tp. 90 Rg.10 W4M LEGEND W4M W4M 5 0 W4M 5 # FACILITY LISTED PLANT CURRENT FINDINGS ^_ HAMLET STUDY ROUTE* !( CLADONIA STYGIA PRIMARY HIGHWAY SCALE 1:150,000 KILOMETRES TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA) LISTED WEED CURRENT FINDINGS LOCAL ROAD TERRESTRIAL REGIONAL !( SONCHUS ARVENSIS (SOW THISTLE) WATERCOURSE PROJECT STUDY AREA (RSA) LISTED PLANT HISTORICAL RECORDS TAILINGS POND MOOSA CROSSOVER ") CHRYSOSPLENIUM IOWENSE WATERBODY ") SPLACHNUM AMPULLACEUM TITLE LOCATION OF CURRENT AND HISTORICAL LISTED PLANT SPECIES OCCURRENCES IN THE TERRESTRIAL LSA AND RSA NOTE PROJECT 12-1334-0055 FILE No. *MOOSA CROSSOVER CENTRELINE 20121102 DESIGN CL 13 Mar. 2013 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 REFERENCE GIS AB 29 Apr. 2013 ROADS OBTAINED FROM GEOBASE®. HYDROLOGY OBTAINED FROM ALTALIS, MODIFIED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. CHECK KM 11 Jun. 2013 HAMLETS OBTAINED FROM IHS ENERGY INC. FIGURE: 5.4-1 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12N DATUM: NAD 83 REVIEW CC 11 Jun. 2013 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

The two listed plant species with historical occurrences recorded in the terrestrial RSA (ACIMS 2012) are described below and the location of occurrence shown in Figure 5.4-1:  Golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium iowense) Golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium iowense), a member of the Saxifragaceae family, generally appears as golden-yellow or green in colour. It is distinguished from the similar looking green saxifrage (Chrysosplenium tetrandrum) by the number of stamens (2-8), and conspicuous venation on the upper surface of the leaves (Johnson et al. 1995). Golden saxifrage is found on moist, shady sites, especially in rich soil and in wetlands (Johnson et al. 1995). Golden saxifrage is on the ACIMS tracking list with a ranking of S3? within Alberta (ACIMS 2012) and is assessed as ‘Sensitive’ by ASRD (2011) under the General Status of Alberta Wild Species. One historical occurrence was recorded in the south portion of the terrestrial RSA, approximately 1.6 km south of the eastern terminus of the Project.

 Flagon-fruited splachnum moss (Splachnum ampullaceum) Flagon-fruited splachnum (Splachnum ampullaceum) is a moss species that grows exclusively on organic substrates and herbivore dung in fens and bogs across the boreal forest (Vitt et al. 1988). Flagon-fruited splachnum can be readily identified without sporophytes by the presence of long, multi-celled teeth on the leaf margins (Doubt 2002). Populations have been documented in all Canadian provinces except for Prince Edward Island, and the species is also known to occur in Maine, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin (NatureServe 2012). Flagon-fruited splachnum is tracked by ACIMS, and is ranked S2 within Alberta (ACIMS 2012) and is assessed as ‘Secure’ by ASRD (2011) under the General Status of Alberta Wild Species. One historical occurrence was recorded on the northeastern edge of the terrestrial RSA, approximately 4.9 km northeast of the eastern terminus of the Project.

None of the historically recorded listed species were observed during the 2012 ground reconnaissance survey, likely due to the timing of the surveys (September 06, 2012). A supplemental survey for listed plants will be conducted in 2013 (Table 8.1-1). As both historically recorded listed species occur in habitats that are common throughout the terrestrial LSA and intersect with the Project footprint (e.g., swamps, marshes, bogs and fens), there is potential for these species to occur within the Project footprint. Listed plant surveys can detect the presence of listed species in a study area, but cannot exclude the occurrence of listed species within an area (Lancaster 2000). As such, listed species will be assumed to be present for the purposes of a conservative effects assessment, and appropriate mitigation will be applied in the event that a listed plant species is encountered prior to Project construction.

One listed lichen species, not previously recorded by ACIMS in the terrestrial LSA or RSA, was observed at one location during the 2012 field survey (Table 5.4-4; Figure 5.4-1; Environmental Alignment Sheets – Appendix B). The observed lichen (Cladonia stygia) is tracked by ACIMS and is listed as ‘Secure’ under the General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2011). This observation of a listed lichen species occurs within the terrestrial LSA.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-23

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.4-4 Listed Plant Species Observations in the Terrestrial Local Study Area and the Project Footprint ACIMS ESRD Common Scientific ACIMS Provincial UTM UTM Observed Within (a) Provincial Provincial Plot ID (d) Name Name Tracking or Watch List (b) (c) Easting Northing Project Footprint Rank Status Bryophytes and Lichens Reindeer Cladonia T S2 Secure TMEK01 455442 6309671 No lichen stygia (a) ACIMS (2012). T = tracked elements; W = watched elements; N = not on tracking or watch lists. (b) An S2 ranking indicates there are 6 to 20 known occurrences in Alberta or with many individuals in fewer occurrences and as such species may be especially vulnerable to extirpation because of some factor of its biology. An S3 ranking indicates there are 21 to 100 known occurrences in Alberta or fewer occurrences with many individuals. An S3 ranked species may be rare and local throughout its range, have a restricted range and/or may be vulnerable to extirpation because of some factor of its biology (ACIMS 2012). (c) ESRD (2012). (d) Coordinates are associated with UTM zone 12 and NAD 83 datum.

The listed lichen species observed in the terrestrial LSA during the 2012 ground reconnaissance survey is described below:  Reindeer lichen (Cladonia stygia) - Black-footed reindeer lichen (Cladonia stygia) is distinguished from the similar species gray reindeer lichen (Cladonia rangiferina) by its dark brown to black stereome and thallus base surfaces (Brodo et al. 2001). Black-footed reindeer lichen is generally found in bogs and open wetland sites across Canada, and it was documented in a c1 ecosite within the terrestrial LSA. Black-footed reindeer lichen is on the ACIMS tracking list, is ranked S2 in Alberta (ACIMS 2012) and is assessed as ‘Secure’ by ASRD (2011) under the General Status of Alberta Wild Species. Listed Ecological Communities A review of the ACIMS database (Allen 2012) indicated that there are 16 listed ecological communities in the Central Mixedwood Subregion (Table 5.4-5). Although no listed ecological communities were noted to occur along the Project footprint; this does not preclude the potential for these communities to be present. For the purposes of this effects assessment, listed ecological communities will be assumed to be present. If any listed ecological communities are encountered during supplemental vegetation surveys, appropriate mitigation will be determined.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-24

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.4-5 Provincially Tracked Ecological Communities for the Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion Ecological Community Description ACIMS Ecological Community Description (Scientific Name) (a) (Common Name) Listing Picea glauca / Cetraria islandica white spruce / lichen S1? Populus balsamifera / Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia - Cornus balsam poplar / river alder - red-osier dogwood / S3 stolonifera/ Equisetum pratense meadow horsetail Populus balsamifera / Viburnum opulus / Matteuccia struthiopteris balsam poplar / high-bush cranberry / ostrich fern S1S2 Populus tremuloides / Rubus parviflorus / Aralia nudicaulis aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla S2S3 Puccinellia nuttalliana - Suaeda calceoliformis - Spergularia marina Nuttall's salt-meadow grass - western sea-blite - salt- S2 barren marsh sand spurry barren Salix drummondiana / Scirpus microcarpus - Calamagrostis Drummond's willow / small-fruited bulrush – bluejoint S1 canadensis Carex limosa - Scheuchzeria palustris / Sphagnum teres - S. mud sedge - scheuchzeria / thin-leaved peat moss S1 subsecundum Populus balsamifera / Rhamnus alnifolia / Equisetum arvense balsam poplar / alder-leaved buckthorn S1 Populus tremuloides / Rosa acicularis / Apocynum androsaemifolium aspen / prickly rose / spreading dogbane forest S1S2 forest Betula neoalaskana / Ledum groenlandicum Alaska birch / common Labrador tea S1S2 Carex limosa - Menyanthes trifoliata - Cardamine pratensis mud sedge - buck-bean - meadow bitter cress S1S2 Populus tremuloides / Vaccinium myrtilloides woodland aspen / common blueberry woodland S2? Carex retrorsa marsh turned sedge marsh S1S2 Triglochin maritima - Carex praegracilis spring fen seaside arrow-grass - graceful sedge spring fen S1S2 Symphoricarpos albus - Amelanchier alnifolia shrubland snowberry - saskatoon shrubby slope S2? Salicornia rubra emergent marsh samphire emergent marsh S2 (a) S1 rank indicates there are 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining hectares; S2 rank indicates there are 6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining hectares; S3 rank indicates 21 to 80 occurrences; may be rare and local throughout its range, or found locally, even abundantly, in a restricted range. “?” denotes an inexact numeric rank (some doubt exists concerning status).

Non-native, Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds One small population of perennial sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis), listed as Noxious under the Alberta Weed Control Act (Government of Alberta 2010), was observed during field surveys at one location (TMWK07) within the terrestrial LSA on an existing ROW location (Table 6.2-2). Its location is shown on Figure 5.4-1 and the Environmental Alignment Sheet (Appendix B).

One unregulated invasive plant species (ANPC 2000), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), was observed on the Project footprint at one location (TMEK04) approximately 70 m away from an existing ROW disturbance. 5.5 Water Quality and Quantity This section provides a description of the existing environment in the aquatic LSA and RSA relevant to surface water quantity (i.e., hydrology), groundwater quantity, and surface and ground water quality based on available baseline setting information from government sources, long-term climate and hydrometric data and site-specific field data collection.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-25

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.5.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Surface Water Quantity A desktop study was conducted to determine the hydrological baseline conditions for the aquatic LSA. Potential watercourse crossings were identified along the centreline based on 1:20,000 scale AltaLIS maps. All potential watercourse crossings were assigned an identifying site number consisting of “WC” (watercourse crossing) and a sequential number starting at 01. This naming convention was applied to the pipe alignment as defined at the date of field work.

Field work to supplement the desktop study was conducted on October 2 and 3, 2012 at all potential watercourse crossings identified during the desktop study. Field investigations were used to confirm that each site was an actual watercourse crossing, with “defined bed and banks” as specified in the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (Code) (AENV 2006), and to identify additional unmapped watercourses. Sites at which the watercourse did not meet the “defined bed and banks” criteria specified in the Code were excluded from the list of watercourse crossings.

A site-specific assessment was conducted at each site defined as a watercourse crossing. The data collected were used to complete a scour assessment analysis for the Project design (Golder 2012a) and to support this ESA. The methodology used to collect these data and perform the associated analyses was designed to produce results that meet requirements under the Alberta Water Act. The methodology has been successfully used previously on similar projects in Alberta.

The field work to collect hydrological data was undertaken in conjunction with field work to collect fisheries and aquatic environment data. The level of detail of data collected at the watercourse crossings depended on specific watercourse characteristics identified during the desktop study. The site assessments involved a description of visually observed geomorphological characteristics and photo documentation of the crossing. Surface Water Quality A desktop study was performed to determine the water quality baseline conditions for the Project. This included a review of water quality data contained in the Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) database and other available sources of information. Basic water quality parameters, including conductivity, pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen, were collected during fisheries and aquatic environment studies. To date, no specific water quality concerns have been identified to warrant additional water quality sampling. Groundwater A desktop study was conducted to determine the baseline groundwater conditions for the groundwater LSA. A search of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development’s (ESRD 2012a) Water Well Information Database was conducted to examine the groundwater baseline quantity and quality for the Project area. This Water Well Information Database contains information on water wells in the province and is searchable by area. With the exception of domestic and stock uses, ESRD licenses the use of groundwater wells under the Alberta Water Act on commercial / industrial and private lands. The impacts on groundwater quality are regulated by ESRD and a groundwater monitoring program exists for a number of monitoring wells distributed throughout the province.

During geotechnical investigation for the Project, Golder determined the groundwater levels at three borehole locations: one adjacent to each of the two unnamed watercourse crossings (close to KP1 and KP3.5) and one approximately 150 m west of the east end of the Project (close to KP5) (Golder 2013).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-26

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.5.2 Baseline Conditions Surface Water The Project lies within the Beaver River sub-basin, which feeds the Athabasca River in the Boreal Forest Region of Alberta. The Beaver River sub-basin is characterized by undulating to moderately rolling topography, with elevations ranging from approximately 530 m to approximately 307 m at Beaver Lake (GeoBase 2011). Oil Sands development has eliminated the original natural watercourse connecting Beaver Lake to the Athabasca River. The Beaver River now flows east from Beaver Lake into Ruth Lake, which feeds Poplar Creek via Ruth Channel. Poplar Creek drains into the Athabasca River. The total watercourse distance between Beaver Lake and the Athabasca River is approximately 15 km. The elevation at the confluence of Poplar Creek and the Athabasca River is approximately 240 m (GeoBase 2011).

The Project crosses two watercourses with intermittent channel definition (Table 5.5-1 and Figure 5.5-1):  an unnamed small, permanent watercourse (91-WC-01), which has been re-routed to join the unnamed watercourse 91-WC-02 downstream from the Project crossing location, and flows eastward into the south end of Beaver Lake approximately 15 km downstream of the Project crossing location; and  an unnamed small, permanent watercourse (91-WC-02) that flows into the south end of Beaver Lake approximately 13 km downstream of the Project crossing location.

Hydrological characteristics of the two watercourses are summarized in Table 5.5-1. Table 5.5-1 Hydrological Characteristics of Watercourses at Crossings Surveyed Parameters [m] Zone 12N UTM (a) Drainage (October 2, 2012) (NAD 83) Crossing Watercourse Basin Area Wetted Wetted Bankfull Bankfull ID 2 Easting Northing [km ] Width Depth Width Depth [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] 91-WC-01 Unnamed Beaver River 11.8 1.2 0.60 1.4 0.75 452102 6309782 91-WC-02 Unnamed Beaver River 15.2 6.5 1.25 6.5 1.25 454466 6309753 (a) Due to flooding caused by beaver impoundments, values of bankfull width and bankfull depth are adjusted to better represent local mean channel width.

Although the watercourses at 91-WC-01 and 91-WC-02 show intermittent channel definition, they have appreciable drainage areas (greater than 10 km2) and multiple upstream beaver impoundments. These characteristics have been observed regionally to pose an elevated risk of scour events (Golder 2012a).

As shown in aerial imagery obtained from TransCanada (including that shown in Figure 5.5-1), the unnamed watercourse crossed by 91-WC-01 has been diverted around the Syncrude South Sand Storage Facility, approximately 2 km downstream of 91-WC-01. The diversion drains the watercourse to the unnamed watercourse crossed by 91-WC-02 approximately 4.5 km downstream of 91-WC-02 (Syncrude 2008). After this confluence, the single watercourse continues approximately 10.5 km to the south end of Beaver Lake.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-27

I:\CLIENTS\TRANSCANADA\12-1334-0055\Mapping\MXD\Hydrology\Aquatics_LSA_RSA_Watercourse_Crossing_Overview_20130612.mxd TAR ISLAND

Tp. 92 Rg.10 Rg.13 Rg.12 Rg.11 W4M BEAVER LAKE RUTH LAKE

ATHABASCA RIVER

MACKAY RIVER ³

à 63 Ä Moosa Exchange REEK Meter Station # Pelican Mainline Tie-in HE C XW XW CAC 91-WC-01 91-WC-02

POPLAR CREEK

Tp. 91 ER IV R R E V A E B

INDEX

^_! Fort McMurray Alberta

Edmonton !

Calgary Tp. 90 ! Y WHISKE JAC K C R EEK SCALE 1:50,000,000 LA P R CREE O K P

LEGEND 5 0 5 # FACILITY PRIMARY HIGHWAY STUDY ROUTE* LOCAL ROAD SCALE 1:150,000 KILOMETRES WATERCOURSE WATERCOURSE CROSSING XW TAILINGS POND PROJECT AQUATICS LOCAL STUDY AREA WATERBODY MOOSA CROSSOVER AQUATICS REGIONAL STUDY AREA

TITLE

NOTES WATERCOURSE CROSSING OVERVIEW *MOOSA CROSSOVER CENTRELINE 20121102. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS DETERMINED THAT NO DEFINED CHANNEL EXISTS AT THE APPARENT WATERCOURSE IMMEDIATELY PROJECT 12-1334-0055 FILE No. EAST OF THE CROSSING 91-WC-02. DESIGN CL 13 Mar. 2013 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 REFERENCE GIS AB 11 Jun. 2013 ROADS OBTAINED FROM GEOBASE®. HYDROLOGY OBTAINED FROM ALTALIS, MODIFIED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. IMAGERY CHECK KM 11 Jun. 2013 CAPTURED IN 2011, OBTAINED FROM TRANSCANADA. ADDITIONAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM ESRI, BASEMAP - WORLD IMAGERY. FIGURE: 5.5-1 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12N DATUM: NAD 83 REVIEW CC 11 Jun. 2013 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Surface Water Quantity The Water Survey of Canada (WSC) database (Environment Canada 2012) has available data recorded for a hydrometric gauging station on the Beaver River (07DA018) for the period 1975 to 2013. Details related to this and other regional WSC stations are summarized in Table 5.5-2, along with typical annual water yields from the Beaver River basin and other regional basins.

Table 5.5-2 Available Long-Term Hydrometric Stations near Beaver River Gross Drainage Mean Annual Period of Station Name Latitude / Longitude Area Water Yield 2 Record [km ] [mm] 57° 12' 37'' N 07DB001 Mackay River Near Fort Mackay 5,569 1972 to 2013 58 111° 41' 42'' W 57° 11' 28'' N 07DA008 Muskeg River Near Fort Mackay 1,457 1974 to 2013 68 111° 34' 12'' W 56° 59' 58'' N 07DA006 Steepbank River Near Fort McMurray 1,320 1972 to 2013 97 111° 24' 24'' W 56° 56' 43'' N 07DA018 Beaver River Above Syncrude 165 1975 to 2013 94 111° 33' 58'' W 56° 42' 32'' N 07CD004 Hangingstone River at Fort McMurray 962 1965 to 2013 113 111° 21' 22'' W Source: Water Survey of Canada 2010.

Given the small size and impounded nature of the watercourses at 91-WC-01 and 91-WC-02, 2-year and 100-year flood discharge estimates are not provided as baseline water quantity characteristics.

Surface water diversion in the aquatic RSA is licenced and managed by ESRD. The ESRD water licence database was queried for active surface water licences for which the point of diversion is located within the aquatic RSA. Details for the two surface water diversion licences in the aquatic RSA are presented in Table 5.5-3 (Naba Adhikari, pers. comm.). The nearby Syncrude Southwest Sand Storage facility (i.e., the tailings pond located just north of the Project in Figure 5.5-1) is not expected to have any effect on streamflow in the Poplar Creek basin during its operation, and no measurable effects on Poplar Creek streamflow are expected during its closure (Syncrude 2008, Section 7). Since the unnamed watercourses crossed at 91-WC-01 and 91-WC-02 are part of the Poplar Creek basin under the current drainage configuration, as is recognized by Syncrude (2008), this suggests that no spatial interactions are expected between the Project and the Syncrude Southwest Sand Storage facility.

Table 5.5-3 Active Surface Water Licences in the Aquatic Regional Study Area Maximum Annual Water Approval Stakeholder Specific Activity Allocation Latitude Longitude Allocation ID ID 3 [m ] 11217 31346 Syncrude Canada Ltd. Flood Control 0 56.94122500 -111.72939400 235221 329138 Suncor Energy Inc. Oil Sands Exploration 13,500 56.94451578 -111.72892358

Surface Water Quality Basic water quality data were collected at two proposed crossings along the Project to document the baseline conditions (Table 5.5-4).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-29

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.5-4 Baseline Water Quality Data Collected from 91-WC-01 and 91-WC-02 on October 2, 2012 Water Temperature Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen Location Date / Time Recorded pH [°C] [µS/cm] [mg/L] 91-WC-01 02-Oct-12 / 13:13 h 7.3 299.7 6.75 3.38 91-WC-02 02-Oct-12 / 12:03 h 8.26 378.6 7.2 6.68

The watercourses at both crossing locations show typical conductivity and pH associated with watercourses in the Regional Study Area (RAMP 2011). Groundwater The search of the ESRD database was focused on the groundwater LSA (i.e., within 1 km of the pipeline centreline). Wells beyond 1 km from the pipeline are outside the groundwater LSA and considered to be not potentially affected by the Project. The results of the database search indicate there are no recorded water wells within the groundwater LSA; the closest recorded well is over 3 km from the Project. The results of the geotechnical investigation indicate that the groundwater levels varied from 0.5 to 2.1 m below ground surface adjacent to the unnamed watercourse crossings (close to KP1 and KP3.5) and near the east end of the Project (close to KP5) (Golder 2013). 5.6 Fish and Fish Habitat This section presents a summary of investigations of fish and fish habitat in the aquatic LSA and RSA at proposed watercourse crossings. Watercourses under the Alberta Water Act Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body are defined as “a water body with defined bed and banks, whether or not water is continuously present, but does not include fish bearing lakes” (AENV 2006). 5.6.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Baseline data collection included a desktop exercise, open water habitat surveys on two watercourses (91-WC-01, 91-WC-02; Figure 5.5-1) on October 2, 2012, and winter assessment surveys on the same two watercourses in February 2013, based on the overwintering potential determined during the open water surveys. Watercourse crossings were assigned a unique identifying site number as described in Section 5.5.1. Preliminary watercourse identification along the pipeline alignment was based on 1:20,000 scale AltaLIS stream data and verified with a field reconnaissance visit to confirm watercourse locations. Watercourses that did not appear to satisfy the “defined bed and banks” criteria specified in the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body definition of a watercourse (AENV 2006) were removed from the crossing list for application purposes.

A desktop study was conducted to determine potential fish habitat suitability at each proposed watercourse crossing, based on parameters such as upstream drainage area, distance to origin, and stream order.

A desktop review of existing information using the online ESRD Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) was completed on December 21 2012 within the aquatic LSA. All species occurrences within the aquatic LSA were cross-referenced with provincial (ESRD 2012b) and federal (SARA 2012) status lists to determine if listed species have been observed within the aquatic LSA.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-30

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Baseline environmental field surveys were completed to support the effect analysis for the Project. Detailed habitat assessment involved classification of instream habitat into distinct habitat units as outlined in O’Neil and Hildebrand (1986). The parameters measured at each habitat unit included channel length, mean wetted width, and maximum depth. Substrate composition and availability of instream cover were visually estimated as a percentage of total area within each habitat unit. The data collected at each habitat unit were subsequently pooled (with each habitat unit contributing in proportion to its area) to provide a qualitative characterization of aquatic habitat within the entire section surveyed. Stream banks were also evaluated for stability. A summary of habitat data is provided in Section 5.6-2.

Water depths were measured at representative stations on cross-sectional transects. Basic water quality parameters (conductivity, pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen) were assessed at both survey sites using a multi-parameter water quality meter (Hydrolab Series 5 Datasonde Multiprobe). Dissolved oxygen levels were confirmed in the field by Winkler titration. This information was used in the surface water quality assessment in Section 5.5. Fish sampling was not conducted at the watercourses, therefore fish presence was assessed through observations on site and through a review of previous studies, including the results of fish sampling within the same watercourses, approximately 2 km downstream (Golder 2012b, unpublished data).

The two sites (91-WC-01, 91-WC-02) were re-visited in February 2013 to assess habitat potential during the planned construction season. During the winter assessments, the quantity and quality of under-ice water and the associated habitat at the crossing location were identified. Depth of snow, ice, and water at the proposed crossings were recorded. Under-ice flow was determined using a Marsh McBirney flow meter, and observations of substrate, macroinvertebrates, and fish were made with an Aqua-Vu underwater camera. Basic water quality parameters (i.e., conductivity, pH, temperature, and turbidity) were assessed using several models of water quality meters (e.g., Hanna Instruments (HI) 98129 / LaMotte 2020we). Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were assessed with a portable Oakton DO meter, and were verified by Winkler titration. Additional point measurements were also collected at upstream and downstream locations identified by field staff. 5.6.2 Baseline Conditions The two potential watercourses identified through the desktop study were confirmed as watercourses during the October 2012 field investigation and are described below.

The Project crosses:  an unnamed watercourse (91-WC-01). The watercourse has been re-routed to join the unnamed watercourse 91-WC-02 approximately 4.5 km downstream from the Project crossing site.  an unnamed watercourse (91-WC-02). The proposed crossing is approximately 13 km upstream from Beaver Lake. Fish Habitat The Project crosses two watercourses (Figure 5.5-1) which are within the Beaver Creek drainage, eventually flowing into the Athabasca River. The Project is situated approximately 1.5 km directly south of the Syncrude Aurora Mine site, and the aquatic RSA has been heavily affected by oil sands operations. The Beaver Creek was diverted through a drainage canal to bypass the Aurora Mine site, and flows into a large impoundment (Beaver Creek Reservoir). In addition, Beaver Creek receives saline groundwater and collected precipitation from the Aurora Mine site, as it passes in close proximity (Van Meer 1990). A decline in the total number of species within

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-31

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

the Beaver Creek system has been observed since the construction of two dams in 1975, which created the Beaver Creek Reservoir (Beaver Lake) and the Poplar Creek Reservoir. Prior to creation of the dams, located at the north end of the Beaver Creek Reservoir (Beaver Lake) and the south end of the Poplar Creek Reservoir, Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) and Northern Pike were reported to have used the upper tributaries (Van Meer 1990).

The unnamed watercourse at crossing 91-WC-01 was assessed during a detailed fish habitat assessment conducted on a 175 m section of the unnamed watercourse, during open water conditions on October 2, 2012. The surveyed area was impounded with water depths up to 1.65 m. At the upstream extent of the surveyed area (approximately 100 m upstream), the watercourse had a defined channel with a measured bank-full width of 1.4 m and depth of 0.75 m. At the crossing location (91-WC-01), however, the watercourse was impounded by the existing transmission ROW that parallels the Project. The channel was no longer defined, but consisted of a number of flooded pools and braided channels separated by patches of vegetation (e.g., grasses and willows). Due to the poor channel definition, no accurate measurements of wetted width or bank-full channel width could be made at the crossing location.

Downstream of the proposed crossing (91-WC-01), vehicle / all terrain vehicle traffic along the transmission ROW and poor drainage had created a 50 m wide flooded pool centered on the watercourse’s main channel. Most of the flooded area had a depth of less than 0.2 m. Within the main channel, the maximum depth was 1.65 m. There was no flow along the watercourse and the substrate was composed entirely of organic material. Instream cover for fish was moderate, and consisted of woody debris and inundated terrestrial vegetation. Low dissolved oxygen levels recorded during both open water and winter habitat assessments suggest that fish habitat potential is low. The site provides suitable habitat for a limited number of forage species.

The unnamed watercourse at crossing 91-WC-02 consisted of five different channels and several large impoundments which spread across the existing transmission ROW. The watercourse was at flood stage, which resulted in a wetted width of 6.5 m (Table 5.5-1). Within this wetted area, multiple defined channels of varying widths were visible. The channelized portions of the crossing had wetted widths from 0.8 m to 3.9 m and wetted depths from 1.2 m to 1.5 m. A large beaver dam (92 m across and 1.2 m high), creating an impoundment approximately 100 m long, was directly upstream of 91-WC-02. Another beaver dam 136 m long was located approximately 300 m downstream of 91-WC-02, impounding an area approximately 80 m wide by 35 m long. This impoundment was located at the downstream end of an existing transmission ROW. Instream cover was provided mainly by aquatic vegetation, although some woody debris and overhanging vegetation (alder and willow shrubs) were also present. Riparian vegetation consisted mainly of grasses and shrubs. The substrate was comprised entirely of organic materials. Dissolved oxygen levels (6.68 mg/L) measured in the summer were sufficient to support fish in the vicinity of the 91-WC-02; however, DO levels (1.76 mg/L) measured during the winter assessment suggest that the overwintering potential for most species is limited. Fish Populations The Project will cross two watercourses which eventually flow into Beaver Lake. Based on the FWMIS search, the fish species found within the connected Beaver Creek drainage and that are potentially present in the watersheds for the two watercourses crossed by the Project are listed in Table 5.6-1. Of the ten species documented, Northern Pike (Esox lucius) and Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) were the sport fish reported; however, Arctic Grayling has not been documented in the drainage since 1977 (ESRD 2012c).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-32

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.6-1 Fish Species Documented in the Beaver Creek Watershed Family Species(a) Scientific Name Code(b) Esocidae Northern Pike Esox Lucius NRPK White Sucker Catostomus commersonii WHSC Catostomidae Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus LNSC Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus LKCH Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius SPSH Cyprinidae Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas FTMN Finescale Dace Phoxinus neogaeus FNDC Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita PRDC Gasterosteidae Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans BRST Salmonidae Arctic Grayling(c) Thymallus arcticus ARGR (a) Species list based on FWMIS Data (ESRD 2012). (b) According to Mackay et al. (1990). (c) Arctic Grayling have been documented historically; however, no observations have been recorded since 1977 (ESRD 2012). Note: Sport fish species are identified in bold font.

Of the species documented, the General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2011) lists Pearl Dace and Finescale Dace as ‘Undetermined’ as there is insufficient data available to reliably evaluate their general status. The remaining species are listed as ‘Secure’. According to FWMIS (ESRD 2012c), the last recorded observation of Arctic Grayling in the Beaver Creek watershed was in 1977, despite numerous sampling efforts by multiple agencies since that time (O’neil 1979; Van Meer 1990; Golder 2012b). Although Arctic Grayling is a species of special concern in Alberta (ASRD 2011), it is not discussed further in the ESA because of the low quality habitat for this species.

Fish Species at Risk, or Species of Special Status and related habitat are also discussed in Section 5.9. 5.7 Wetlands This section provides a summary of the wetland classification system and existing wetlands communities present in the terrestrial LSA and along the Project footprint. Wetlands are defined by the National Wetlands Working Group (1997) as “land that is saturated with water long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by poorly drained soils, hydrophytic vegetation and various kinds of biological activity which are adapted to a wet environment”. 5.7.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Vegetation Mapping and Classification In the Green Area of Alberta, AWI standards were developed to inventory and map wetlands (Halsey et al. 2004). This system is based on the Canadian Wetland Classification System (CWCS) (National Wetlands Working Group 1997) that recognizes five broad wetlands classes (Table 5.7-1) including bogs and fens, which are peat forming wetlands (i.e., peatlands or muskeg), and marshes, swamps and shallow open water, which are non-peat forming wetlands (i.e., mineral wetlands).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-33

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.7-1 Summary of Canadian Wetland Classification System (CWCS) Wetlands Types Shallow Open Parameter Bog Fen Marsh Swamp (b) Water Peat depth greater Yes Yes No No No than 40 cm Sphagnum peat, Thin layer of forest peat; Sphagnum graminoid peat Thin layer of peat and/or Gleysols (mottling may be Peat type/ substrate Not applicable peat and/or brown gyttja (muck) present in upper horizon and mosses gleying in the lower horizon(a) Fluctuates seasonally; Precipitation Groundwater flow often above surface but Intermittent or Source of water Seasonal flooding only and precipitation draw-down conditions permanently flooded are common Nutrients Poor Poor to rich Rich Poor to rich Variable Sphagnum, Deciduous or coniferous Sphagnum, sedges, and/or trees or shrubs, low moss <25% floating, ericaceous Emergent, submergent Dominant vegetation brown mosses cover; Picea mariana, Larix submergent, or shrubs, and/or floating species Larix laricina, and laricina or Populus emergent plant cover Picea mariana Picea mariana balsamifera (a) Wetlands of the Boreal Plains by Ducks Unlimited Canada (Smith et al. 2007). (b) Shallow Open Water includes the Open Water (Flooded) ELC unit identified in Tables 5.3-2 and 5.7-3. Source: National Wetlands Working Group (1997).

Peatlands are characterized by stabilized water levels and reduced nutrient cycling that leads to an accumulation of organic matter greater than 40 cm, and in some cases, in excess of 2 to 3 m (Halsey et al. 2004, National Wetlands Working Group 1997). Mineral wetlands are characterized by seasonally fluctuating water tables and increased nutrient cycling leading to limited or no accumulation of organic matter or peat (National Wetlands Working Group 1997).

In the AWI system, each wetland type is defined by a four character code that denotes its wetland class, vegetation modifier, wetland complex modifier and local landform modifier (Table 5.7-2). The vegetation modifier indicates the extent of tree canopy cover. The wetlands complex modifier identifies the presence of permafrost or patterning (e.g., patterned fen). The local landform modifier provides additional information associated with ground cover characteristics or landscape-level complexity. An example of an AWI classification code is FONS: this code indicates an open, shrubby fen with no permafrost or patterning present.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-34

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.7-2 Alberta Wetlands Inventory Classification Standards Wetland Classes and Modifiers Description Letter Symbol Used Bog B Fen F Swamp S 1. Wetland Class Marsh M Shallow Open Water W Non-wetlands Z Anthropogenic features A Forested >70% canopy closure F 2. Vegetation Modifier Wooded >6% but <70% canopy closure T Open: <6% tree canopy closure O Permafrost present X 3. Wetland Complex Modifier Patterning present P No permafrost or patterning present N Collapse scar C Internal lawn with islands of forested peat plateau R Internal lawns I 4. Local Landform Modifier No internal lawns present N Shrub cover >25% but tree canopy closure <6% S Graminoid-dominated but shrub cover <25% and tree cover <6% G Source: Halsey et al. (2004).

Field Surveys Vegetation ecologists conducted field surveys within the terrestrial LSA on September 6, 2012 to confirm wetlands boundaries and classifications according to the AWI Standards (Halsey et al. 2004), in conjunction with upland ELC unit classification (Section 5.4.1). Baseline Conditions Wetlands and open water ELC units are estimated to be 43.1% (564.3 ha) of the total terrestrial LSA (Table 5.7- 3; Figure 5.4-1), with the remaining 56.9% (746.2 ha) of the LSA classified as Terrestrial and Disturbance ELC Units. Watercourses are not necessarily identified as individual ELC polygons, as they must exceed 20 m in width to be delineated as a distinct polygon according to provincial AVI standards (ASRD 2005). Thus, many of the smaller watercourses are often included with adjacent wetlands units and cannot be distinguished as a separate ELC unit.

Wetland and open water ELC units include five types of peatland communities, two types of mineral wetlands, and one non-vegetated open water unit within the terrestrial LSA (Table 5.7-3). The dominant wetland types in the terrestrial LSA are treed bogs (BTNN) and wooded swamps (STNN), which are estimated to be 21.4% (280.0 ha) and 8.1% (106.4 ha) of the ELC units in the terrestrial LSA, respectively (Table 5.7-3).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-35

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.7-3 Wetland and Open Water Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Units in the Terrestrial Local Study Area (LSA) Area ELC Unit Map Code Description Percent [%] of LSA [ha] Wetlands Peatland (Organic) BFNN Forested bog 5.8 <1 BTNN Treed bog 280.0 21.4 FONG Graminoid fen 9.7 <1 FONS Shrubby fen 24.4 1.9 FTNN Treed fen 80.2 6.1 Non-peaty (Mineral) SONS Shrubby swamp 53.1 4.1 STNN Wooded swamp 106.4 8.1 Wetlands subtotal 559.7 42.7 Open Water Non-Vegetation Types Flooded Flooded 4.7 <1 Open Water Non-Vegetation subtotal 4.7 <1 Total Wetlands and Open Water ELC units 564.3 43.1 Total Terrestrial and Disturbance ELC units 746.2 56.9 Total 1,310.5 100.0 (a) Terrestrial and Disturbance ELC units are described in Section 5.4. Note: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the sum of the individual values.

No wetlands or wetland areas in the terrestrial LSA or RSA were identified as Ramsar wetlands of international importance (Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance 2013). Results of the ELC mapping of wetlands are provided on the Environmental Alignment Sheets in Appendix B and detailed descriptions of the ELC units are summarized in Appendix C.

Peatland and mineral wetlands that intersect with the Project footprint are described more fully in Section 6.5. This includes 6 ha of peatland consisting primarily of treed bog (BTNN) and four mineral wetlands consisting of wooded swamp (STNN) and shrubby swamp (SONS) covering less than 3 ha. No forested bog (BFNN) and no open water non-vegetated wetland type (flooded) are crossed by the Project footprint (Table 6.5-1).

The treed bog (BTNN) wetland type generally has an open canopy of black spruce in the tree layer and occurs on poorly to very poorly drained organic soils. A moderate cover of shrubs typically includes such species as Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), black spruce (Picea mariana), dwarf birch (Betula pumila) and bog cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea). There is usually a scattered cover of forbs including species such as cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus) and three-leaved Solomon's-seal (Smilacina trifolia). Graminoid cover is usually absent and limited to cotton-grass species (Eriophorum sp.). The diversity of mosses is dependent on the hummock and hollow architecture within a bog and nutrient poor bogs containing a higher proportion of Sphagnum sp., than brown mosses and lichens when compared to permafrost bogs and wetter wooded fens (Halsey et al. 2004).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-36

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

The wooded swamp (STNN) wetlands type generally has a variable tree canopy composition which may include a mix of white birch (Betula papyrifera), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), tamarack (Larix laricina), black spruce and white spruce (Picea glauca). Typical understorey species include Labrador tea, green and river alder (Alnus sp.), wild red raspberry (Rubus idaeus) and willow (Salix sp.) in the shrub layer, and horsetails in the forb layer (Halsey et al. 2004). Various sedges are present, along with bluejoint (Calamagrostis sp.), as the most prominent species in the graminoid layer. Moss cover is quite varied but includes species such as Schreber's moss (Pleurozium shreberi) and stair-step moss (Hylocomium splendens) in drier sites and Brachythecium sp. in wetter habitats (Halsey et al. 2004).

The shrubby swamp (SONS) is an open wetlands type that lack tree cover but have over 25% shrub cover, generally dominated by willow species, river alder and bog birch. Herbaceous vegetation in the shrubby swamp type is dominated by graminoids and forbs. Some of the more common forbs include marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), small bedstraw (Galium trifidum), marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris), cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum) and cattail (Typha latifolia). Sedges (Carex sp.) and grasses (Calamagrostis canadensis) tend to dominate the graminoid layer, while mosses and lichens are generally absent (Halsey et al. 2004). 5.8 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat This section presents wildlife data collected for the Project during a desktop study within the terrestrial LSA and RSA and a wildlife field reconnaissance completed within the terrestrial LSA.

Key indicator species were selected for study based on ecological significance, socio-economic (including cultural) significance, national and provincial status and the availability of baseline wildlife data in the terrestrial LSA and RSA. Key indicators are: moose, furbearers/carnivores, old growth forest birds and olive-sided flycatcher (Table 4.2-1). These wildlife species were specifically selected as key indicators because they represent a wide variety of habitat types (e.g., landcover types and seral stage), are important economically and traditionally (e.g., moose and furbearers), and include listed wildlife species such as bay-breasted warbler and Canada warbler which are included in the old growth forest birds KI, and fisher which is included in the furbearers / carnivores KI.

Baseline information on the habitat requirements of key indicator species assists in determining the potential Project effects on wildlife. Predicting the influence of the Project on wildlife abundance is dependent on other factors (e.g., human and natural predation, stochastic events and disease) that also contribute to changes in population size. Baseline information is also used in Project design to avoid sensitive or high use areas for wildlife and can aid in the design and implementation of appropriate mitigation. 5.8.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Desktop Review A desktop review of existing information was completed within the terrestrial LSA and RSA using the online Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) prior to conducting the wildlife field reconnaissance. Species occurrences within the terrestrial LSA were cross-referenced with provincial (ASRD 2011) and federal (COSEWIC 2012; SARA 2012) status lists to determine if listed species have been observed within the terrestrial LSA and/or RSA.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-37

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Wildlife Reconnaissance A wildlife reconnaissance survey was conducted by two Golder biologists within approximately 50 m of the centreline in conjunction with the fall remote camera deployment on October 12, 2012. All observations of wildlife and wildlife sign (e.g., individuals, nests, roosting sites, feeding sites, scat, tracks) were recorded during the survey. For each wildlife observation, observers noted the following information: the time, location (UTM coordinates), sex of individual(s), age of individual(s) (if possible), and ecosite phase (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) and/or wetlands type (National Wetlands Working Group. 1997)) in which the individual(s) was observed. Non-baited Photographic Monitoring Surveys Surveys specific to ungulates and carnivores were conducted during the fall of 2012 and will continue in the spring and summer of 2013 to determine the presence and distribution of ungulates and small and medium-sized carnivores.

RECONYXTM professional remote cameras were/will be used at all survey locations. The RECONYXTM professional Hyperfire remote camera is a digital camera used to photograph wildlife. It has an infrared motion detector that senses heat and motion. The Lo-Glow™ Semi-Covert Infrared Emitters allow the camera to take pictures at night without using a flash (RECONYXTM 2011). All components of this camera are contained within a single housing unit. Programmable camera settings include; trigger speed and sensitivity, number of pictures to take when triggered; image brightness, contrast, sharpness, saturation; night shutter speed and sensitivity.

Cameras were/will be deployed across the terrestrial LSA for one-month long periods during the fall, spring and summer. The cameras were/will be fastened to a tree facing a cutline/wildlife trail using bungee cords and a lock. The camera was/will be aimed at a height and angle to ensure that approaching wildlife will be photographed.

The first round was completed in the fall of 2012. Four remote cameras were deployed for a total of 68 days of photographic monitoring. In fall, the cameras were deployed on September 5, 2012 and retrieved on October 12, 2012. In winter, they were deployed on March 5, 2013 and retrieved on April 4, 2013. During the fall session, one camera malfunctioned and did not record, and three were operational during the entire sampling period. In winter, all cameras were operational during the entire sampling period. Additional rounds will be completed in spring and summer of 2013 (Section 8.1.1). Winter Track Count Surveys Winter track count surveys were completed within the terrestrial LSA on March 19, 2013 by two Golder biologists. Objectives of the winter track count survey were to determine the distribution, habitat use and relative abundance of ungulates and carnivores. The winter track count surveys were designed to provide coverage of the terrestrial LSA within representative vegetation types (Figure E-1 in Appendix E). Linear transects were placed along the Project ROW to achieve a relatively unbiased sampling of habitat types while providing coverage of the Project and LSA. All winter track count surveys were conducted by trackers with sufficient experience to reliably identify all tracks in all snow conditions.

In total, 2.96 km of transects in eight vegetation communities and one disturbance type, representing 9.87 km-days since last snowfall, were sampled in the terrestrial LSA (Table 5.8-1). Tracking survey effort was

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-38

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

generally proportional to ecosite phase and wetland type presence in the LSA. Temperatures ranged from - 12°C to -15°C during the surveys and the snow conditions were good.

Surveys were timed to occur recently after a minimum snowfall of 2 cm. Snow thickness and hardness measurements were recorded in the most common vegetation types to determine snow conditions at the time of the surveys. Vegetation communities encountered were classified and recorded according to the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) for terrestrial communities and Alberta Wetlands Inventory Standards Version 2.0 (AWI; Halsey et al. 2004) for wetlands types. Ice, rivers, lakes and shallow open water (WONN) habitats were reported together as “ice”.

Areas of anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) disturbance were split into different categories depending on the nature of disturbance and vegetation succession. Wildlife may use linear and non-linear habitats differently. For example, some carnivores (e.g., wolves, coyotes) travel on compacted linear disturbances to increase their search efficiency. Anthropogenic disturbances were classified using the following criteria: all roads, seismic cutlines and ROWs were summed together as “linear” disturbances regardless of their vegetative cover; and all disturbed areas, such as clearcuts with no identified successional vegetation, and cleared well pads were summed together as “non-linear”.

All individual animal tracks were recorded using an intercept method. A single transect intercept by a single species was recorded as one crossing. Where animals of the same species crossed a transect in a “trail”, an attempt was made to determine the number of individuals involved. If the number of individuals could not be determined, the observation was recorded as one “trail”, which was considered three individual crossings for the purpose of statistical analysis. In situations where an area was heavily used, a “network” was recorded for a given 10 m segment of transect, and was considered as five individual crossings for the purpose of statistical analysis. All furbearer and ungulate tracks encountered along the linear transects were recorded, along with a GPS waypoint. Information on habitat type and structure was recorded for all transects, and all incidental observations of wildlife and wildlife sign were recorded. Species Specific Surveys The following surveys will be conducted in the spring and summer of 2013 to supplement the wildlife assessment for species of conservation concern:  nocturnal amphibian surveys;  breeding songbird surveys. Refer to Table 8.1-1 in Section 8.1.1 (Supplemental Surveys) for details regarding the supplemental surveys. The non-baited photographic monitoring (remote camera) surveys were initiated in the fall of 2012 and will continue in the spring and summer of 2013. 5.8.2 Baseline Conditions The terrestrial RSA is located in the Central Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region. Portions of the RSA at the west end overlap with ESRD Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zones (KWBZ) (Figure 5.8-1).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-39

I:\CLIENTS\TRANSCANADA\12-1334-0055\Mapping\MXD\Wildlife\Wildlife_SensitiveAreas_20130612.mxd

ATHABASCA RIVER

692 TAR ISLAND ^_

Tp. 92 Rg.10 Rg.13 Rg.12 Rg.11 W4M BEAVER LAKE RUTH LAKE ³

MACKAY RIVER

à 63 Ä Moosa Exchange REEK Meter Station HE C # Pelican Mainline Tie-in AC C

POPLAR CREEK

Tp. 91 ER IV R R E V A E B

548 693 Tp. 90

Tp. 90 Rg.13 Tp. 90 Rg.12 Tp. 90 Rg.11 Tp. 90 Rg.10 W4M LEGEND W4M W4M 5 0 W4M 5 # FACILITY ^_ HAMLET STUDY ROUTE* PRIMARY HIGHWAY INDEX SCALE 1:150,000 KILOMETRES TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA) LOCAL ROAD PROJECT TERRESTRIAL REGIONAL STUDY AREA (RSA) WATERCOURSE ^_! Fort McMurray TAILINGS POND ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY Alberta MOOSA CROSSOVER CARIBOU RANGE WATERBODY Edmonton !

ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREA TITLE Calgary KEY WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY ZONE ! ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE SCALE 1:50,000,000 WILDLIFE AREAS NOTE *MOOSA CROSSOVER CENTRELINE 20121102 PROJECT 12-1334-0055 FILE No. REFERENCE DESIGN WM 01 Apr. 2013 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 ROADS OBTAINED FROM GEOBASE®. HYDROLOGY OBTAINED FROM ALTALIS, MODIFIED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. HAMLETS OBTAINED FROM GIS JC 06 Jun. 2013 IHS ENERGY INC. CARIBOU RANGES, ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS AND KEY WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY DATA FROM ALBERTA SUSTAINABLE CHECK KM 11 Jun. 2013 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT. FIGURE: 5.8-1 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12N DATUM: NAD 83 REVIEW CC 11 Jun. 2013 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

The Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion is characterized by a mix of aspen-dominated deciduous stands, aspen-white spruce forests, white spruce, and jack pine stands on upland terrain. Many wildlife species characteristic of the Lower Boreal Highland Natural Subregion are also characteristic of the Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion. Ungulate species occurring within the Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion may include woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and moose. Carnivores can include black bear (Ursus americanus), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), coyote (Canis latrans), gray wolf (Canis lupus), ermine (Mustela ermine), fisher, red fox (Vulpes vulpes), river otter (Lontra canadensis), and wolverine (Gulo gulo). Rodent species include beaver (Castor canadensis), red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), and snowshoe hare (NRC 2006).

Bird species in the Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion vary by habitat type and time of year as most species are migratory. Characteristic species of mixedwood forests in the subregion include bay-breasted warbler, Cape May warbler, black-throated green warbler, yellow-bellied sapsucker, Swainson’s thrush, solitary vireo, magnolia warbler, and white-throated sparrow (NRC 2006).

Aquatic and wetland habitats in the subregion frequently provide habitat for American wigeon, bufflehead, common goldeneye, common loon, great blue heron, lesser scaup, mallard, spotted sandpiper, western grebe, and white-winged scoter. Typical wetland amphibians include the boreal chorus frog, wood frog, Canadian toad, and western toad.

The FWMIS results indicated historical observations of white-throated sparrow, Tennessee warbler, and beaver within the terrestrial LSA, all species provincially listed as ‘Secure’ (ASRD 2011).

Species detected during photographic monitoring include coyote, grey wolf, gray jay, moose, white-tailed deer, and snowshoe hare. Results of the photographic monitoring will be provided to the NEB in a supplemental report once data from all sessions have been collected.

Species detected during winter track count surveys included Canada lynx, coyote, fisher/marten, grouse species, mice species, red squirrel, snowshoe hare and weasel species (Table 5.8-1 and Appendix E). Snowshoe hare had the highest total track density at 133.93 tracks/km-day followed by grouse species at 10.74 tracks/km-day and fisher/marten at 3.39 tracks/km-day. Coyote had the lowest track density at 0.36 tracks/km-day. The highest species richness was recorded in low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (Table 5.1-8). Canada lynx was recorded only in the treed bog (BTNN) wetland ecosite phase. No species were recorded in dogwood white spruce (e3), labrador tea/horsetail white spruce-black spruce (h1), and shrubby swamp (SONS).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-41

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.8-1 Summary of Species Track Densities (Tracks per km-day) by Habitat Type during Winter Track Count Surveys, March 19, 2013

(a) Effort Habitat Type Red Red Mice Hare [km-days] Lynx Marten Coyote Weasel Grouse Fisher /Fisher Canada Species Squirrel Species Snowshoe

Upland low-bush cranberry aspen d1 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 3.01 0.00 low-bush cranberry aspen- d2 0.93 0.00 0.00 1.07 10.74 1.07 0.00 3.22 0.00 white spruce dogwood white spruce e3 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 labrador tea black spruce- g1 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.09 13.36 0.00 jackpine Labrador tea/horsetail white h1 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.70 0.00 spruce-black spruce Wetland treed bog BTNN 1.05 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 shrubby swamp SONS 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.01 0.00 treed swamp STNN 0.69 0.00 0.00 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.10 0.00 Disturbed Disturbed DIS 2.74 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.84 1.46 Total 9.87 0.95 0.36 3.39 10.74 1.93 5.09 133.93 1.46 (a) Beckingham and Archibald 1996; Halsey et al. 2004.

Moose Moose is listed provincially as ‘Secure’ (ASRD 2011) and is not listed federally. Moose are hunted recreationally for sustenance in the province. Moose are common throughout most eco-regions in Alberta, except for the prairie and parkland; however in recent years, moose numbers have been increasing in the parkland (ESRD 2012d). Moose habitat consists of muskegs, brushy meadows and small groves of aspen or coniferous trees, particularly where these habitats adjoin lakes, streams or ponds. Moose forage on aquatic plants, aspen bark and willow, birch and poplar shoots (ESRD 2012d).

Moose generally begin mating from mid-September to mid-October, with calves born the following spring.

The FWMIS indicates that 21 moose were observed historically within the terrestrial RSA (FWMIS 2012). No moose sign was observed during the initial field reconnaissance conducted in 2012 or the winter track count survey; however, moose was recorded during the fall photographic monitoring. Any moose observations (i.e., sighting or signs) in the terrestrial LSA will also be recorded during remote camera, breeding bird and amphibian surveys conducted in 2013. Furbearers/Carnivores Canada Lynx Canada lynx is listed provincially as ‘Sensitive’ (ASRD 2011). Canada lynx is adapted to boreal forest ecosystems typical of north central Canada and Alaska, which represents the majority of their geographic range. Lynx populations can reach high densities in these regions, but undergo dramatic 8- to 11-year fluctuations in delayed synchrony with their primary prey, snowshoe hares (Keith 1963). In the boreal forest, this translates to a 3- to 17-fold variation in lynx numbers throughout a hare cycle (Mowat et al. 2000).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-42

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Lynx prefer open mature coniferous forests, late successional forest stages and black spruce bogs (Stardom 1989). This habitat is represented by c1 and FONS, which together cover an area of 30.8 ha within the terrestrial LSA (c1, Table 5.4-2; FONS, Table 5.7-3; high quality Canada lynx, Table 6.6-3). However, habitat selection depends on the availability of its primary prey species, the snowshoe hare (Koehler and Aubry 1994, Mowat et al. 2000, Krebs et al. 2001). Lynx have high reproductive potential, but this is realized only during the high phase of the hare cycle in the boreal forest; during other years, reproduction is generally less successful (Mowat et al. 2000).

Loss of either lynx or snowshoe hare habitat may have a detrimental effect on lynx populations. The lynx is considered a furbearing species in Alberta and is therefore subject to trapping. Overtrapping in times of high fur demand is detrimental to lynx populations. Concern has been expressed for the stability of lynx populations if high fur prices coincide with a low period in the population cycle (Westworth Associates 2002).

According to FWMIS (2012), no Canada lynx have been observed historically within the terrestrial RSA. No Canada lynx or sign were observed during the field reconnaissance or photographic monitoring conducted in 2012; however, one observation of Canada lynx tracks was made during the winter track count surveys (Table 5.8-1 and Figure E-1 in Appendix E). Canada lynx observations (i.e., sighting or signs) in the terrestrial LSA will be recorded during remote camera and other wildlife surveys conducted in 2013. Fisher Fisher is listed provincially as ‘Sensitive’ (ASRD 2011b). Fishers occur most commonly in landscapes dominated by mature coniferous and mixedwood forest cover, with a preference for late seral-stage forests (Powell and Zielinski 1994, Smith 1993). Virtually all studies of fisher ecology have documented the need for overhead cover. Fishers likely select older seral stands with continuous canopy cover to provide security cover from predators (Arthur et al. 1989).

Fishers are opportunistic predators and make use of many species of prey, ranging from insects to carrion. However, it appears the most important food sources are snowshoe hares and other small mammals such as voles (Powell 1993). Foraging habitat is therefore closely associated with the cover habitats of their dominant prey.

Females are generally sexually mature at two years of age, bearing one to four young in litters during March or April (Pattie and Fisher 1999). They are very selective when choosing a denning site and prefer to establish dens high in large-diameter deciduous tree cavities, although dens can also be located on the ground (Weir 2003, Powell and Zielinski 1994). Fishers use forested riparian zones frequently because these areas supply many habitat features that they require, such as large spruce trees and coarse woody debris for resting, and large-diameter deciduous trees for denning.

Human activity is the major limiting factor for survival of fishers. Habitat loss as a result of development reduces the amount of suitable habitat within a region and results in a reduced capability to support viable populations (Powell and Zielinski 1994). Fishers are also a furbearing species and as such are potentially limited by trapping when prices for pelts are high (Powell and Zielinski 1994). Over-trapping has the potential to extirpate fishers from an area and this may be exacerbated by a natural cycle in fisher numbers based on the availability of snowshoe hares (Bowman et al. 2006).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-43

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Male fishers can be differentiated from female marten based on track dimensions. However, track sizes of female and young-of-the-year fishers and male martens overlap. Therefore, data collected as fisher, marten, or fisher/marten were combined into a single "fisher/marten" category for analysis. According to FWMIS (2012), no fishers have been observed historically within or adjacent to the terrestrial RSA. No fishers or fisher sign were observed during the field reconnaissance or photographic monitoring conducted in 2012; however, fisher/marten tracks were observed at four locations during the winter track count surveys (Table 5.8-1 and Figure E-1 in Appendix E). Fisher sightings and sign in the terrestrial LSA will be recorded during remote camera and other wildlife surveys conducted in 2013. Old Growth Forest Birds Old growth forest birds of interest include the bay-breasted warbler, black-throated green warbler, Canada warbler, and the Cape May warbler.

The bay-breasted warbler is listed provincially as ‘Sensitive’ (ASRD 2011a). Bay-breasted warblers use a range of ecosite phases and wetlands types, although extensive stands of spruce are preferred (Semenchuk 1992). They also use mixed stands of spruce, pine, and tamarack (Kirk et al. 1996). Most nests are located in spruce trees. These warblers feed on caterpillars, flies, beetles, moths, and budworms (Norton 2001). Budworm outbreaks can affect territorial behaviour of bay-breasted warblers, as well as their clutch size.

Loss of habitat in their wintering ranges is a limiting factor for survival of bay-breasted warblers. Their dependence on old growth forest for breeding is also a limiting factor for survival (Norton 2001). Shorter forest-cutting cycles, which reduce the area of mature forests, will lead to less attractive breeding habitat for this species. Old growth forest classification for the KIs follows the work presented by Schneider (2002), which is based on stand age of the leading species. White spruce and balsam fir stands are considered old growth forests at 140 years, jack pine stands at 120 years and deciduous dominated stands at 100 years (including mixedwoods).

The black-throated green warbler is listed as a ‘Sensitive’ species in Alberta (ASRD 2011b) that inhabits boreal coniferous forest and transitional areas between coniferous and deciduous forests in northern Alberta (Morse and Poole 2005). Nests have been located in both deciduous (e.g., birch, balsam poplar) and white spruce trees. These warblers feed entirely on insects during the summer, frequently consuming large numbers of caterpillars. Forest fragmentation as a result of anthropogenic change has an adverse effect on the presence and abundance of this species in the boreal forest of Alberta.

The Canada warbler is listed federally as “Threatened” (COSEWIC 2012) and on Schedule 1 of the SARA (SARA 2011). Alberta represents the westernmost extent of the Canada warbler’s range in North America (Semenchuk 1992). This species is more abundant in mature rather than young aspen forests in Alberta (Schieck and Nietfeld 1995, Schieck et al. 1995). Canada warblers require older mixedwood stands that have a dense understorey and will breed in riparian thickets and shrubs along forest edges (Semenchuk 1992). These warblers frequently nest near forest openings (Semenchuk 1992). Canada warblers feed in shrubs and lower branches on flying insects and caterpillars. They will also feed on the ground occasionally (Cooper et al. 1997).

Habitat loss within the Canada warbler’s breeding range is likely the greatest limiting factor for survival in this species (Cooper et al. 1997). Its response to fragmentation is not well known; however, limited fragmentation is unlikely to negatively affect this species as it frequents forest edge habitats. Another threat to the Canada warbler is brood parasitism by cowbirds (Cooper et al. 1997). In general, the species probably responds

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-44

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

favourably to habitat changes that increase density of understorey vegetation within forests, but negatively to changes that decrease forest understorey or severely reduce forest canopy. Overall, the Canada warbler’s population status within Alberta is not known.

The Cape May warbler is listed provincially as ‘Sensitive’ (ASRD 2011b). The preferred vegetation type of Cape May warblers is extensive stands of spruce (Semenchuk 1992). These warblers also use mixed stands of spruce, pine, and tamarack (Kirk et al. 1996), but most nests are located in spruce trees. Cape May warblers have been detected primarily in coniferous mixedwood forest ecosites phases in and around the LSA. They feed on caterpillars, flies, beetles, moths, and budworms (Norton 2001).

Loss of habitat in their wintering ranges is a limiting factor for survival of Cape May warblers. Their dependence on old growth forest for breeding is also a limiting factor for survival (Norton 2001). Shorter forest-cutting cycles, which reduce the area of old growth forests (i.e., d, e, and b ecosites), will contribute to creating less attractive breeding habitat for this species.

No provincially listed old growth forest birds were observed during the field reconnaissance conducted in 2012; however, according to FWMIS, three Cape May warbler observations have been made historically within the terrestrial RSA. Observations of these species and other forest birds in the terrestrial LSA will be recorded during remote camera, breeding bird, and amphibian surveys conducted in 2013. Olive-sided Flycatcher The olive-sided flycatcher is listed provincially as ‘May be at Risk’ (ASRD 2011b), federally listed as ‘Threatened’ (COSEWIC 2012), and on Schedule 1 of the SARA (SARA 2011). Olive-sided flycatchers are associated with a range of open areas containing tall trees or snags for perching and foraging (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Open areas used by this species can include burned forest, open to semi-open mature forest stands, forest edges near natural openings such as meadows, rivers, and wetlands, or forest edges near human-made openings such as logged areas (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Preferred habitat in the boreal forest tends to occur in coniferous or mixedwood forest near wetlands (Erskine 1977). In western Canada, the olive-sided flycatcher is associated with early to mid-successional post-fire or post-clearcut forest with residual live trees, as well as old growth mixedwood forest (Schieck and Song 2006). Most nests are located in conifers and are often located beneath thick canopy cover (COSEWIC 2007).

Olive-sided flycatcher was not observed during the field reconnaissance conducted in 2012; however, according to FWMIS, two observations have been made historically within the terrestrial RSA. Olive-sided flycatcher observations in the terrestrial LSA will be recorded during remote camera, breeding bird, and amphibian surveys conducted in 2013. 5.8.3 Wildlife Management Areas and Acts The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) and the Alberta Wildlife Act prohibit the disruption “of migratory birds or the damaging, destroying, removing or disturbing of nests” (MBCA 1994; ASRD 2001). Primary mitigation for compliance with the acts is to conduct clearing outside the migratory bird nesting period, typically between May 1 and August 15 for the Project area.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-45

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.9 Species at Risk or Species of Special Status and Related Habitat This section summarizes the findings of the investigation to identify vegetation, fish and wildlife species at risk or species of special status and their habitat. Species of special status are defined as any species listed federally as ‘Special Concern’, ‘Threatened’, ‘Endangered’, ‘Extirpated’ or ‘Extinct’ by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2012) or under the Species at Risk Act registry (SARA 2011), or provincially as ‘Sensitive’, ‘May be At Risk’, ‘At Risk’ or ‘Extirpated/Extinct’ by ESRD (2010). Additional information is provided in the baseline environmental conditions for vegetation, fish and fish habitat, and wildlife and wildlife habitat; that is, Section 5.4, Section 5.6 and Section 5.8. 5.9.1 Vegetation A review of provincial and federal listed species (ASRD 2011, COSEWIC 2012, SARA 2012) was carried out in relation to both terrestrial LSA and RSA boundaries. Two historical observations of provincially listed plants were recorded within the terrestrial RSA, although no historical observations were recorded in the terrestrial LSA (Table 5.4-3). Results of the 2012 field survey identified one listed lichen species at one location (Table 5.4-4; Figure 5.4-1). No other listed species were identified during the 2012 field survey due to absence of a formal rare plant survey as the timing of the field survey (September 6, 2012) was not in accordance with the Alberta Native Plant Council (ANPC) Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (ANPC 2012). A supplemental survey will be conducted in accordance with the ANPC Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (ANPC 2012) in summer 2013 (Section 8.1.1).

A review of the ACIMS database indicated that there are 16 listed ecological communities in the Central Mixedwood Subregion (Table 5.4-5); however, during the 2012 field surveys, no listed ecological communities were documented as intersecting with the Project footprint or occurring in the terrestrial LSA. Although no listed ecological communities were noted to occur within the terrestrial LSA, this does not preclude the potential for these communities to be present. Any listed ecological communities observed during the supplemental survey for listed plant will be documented. 5.9.2 Fish Species Among the fish species expected to occur in the Project area, none are included in Schedule 1 of the federal SARA (2011). The General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2011) lists Pearl Dace and Finescale Dace as ‘Undetermined’. As a result, fish Species at Risk will not be carried forward in the assessment. 5.9.3 Wildlife Species Wildlife species of special status historically observed within the terrestrial LSA and species with potential to occur within the terrestrial LSA, based on their habitat requirements, previous known records and the species range is provided in Appendix D. Details regarding the regulatory status and habitat requirements of each species, as well as whether species observations were recorded during wildlife surveys within the terrestrial LSA or from historical fish and wildlife data sets (FWMIS) are also provided in Appendix D.

No federally listed species of concern were observed during the wildlife reconnaissance survey. However, historical data obtained through a FWMIS search indicated two observations of woodland caribou within the terrestrial RSA – one in 2008 and one in 2003. Both observations were at the outer limits of the terrestrial RSA and in habitat that differs from that in the area of the Project. Consequently, although Woodland caribou is listed as ‘Threatened’ (COSEWIC 2012) and on Schedule 1 of the SARA (SARA 2011), it was not selected as a key indicator.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-46

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.10 Air Quality This section provides a summary of the findings related to baseline air quality conditions, including air emissions and GHG emissions found within the air quality LSA as described in Table 5.1-1. 5.10.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Air Emissions Smog, acid rain, and poor air quality can result from the presence of, and interactions between, a group of pollutants known collectively as criteria air contaminants (CACs) and their related pollutants (Environment

Canada 2013b). In particular, CACs of concern for the Project include sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides

(NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are produced and emitted from anthropogenic and natural sources. Ambient air quality in Alberta is monitored by industry, ESRD, Environment Canada, and various air quality management zones to provide air quality information as required by Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, standards, and guidelines. Air quality management zones (airsheds) allow area stakeholders to identify specific air quality issues to be addressed through monitoring (ESRD 2013a).

The Project is located within the airshed monitored by the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA).

Due to the remote location of the Project, potential human receptors to air emissions from the Project are limited to those involved in industrial activities and individual hunters and trappers that may be using the area.

To reflect the overall baseline conditions within the air quality LSA, data were obtained from two continuous monitoring stations in the WBEA network: Fort McKay and Patricia McInnes. Both stations have been recording ambient air quality data since 1999 and are capable of measuring the following CACs:

 Sulphur dioxide (SO2);

 NOX and nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and

 PM measured as PM2.5 (particles with a nominal aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns). The monitoring data for the above compounds is available for download from the Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) data warehouse website (CASA 2013). Ambient data summarized in this section is calculated from the quality-controlled data directly downloaded from the CASA website.

Air emissions can have direct and indirect effects on humans, animals, vegetation, soil, and water. For these reasons, air quality criteria have been established by regulators to set maximum ambient air concentrations, beyond which mitigation may be necessary. The Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQOs) are established by the Government of Alberta (ESRD 2013b). The objectives related to the CACs of interest for this Project are presented in Table 5.10-1.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-47

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.10-1 Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives(a) Parameter 1-Hour 24-Hour 30 day Annual [µg/m3] [µg/m3] [µg/m3] [µg/m3]

SO2 450 125 30 20

NO2 300 – – 45

PM2.5 – 30 – – (a) Source: AENV 2013b. – = No objective available.

GHG Emissions The primary factors influencing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the air assessment LSA are the anthropogenic sources of emissions, primarily industrial activities, which encompass vehicle traffic, oil and gas development, and related infrastructure.

The GHG emissions for existing facilities within the air quality assessment study area were obtained from the annual report published by (ESRD 2013a,b) which summarizes the GHG emissions for facilities that meet the Alberta Specified Gas Reporting program criteria. 5.10.2 Baseline Conditions Air Emissions This section summarizes the existing air quality, as monitored by the WBEA network, with respect to CAC concentrations within the air assessment LSA.

SO2 Concentrations

The presence of SO2 in the atmosphere has known health (lung irritation) and environmental (acid precipitation, ground-level ozone formation) effects (AENV 2011a). A summary of the monitored SO2 concentrations is presented in Table 5.10-2. The highest maximum and average 1-hour and 24-hour concentrations were recorded at the Fort McKay station. The AAAQOs for the average 1-hour and 24-hour concentrations for SO2 are 3 3 450 µg/m and 125 µg/m , respectively. The 24-hour concentrations were below the AAAQOs for SO2, but there is one recorded exceedance (Fort McKay) of AAAQO for the 1-hour concentration of SO2.

Table 5.10-2 Ambient Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Concentrations

1-Hour SO2 24-Hour SO2 30 day SO2 99th 99th Station Mean Max. % ≥450 Mean Max % ≥125 % ≥30 3 percentile 3 percentile [µg/m ] 3 (a) [µg/m ] [µg/m³] [µg/m³] (a) [µg/m³] [µg/m³] [µg/m³] [µg/m ] [µg/m³] Fort McKay 3.3 49.8 482.1 0 3.3 26.9 63.2 0 0 Patricia McInnes 2.8 36.7 395.6 0 2.8 20.9 50.6 0 (a) The 99th percentile value represents background concentrations for a screening air quality assessment (AENV 2009).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-48

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

NOx and NO2 Concentrations

The primary source of NOx in the region is the combustion of fossil fuels. The emissions of NOX result from the operation of stationary sources such as incinerators, boilers, and generators as well as from mobile sources such as vehicles, haul trucks, and other equipment. Oxides of nitrogen are emitted in two primary forms: nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Studies have shown that the majority of the NOX emissions will be in the form of NO (Angle et al. 1979; Baukal and Eleazer 1998; Cole and Summerhays 1979). In the presence of oxygen, the highly volatile NO is quickly converted to NO2 and has an average lifespan in the atmosphere of about one day (Spiro and Stigliani 1996). The presence of NO2 in the atmosphere has known health (lung irritation) and environmental (acid precipitation, ground-level ozone formation) effects (AENV 2011b). As a result, regulatory guideline levels are based on NO2 emissions and concentrations.

A summary of the available measured NO2 concentrations is presented in Table 5.10-3. The AAAQOs for the 3 average 1-hour concentrations for NO2 is 300 µg/m . The maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations occur at the

Patricia McInnes monitoring station but were below the AAAQOs for NO2. The 1-hour NO2 concentrations at the both monitoring stations are also below the AAAQOs.

Table 5.10-3 Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Concentrations

1-Hour NO2 24-Hour NO2 99th Station Mean 99thpercentile Max. % ≥ 300 Mean Max. 3 3 (a) 3 percentile [µg/m ] [µg/m ] [µg/m ] [µg/m³] [µg/m³] (a) [µg/m³] [µg/m³] Fort McKay 11.3 57.5 99.7 0 11.3 45.8 63.8 Patricia McInnes 10.3 50.8 137.4 0 10.3 35.8 52.0 (a) The 99th percentile value represents background concentrations for a screening air quality assessment (AENV 2009).

PM2.5 Concentrations The emphasis in regional monitoring has shifted in the past few years from the collection of total suspended particulate data to the collection of finer particles because of concerns related to possible health effects associated with fine, or respirable, particulate matter. Respirable particles are those particles that are small enough to readily enter the lower respiratory tract (i.e., larynx, trachea, bronchi and lungs). These particles typically have a mean aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 µm and are referred to as PM2.5. The PM10 fraction includes PM2.5.

A summary of the continuous PM2.5 data is provided in Table 5.10-4. The AAAQOs for the average 24-hour 3 concentrations for PM2.5 is 30 µg/m . The highest 24-hour PM2.5 was observed at the Fort McKay monitoring station, where the maximum PM2.5 was 563.0 µg/m3. The Fort McKay and Patricia McInnes monitoring stations exceeded the AAAQO of 30 µg/m3 over the monitoring period. The cause of these high PM events is attributed to large scale and persistent forest fires throughout the region (WBEA 2011).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-49

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.10-4 Ambient Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Concentrations

1-Hour PM2.5 24-Hour PM2.5 (a) 98th Station Mean 99thpercentile Max. Mean Max. % ≥ 30 3 3 (a) 3 percentile [µg/m ] [µg/m ] [µg/m ] [µg/m³] (a) [µg/m³] [µg/m³] [µg/m³] Fort McKay 5.7 32.2 563.0 6.0 18.7 388.5 1 Patricia McInnes 5.1 27.7 449.4 5.1 16.3 195.7 1 (a) The 99th percentile value represents background concentrations for a screening air quality assessment (AENV 2009).

Local and Regional Meteorological Conditions Data from this station have been considered because Patricia McInnes is the closest monitoring station to the Project, and data collected at this station can be considered generally representative of air quality in the Project area. See Section 5.2.2 for details of meteorological condition. GHG Emissions

Estimates of GHG emissions are expressed as kilotonnes (Kt) of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq), which are calculated based on the global warming potential for each gas relative to the global warming potential of CO2.

According to the Alberta Specified Gas Reporting Standard (AENV 2011c), since 2010, only facilities emitting more than 50 kt of GHGs in CO2eq annually were required to report their GHG emissions to Alberta Environment. The facilities within the air assessment study area do not fall in this category and are therefore not required to report GHG emissions.

In 2010 the total number of mega-tonnes (Mt) of industry-reported GHG emissions in Alberta was 122.5 Mt of

CO2eq (ESRD 2013). The total industry-reported GHG emissions reported in all of Canada in 2010 was 261.9 Mt of CO2eq (Environment Canada 2013c). The provincial and national emissions reported in 2010 are presented in Table 5.10-5. Table 5.10-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Alberta and Canada in 2010

CO2eq Emissions Source [Mt] Alberta 122.5 Canada (including Alberta) 261.9

5.11 Acoustic Environment This section presents the findings related to the baseline acoustic environment including ambient noise and human noise receptors within the acoustic environment LSA, which covers the area within 1.5 km of the pipeline centreline, as described in Table 5.1-1. 5.11.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods A desktop-level analysis of publicly available data was conducted to determine the presence or absence of noise-sensitive receptors within the acoustic environment LSA.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-50

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.11.2 Baseline Conditions Existing Ambient Noise and Noise Receptors The purpose of the assessment is to address the potential noise effects on humans. Noise-sensitive receptors, as defined by ERCB Directive 038: Noise Control Directive (Directive 038), are considered to be any permanent residences or seasonally-occupied dwellings used at least six weeks of the year that are within 1.5 km of the plant or project boundary or that may be affected by the project. Based on publicly available data, there are no noise sensitive receptors within the acoustic environment LSA. Individual hunters, trappers and fishers and workers involved in commercial or industrial projects within the acoustic environment LSA are not considered noise sensitive receptors by the ERCB.

Based on the information provided by Midwest Surveys Inc., a few third party facilities, mainly small size pump stations, meter stations and valve sites, are located within 1.5 km of the Project. These third party facilities were assumed to be minor and considered not to influence the baseline noise levels for the acoustic environment LSA.

Directive 038 also defines the ambient noise level for the rural areas in Alberta based on research conducted by the Environment Council of Alberta. That is, the average rural ambient sound level in Alberta is 35 dBA

(A-weighted decibels) Leq (equivalent continuous sound pressure level) during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and 45 dBA during daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) (EUB 2007). This represents the noise baseline in the acoustic environment LSA. 5.12 Contemporary Human Occupancy and Resource Use This section summarizes the existing socio-economic environment as it relates to contemporary human occupancy and resource use in the socio-economic study area. The following key indicators are discussed in this section:  population;  parks and protected areas;  non-renewable natural resource use;  renewable natural resource use (including forestry, hunting, trapping, and fishing, navigable watercourses and water use); and  visual aesthetics. A discussion of land use plans is included in this section. Although ‘land use plans’ is not considered an indicator of human occupancy and resource use, land use plans are discussed in relation to Project compliance and non-interference with other land users in the resource use study areas.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-51

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.12.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods A desktop review was conducted to collect both baseline population information for the socio-economic study area as described in Section 5.1.1 (Figure 5.1-2), and resource use information from within the resource use RSA and LSA as described in Table 5.1-1. The following data sources were reviewed:  publicly available information from the Government of Alberta (Alberta Energy, Alberta Municipal Affairs, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development);  environmental consulting reports (e.g., Fiera 2009);  RMWB website;  Statistics Canada Aboriginal Population Profiles; and  Statistics Canada Census Community Profiles. 5.12.2 Baseline Conditions Population The population data for the socio-economic study area is presented in Table 5.12-1. In 2012, the total off- reserve permanent population of the RMWB (i.e., not including the on-reserve population in the RMWB, which is under the jurisdiction of the federal government) was 116,407, out of which 63% (72,944) lived in Fort McMurray and 4% (4,192) live in rural areas and other small communities. The remaining 33% of the RMWB’s population were temporary residents in project accommodations, many of which service the oil and gas industry.

The socio-economic study area population has grown rapidly since 2006, increasing by nearly 54% (40,690), from 75,717 to 116,407 (Table 5.12-1). The RMWB population is comprised of three subcategories; permanent population (74,631 or 64% of the total); shadow population (2,505 or 2% of the total), which includes non-residents temporarily employed in the RMWB and living in hotels, motels or campgrounds; and, project accommodation population (39,271 or 34% of the total) (RMWB 2012). The majority of the population growth has occurred in the population residing in project accommodations, which grew by 28,829 people (or 271%), accounting for 71% of the total RMWB population growth between 2006 and 2012. The population of Fort McMurray grew by 11,578 (or 19%), making up 28% of the total RMWB population growth during the same period.

For this discussion of population, the ‘rural’ population includes those in communities other than Fort McMurray and project accommodations. Rural population growth accounted for the remaining 1% of the total RMWB population growth, with the majority of growth occurring in Saprae Creek and Draper, bedroom communities of Fort McMurray. Most other rural communities experienced very little, or negative, population growth between 2006 and 2012; with the exception of Fort Chipewyan, which grew by 93 people (10%).

While the overall population of Fort McMurray has grown since 2006, there was a 5% population decline from 2010 to 2012. This could be as a result of the dramatic (68%) increase in use of project accommodations during this period, and a reduction of Fort McMurray’s shadow population. This may be a trend or an anomaly in the existing trend of population growth.

The rapid expansion of the population in project accommodations and Fort McMurray is attributed to the continued resource development in the region, and the associated demand for goods and services.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-52

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.12-1 Socio-economic Study Area Population from 2006 to 2012 Population Centre 2006 2008 2010 2012 % Change (2006 to 2012) Fort McMurray (a) 61,366 72,363 76,797 72,944 18.9 Anzac 711 837 785 714 0.4 Conklin 338 372 337 318 -5.9 Fort Chipewyan 915 1,016 1,261 1,008 10.2 Fort Fitzgerald 4 10 8 n/a n/a Fort McKay 536 (b) 862 (b) 44 59 n/a(b) Draper 118 267 254 197 66.9 Gregoire Lake Estates 285 253 248 275 -3.5 Janvier 218 194 195 171 -21.6 Marianna Lake 9 4 n/a n/a n/a Saprae Creek 728 864 926 925 27.1 Hinterlands(c) 47 8 158 n/a n/a Rural Campgrounds n/a n/a n/a 525 n/a Sub-total 65,275 77,050 81,013 77,136 18.2 Project Accommodation 10,442 26,284 23,325 39,271 276.1 Total RMWB 75,717 103,334 104,338 116,407 53.7 2006 2011 % Change (2006 to 2011) Alberta 3,290,350 3,645,257 10.8 (a) Includes the shadow population residing in urban campgrounds, hotels and rental accommodations. (b) This figure includes the on-reserve population of Fort McKay IR 174. As of 2010, the municipal census only reports on the off-reserve population residing in Fort McKay. A representative percent change can thus not be derived from the available data. (c) Hinterland refers to remote, rural areas. Sources: RMWB 2008, 2012; Statistics Canada 2012.

Parks, Protected Areas and Recreation Areas There are no provincial parks or recreation areas in the resource use LSA. There is one Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) 693, which lies 8 km to the southwest of the Project, outside the resource use RSA. Environmentally Significant Areas contain biological or landscape elements of conservation concern; however, they are not subject to provincial regulatory requirements. Non-Renewable Natural Resource Use The resource use LSA is not used for resource extraction (i.e., mining, SAGD, aggregate resources). Non-renewable resource use in the LSA is limited to the transportation of energy products through pipelines and transmission lines. Suncor Energy Inc. holds a consultative notation and a temporary field authorization in the resource use LSA; however, there are currently no mineral or material leases, licenses or explorations to indicate the extraction of aggregates or bitumen in the resource use LSA (Alberta Energy 2013).

All surface dispositions (including those for non-renewable natural resource use) held on Crown Land are recorded in the Electronic Transfer System (ETS) database maintained by Alberta Energy. A search of the ETS database completed on January 24, 2013 for public land standing (ownership status) indicated 24 dispositions held within 1,000 m of the Project (Alberta Energy 2013), representing the resource use LSA. A summary of the types of surface dispositions that exist within 1,000 m of the Project is provided in Table 5.12-2.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-53

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.12-2 Disposition Holders and Surface Activity Codes within 1,000 m of the Project (i.e., Resource Use Local Study Area) Disposition Holder Surface Activity Codes(a) ESRD, Forestry, Fort McMurray Office CNT 090030 ESRD, Lands Division, Fort McMurray Office CNT 030006 Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. PLA 6030 Al-Pac Forest Products Inc. FMA 9100029 Atco Electric Ltd. EZE 030183; EZE 030185; EZE 880647; EZE 880648 Atco Electric Ltd., Lands Division VCE 030042; VCE 030048 Jules Flobert TPA 2156 Northland Forest Products Ltd. CTLA 050021; CTLA 05J002; CTLA 150001 Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. PIL 060974; PIL 070274; PLA 061823; PLA 070948; PLA 760312 Suncor Energy Inc. CNC 060009; TFA 127370 TransCanada Pipeline Ventures PIL 060781; PLA 981602 Williams Energy Canada Ulc. PLA 090753 (a) CNC: Consultative Notation – Company; CNT: Consultative Notation; CTLA: Coniferous Timber Licence; EZE: Easement; FMA: Forest Management Agreement; PIL: Pipeline Installation Lease; PLA: Pipeline Agreement; TFA: Temporary Field Authorization; TPA: Trapping Area; VCE: Vegetation Control Easement. Source: Alberta Energy 2013.

Renewable Natural Resource Use The resource use RSA falls within Forest Management Unit (FMU) A15. Alberta-Pacific Forest Products Inc. (Al- Pac) is the only Forest Management Agreement (FMA) holder in the resource use RSA. Northland Forest Products Ltd. holds three coniferous timber licences (CTLA) in the resource use LSA.

The entire resource use LSA is located on Crown land. A search of the ETS indicated no agricultural dispositions held within the resource use LSA (Alberta Energy 2013).

The Project is located in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 518. In 2012, 11 outfitters held allocations (permission to purchase a hunting licence for a client from outside Alberta or Canada) in WMU 518. Each allocation is for one animal, except for a black bear licence which allows each hunter to harvest a maximum of two bears. In total, the outfitters in WMU 518 held 161 allocations in 2012. Approximately 66% of the allocations were for black bear during the open and archery only seasons. About 21% of allocations were for moose, also during the open season. The remaining 13% of allocations were for mule deer (Brick, M. 2013, pers. comm.). The hunting season for the aforementioned game species spans from August 25 to November 30, with an additional black bear season occurring from April 1 to June 15. During previous professional contact with outfitters, outfitters in WMU 518 noted the benefit of pipeline development which resulted in increased access along project ROWs in remote areas following construction activities. Given the existing disturbance of the landscape surrounding the Project; however, hunting activities are less likely to occur in the resource use RSA than in the more remote, westerly portions of WMU 518.

Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMA), also known as Trapping Areas or traplines, are the boundaries recognized by the Government of Alberta and used for dividing land used to harvest furbearing animals by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal trappers. Three RFMA are located within the resource use RSA: RFMA 587, RFMA 1790 and RFMA 2156 (Table 5.12-3). Specific areas used for trapping are mapped within RFMA 2156, RFMA 587 and RFMA 1790, as shown on Figure 5.14-1. The Project footprint and resource use LSA are located completely within the boundary of RFMA 2156, which is registered to a non-Aboriginal trapper. The resource use

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-54

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

RSA overlaps portions of RFMA 2156, RFMA 1790 and RFMA 587, of which RFMA 1790 is registered to a non-Aboriginal trapper, and RFMA 587 is registered to a member of Fort McKay First Nation.

Table 5.12-3 Registered Fur Management Areas in the Resource Use Regional Study Area Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMA) RFMA Holder Crossed by Project ROW (Yes/No) RFMA 587 Maurice McDonald No RFMA 1790 Edmund Price No RFMA 2156 Jules Flobert Yes Source: Alberta Energy 2013.

Preliminary hydrology field assessments revealed that there are two potentially navigable watercourses crossed by the Project footprint; these are 91-WC-01 and 91-WC-02, both permanent waterbodies. Based on Transport Canada’s response received (January 30, 2013) to the request for determination of navigability for both unnamed watercourses, the watercourses are not subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are no water licences registered within the aquatic RSA (Section 5.5).

Fishing is a popular activity in northern Alberta. Alberta is divided into three Fish Management Zones and the study area is situated within Zone 3 (the Northern Boreal Zone), watershed unit NB4 (ESRD 2012e). Common sport fish in this region include arctic grayling, goldeye/mooneye, lake trout, lake whitefish, mountain whitefish, northern pike, walleye and yellow perch. Guiding operators and local residents in Fort McMurray and Fort McKay may use the watercourses in the vicinity of the Project for fishing. Visual Aesthetics The resource use RSA is primarily Crown land with dispositions for activities including natural resource extraction, energy developments and transmission. The change in the natural environment features of the area resulting from these activities has changed the visual aesthetics for Crown land users who access this area for hunting, trapping and fishing. Land Use Plans The Project falls within an area subject to several land use plans, including the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (Government of Alberta 2012a). The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan establishes strategic direction and an implementation plan for the Lower Athabasca Region and identifies regional outcomes that support the delivery of a healthy economy, healthy environment and people-friendly communities (Government of Alberta 2012a). The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan and the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (SA 2009 cA-26.8) provide a framework that guide future Municipal Development Plans, Areas Structure Plans and land use bylaws in the RMWB.

The Athabasca Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan (Government of Alberta 2011) is a project of the Oil Sands Sustainable Development Secretariat office within the Alberta Treasury Board. The Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan discusses plans for future infrastructure development in the region, including the addition of planned work camps, road and transit upgrades and communities. The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan was developed as part of the provincial Land Use Framework, and serves as a guiding set of principles and strategies to balance economic growth with environmental monitoring and cumulative effects management.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-55

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

The Municipal Development Plan (MDP) (RMWB 2011) was developed in alignment with the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan and the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan, and outlines general guidelines to manage growth in the RMWB for the period of 2011 to 2030. The RMWB has limited jurisdiction over many activities permitted on Crown lands, such as oil and gas exploration, pipeline development, timber harvesting activities, as well as recreational and traditional land and resource uses.

In June 2008, the Cumulative Effects Management Association (CEMA) (2008) released a Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework for the RMWB. The framework provides CEMA’s recommended approach to managing the cumulative effects of development and resource use on ecosystems and landscapes in the RMWB. In March 2009, CEMA released a supplement to the Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework, Management Scenario Combination Modelling.

The Regional Sustainable Development Strategy (AENV 1999) for the Athabasca Region was initiated by Alberta Environment) in co-operation with provincial and federal agencies, and regional stakeholders. The strategy developed from a need to maintain Alberta’s commitment to environment and resource management during the growth of oil sands developments. The Regional Sustainable Development Strategy has been in effect since July 1999 and is implemented by ESRD and CEMA. 5.13 Heritage (Historic) Resources This section describes and summarizes the historic resource investigations conducted for the Project. Alberta Culture administers the Historical Resources Act, which has jurisdiction over all provincial lands with the goal to protect historic, archaeological, paleontological, and Aboriginal cultural resources from being adversely affected by land developments. Historic resources are defined by the Alberta Historical Resources Act (Government of Alberta 2000) as “any work of nature or man that is primarily of value for its palaeontological, archaeological, prehistoric, historic, cultural, natural, scientific or aesthetic interest, including but not limited to, a palaeontological, archaeological prehistoric, historic or natural site, structure or object.” 5.13.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Archaeological and historic site file searches at the Historic Resource Management Branch have been conducted within the historic resources RSA as described in Table 5.1-1 and shown in Figure 5.1-1. In addition, the legal land locations intersected by the pipeline route and within the historic resources RSA were cross- referenced with the Listing of Historic Resources (AC 2012); a provincial document that identifies predetermined Historic Resource Values (HRV) for given parcels of land based on previously identified historic resource locations.

As required by the Alberta Historical Resources Act, a Statement of Justification (SoJ) has been prepared for the Project. The SoJ, or desktop overview, is a study of the information available from previous historic resource studies in the Project area, including a preliminary assessment of the historic resources potential based on an examination of terrain, previously recorded sites, and existing disturbances.

The palaeontological sensitivity of a location is determined according to the Palaeontological Sensitivity Map created by the Royal Tyrrell Museum (Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology 1984) in conjunction with the Listing of Historic Resources (AC 2012).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-56

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.13.2 Baseline Conditions This summary presents the results of the historic resource investigations conducted for the Project. These investigations include background research, interpretation of historic resource potential, and the preparation of the SoJ. Archaeology Archaeological and historic site file searches conducted at the Historic Resource Management Branch indicated that a total of 19 archaeological research permits have been issued within the historic resources RSA. As part of these previous investigations, no archaeological sites have been reported within the historic resources RSA. In addition, none of the lands (LSDs) within the Project footprint have been assigned an HRV rating (AC 2012), indicating that they have not demonstrated any potential to contain unrecorded historic resources.

The SoJ determined that the Project will affect lands thought to have low potential for as yet unrecorded historic resource sites. This relatively low potential is attributed to the lack of any previously recorded historic resource sites within the historic resources RSA, the amount of previous disturbance located directly adjacent to the historic resources LSA (i.e., Project footprint), and the generally low-lying topography located within the Project footprint. In addition, four previous Historic Resource Impact Assessments (HRIAs) have been conducted on projects directly paralleling the Project, none of which identified any sites. Due to the lack of evidence for previously unrecorded historic resource sites within the Project footprint, the SoJ recommended that the Project be granted Historical Resources Act clearance without any requirement for field assessment. The SoJ was submitted to Historic Resources Management Branch of Alberta Culture on September 18, 2012. Upon review, Alberta Culture agreed with the recommendations in the SoJ and Historical Resources Act clearance was issued for the Project on October 1, 2012 under Historical Resources Act clearance 4780120063-001. Palaeontology The Palaeontological Sensitivity Map (Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology 1984) was reviewed as it relates to the Project. The Project footprint does not traverse any previously designated palaeontological sites (Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology 1984). The Listing of Historic Resources (AC 2012) indicates that none of the lands within the Project footprint have been assigned an HRV rating for palaeontology. Consequently, a palaeontological investigation and assessment were not required or conducted for the Project. 5.14 Traditional Land and Resource Use This section documents the current traditional land and resource use activities of potentially affected Aboriginal groups (i.e., First Nations and Métis groups) within the terrestrial LSA and RSA as described in Table 5.1-1. Traditional activities typically include hunting and trapping, plant harvesting and fish harvesting. This section also documents sites or areas that are considered culturally important to Aboriginal groups (e.g., cabins, burial sites, trails).

The following First Nations communities have been engaged on the Project:  Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN);  Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation (CPDFN);  Fort McKay First Nation (FMFN);  Fort McMurray #468 First Nation (FMFN468); and

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-57

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

 Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN). The following First Nations organization has been informed about the Project:  Christina River Dene Nation Council (CRDNC). The following Métis communities from Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) Region 1 have been engaged on the Project:  Conklin Métis Local #193  Fort Chipewyan Métis Local #125;  Fort McKay Métis Local #63;  Fort McMurray Métis Local #1935;  Fort McMurray Métis Local #2020; and  Willow Lake Métis Local #780. The following Métis organizations were also informed about the Project:  the Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA); and  MNA Region 1. At the time of preparing this ESA, TLU information from published studies was available for: the Community of Fort McKay, ACFN, MCFN, FMFN468, CPDFN, Fort McMurray Métis Local #1935, Fort Chipewyan Métis Local #125 and Conklin Métis Local #193. 5.14.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods Data for the traditional land and resource use baseline was collected through a literature review of published studies. The studies include both industry reports produced for environmental impact assessments (EIAs), which are in the public domain and relevant to the general Project area, and cultural publications produced by Aboriginal groups. The following studies were reviewed:  Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN). Footprints on the Land: Tracing the Path of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. (ACFN 2003a).  ACFN. Traditional Land Use Study. (ACFN 2003b).  Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC). Application for Approval of the MacKay River Commercial Project. Volume 5, Section 16. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Use (AOSC 2009).  Calliou Group (Calliou). Traditional Land Use Study Mikisew Cree First Nation Total Joslyn North Mine Project Final Report.(Calliou 2010).  Canadian Natural Resources Limited (Canadian Natural). Horizon Oil Sands Project Application for Approval. Appendix A-I Traditional Land Use Study. (Canadian Natural 2002).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-58

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

 Cenovus Energy Inc. (Cenovus). Application for the Approval of the Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project. Appendix 6-I Traditional Land Use Baseline Report. (Cenovus 2011).  Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation (CPDFN). Kai’ Kos’ Dehseh Dené The Red Willow River (Christina River) People: A Traditional Land Use Study of the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. (CPDFN 2007).  Dover Operating Corp. (Dover). Application for Approval of Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial Project. Volume 6, Section 2. Traditional Land Use Assessment. (Dover 2010).  Elias, Peter Douglas. (Elias). Description, Analysis, and Synthesis Of Six Traditional Land Use Studies. (Elias 2010).  Fort McMurray #468 First Nation (FMFN468). 2006. Nistawaya: Where Three Rivers Meet. Fort McMurray #468 First Nation Traditional Land Use Study. (FMFN468 2006).  Fort McMurray Métis Local #1935 (FMML1935). 2012. Mark of the Métis Traditional Knowledge and Stories of the Métis People of Northeastern Alberta. (FMML1935 2012).  FMFN468 Industrial Relations Corporation. 2013. Traditional Knowledge / Traditional Land Use Screening – TransCanada Pipelines Limited – Moosa Crossover Pipeline. (FMFN468 2013).  Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 2007. Traditional Land Use Setting Report for the Suncor Voyageur South Project. (Golder 2007).  Golder. 2011b. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment - Leismer to Kettle River Crossover Project. Prepared for TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. by Golder Associates Ltd. April 2011, Calgary, Alberta. 328 pp + Appendices.  MEG Energy Corp. (MEG). 2009. Supplemental Information Request No. 1571384 (Round 1) Christina Lake Regional Project – Phase 3: Appendix II Traditional Land Use Baseline Update. (MEG 2009).  PACTeam. 2007. Mikisew Cree First Nation Report on the Southern Territory Use and Occupancy Mapping Project. (PACTeam 2007).  Suncor Energy (Suncor). 2007. Project Application and Environmental Impact Assessment of Suncor Voyageur South Project: Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Assessment. (Suncor 2007).

Other Aboriginal groups in the region may use land and resources in similar ways. As further information becomes available from other Aboriginal groups, it will be considered in Project planning. 5.14.2 Baseline Conditions The following is a summary of the published literature applicable to the potentially affected Aboriginal groups in the region surrounding the Project. The baseline conditions are determined by reviewing the available information related to trapping, hunting, plant harvesting, fishing and culturally important sites and areas of Aboriginal communities in the terrestrial LSA and RSA, with a focus on the Community of Fort McKay (including both the Fort McKay First Nation as well as Fort McKay Métis Local #63), ACFN, MCFN, FMFN468, CPDFN, Fort McMurray Métis Local #1935, Fort Chipewyan Métis Local #125, and Conklin Métis Local #193. Aboriginal traditional land use within the terrestrial RSA and LSA, based on published sources, is mapped in Figure 5.14-1.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-59

I:\CLIENTS\TRANSCANADA\12-1334-0055\Mapping\MXD\TradLandUse\TraditionalLandUse_20130612.mxd

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ATHABASCA RIVER EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE×Ö TAR ISLAND ^_ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEETrapping EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Tp. 92 Rg.10 Rg.13 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEERg.12 Rg.11 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RUTH LAKE W4M EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BEAVER LAKE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ³ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Medicinal PlantsEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RFMA 587 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Ã MACKAY RIVER EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Ä EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !(S 63 EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE !(S ×Ö EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RFMA 2894 EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Moosa Exchange EEEEEEEEE Meter Station EEEEEEEEEEEE Pelican MainlineEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Tie-in # EEEEEEEEE Trapping EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMoose EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE S EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE POPLAR CREEK !( EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE MooseEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEREEK Trapping EEEEEE EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CACHE C EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE ×Ö EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE ×Ö Tp. 91 EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE Trapping EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RFMA 2156 EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE Blueberries EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Possible Dogrib EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE ER EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMushrooms IV EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE R EEEEEEEEE Burial Site EEEEEEEEEEEE R EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EEEEEEEEE V EEEEEEEEEEEE A EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE INDEX E EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE×Ö B EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ^_! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Fort McMurray RFMA 1790 Alberta EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Edmonton ! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEE Calgary EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ! EEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETrapping Area (Trail) BlueberriesEEEEEE Tp. 90 RFMA 2676 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SCALE 1:50,000,000 Cranberries EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ×Ö Tp. 90 Rg.13 Tp. 90 Rg.12 Tp. 90 Rg.11 Tp. 90 Rg.10 W4M W4M LEGEND W4M 5 0 W4M 5 # FACILITY TRADITIONAL LAND USE FEATURES ^_ HAMLET SCALE 1:150,000 KILOMETRES STUDY ROUTE* ×Ö CABIN PRIMARY HIGHWAY REGISTERED FUR MANAGEMENT AREA (RFMA) ×Ö UNVERIFIED CABIN LOCAL ROAD/TRAIL PROJECT TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA) !(S SWEATLODGE WATERCOURSE EEE HARVESTING AREA TERRESTRIAL REGIONAL STUDY AREA (RSA) EEE TAILINGS POND MOOSA CROSSOVER EEE OTHER USE AREA EEE WATERBODY EEE EEE TRAPPING AREA TITLE TRADITIONAL LAND USE NOTE IN THE TERRESTRIAL RSA AND LSA *MOOSA CROSSOVER CENTRELINE 20121102 REFERENCE PROJECT 12-1334-0055 FILE No. ROADS OBTAINED FROM GEOBASE®. HYDROLOGY OBTAINED FROM ALTALIS, MODIFIED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. DESIGN CL 13 Mar. 2013 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 HAMLETS AND REGISTERED FUR MANAGEMENT AREAS OBTAINED FROM IHS ENERGY INC. TRADITIONAL LAND USE GIS AB 11 Jun. 2013 FEATURES OBTAINED FROM SUNCOR ENERGY 2003. SUNCOR ENERGY INC. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SUNCOR CHECK KM 11 Jun. 2013 SOUTH TAILING POND PROJECT - TRADITIONAL LAND USE BASELINE. FIGURE: 5.14-1 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12N DATUM: NAD 83 REVIEW CC 11 Jun. 2013 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

A Project-specific screening report was prepared by FMFN468 (FMFN468 2013), which indicated that:

“The Project is located entirely within [FMFN468]’s Traditional Territory… It is noted that in the direct vicinity of the proposed Project area there is a limited amount of TK/TLU data available and/or documented. However, it should be noted that the absence of data does not mean the absence of value or use… The Project is proposed in an area that is already developed with existing industrial activities. Furthermore, the Project will parallel an existing ROW. It is likely that these disturbances have already impacted [FMFN468]’s ability to use the land and resources in the immediate area.”

Traditional land use information for the other Aboriginal groups identified in Section 5.14.1 was not publicly available at the time of writing this ESA, but will be considered in Project planning, mitigation and monitoring plans as it becomes available. This section also includes a summary of concerns brought forward by Aboriginal participants in previous studies for similar projects. Access to Traditional Land and Resource Use Areas The Project is located between the communities of Fort McKay and Fort McMurray, west of the Athabasca River and Highway 63, and south of an area of intense oil sands development. The following sections will describe the documented TLU by Aboriginal groups within the terrestrial LSA and RSA.

The Community of Fort McKay has prepared maps of their Culturally-Sensitive Ecosystems (CSE), which represent the collective land use by Fort McKay First Nation and Fort McKay Métis Local #63. The CSE approach was originally developed by and described in McKillop (2002); and has been cited in subsequent reports (Dover 2010; Suncor 2007). The Fort McKay CSE map for All Traditional Uses includes furbearer trapping, bird and game harvesting, plant harvesting and fishing. The terrestrial LSA appears to overlap an area of moderate use for the Fort McKay All Traditional Uses CSE. The terrestrial RSA appears to overlap areas of low use in the south and west, and moderate use in the north and east, for the Fort McKay All Traditional Uses CSE.

The available information regarding Fort Chipewyan Métis Local #125 TLU in the region indicates that present day traditional activities carried out by community members are centered on the town of Fort Chipewyan, approximately 200 km north of the terrestrial RSA (AOSC 2009). The mapped information for Conklin Métis Local #193 is mainly concentrated in the Winefred and Christina Lakes area, approximately 150 to 175 km to the south of the terrestrial RSA (MEG 2009). Métis groups in the area typically practice TLU within an area extending as far as a 165 miles radius (266 km radius) around their population centre (for example, Willow Lake Métis Local #780 members may hunt within a 165 mile / 266 km radius around the community of Anzac). By this definition, the Project may be within a larger traditional-use area for Métis groups. However, no specific TLU sites were mapped by Métis groups within the terrestrial LSA or RSA in the literature reviewed, with the exception of FMML1935, as described in the following sections. Trapping Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMA, or traplines, are introduced in Section 5.12 (Human Occupancy and Resource Use). Traplines 2156, 587 and 1790 were mapped for the Suncor Voyageur South Project (Golder 2007). The traditional-use areas mapped by the trapline holders in 2007 are shown in Figure 5.14-1. Specific areas used for trapping were mapped within RFMA 2156 (overlapping the terrestrial LSA and RSA), within RFMA 587 overlapping the terrestrial RSA), and within RFMA 1790 (appears to be south of the terrestrial RSA), as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-61

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

The Fort McKay Furbearer Harvesting CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA overlaps an area of moderate to intense use (Dover 2010). The terrestrial RSA overlaps areas of moderate use in the south and west, and intense use in the north and east. The traditional trapping areas of the ACFN, as depicted in the baseline report for the Horizon Project (Canadian Natural 2002), are located outside the terrestrial RSA, to the east of the Athabasca River and north of the terrestrial RSA on both sides of the Athabasca River. The trapping areas of the MCFN have been mapped in PACTeam (2007), extending from Anzac in the south, along the Athabasca River and throughout the Birch Mountains, indicating that the terrestrial LSA and RSA are located within a larger area which may be used by MCFN members for trapping. The MCFN traditional land users interviewed for the Calliou study (2010) identified muskrat as an important species which is trapped in winter (Calliou 2010). Good muskrat habitat was described as “having water, bulrush, weeds and muskeg” (Calliou 2010). A list of trapped species is presented in Table 5.15-1, and includes cougar (Puma concolor). Mikisew Cree First Nations traditional land users have identified the Birch Mountains, located to the northwest of the terrestrial RSA, as “ideal cougar habitat” (Calliou 2010).

Furbearer trapping by FMFN468 traditional land users has been mapped in FMFN468 (2006), and indicates that trapping areas are generally concentrated along the confluence of the Clearwater and Athabasca Rivers, extending to the south past Wiau Lake, and to the north as far as McClelland Lake, mainly on the east side of the Athabasca River. No traditional FMFN468 trapping sites (mapped in FMFN468 2006) appear to overlap the terrestrial LSA or RSA. The trapping sites mapped by CPDFN (2007) are mainly concentrated to the south of the Clearwater River, outside the terrestrial RSA.

The trapping locations mapped by FMML1935 in the vicinity of the Project are mainly concentrated to the south of the Birch Mountain Wildland (northwest of the terrestrial RSA), and to the south of the Stony Mountain Wildland (south of the terrestrial RSA); no trapping locations within the terrestrial LSA or RSA were mapped (FMML1935 2012).

Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMA), also known as traplines, are the boundaries recognized by the Government of Alberta and used for dividing land used to harvest furbearing animals by Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal trappers. The terrestrial RSA overlaps portions of several RFMAs including RFMA 587, which is registered to a member of Fort McKay First Nation. Additional information about RFMAs is provided in Section 5.12 (Contemporary Human Occupancy and Resource Use). Hunting The Fort McKay Large Game Harvesting CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA is within an area of intense use (Dover 2010). The majority of the terrestrial RSA also overlaps an area of intense use, with a small portion of moderate use at the west end (Dover 2010). The Fort McKay Bird Harvesting CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA and RSA are both within areas of low use in the west and moderate use in the east (Dover 2010). Moose hunting areas were mapped in RFMA 2156, overlapping the terrestrial LSA and RSA, as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007).

The traditional hunting areas of the ACFN, as depicted in the baseline report for the Horizon Project (Canadian Natural 2002), are located outside the terrestrial RSA, to the east of the Athabasca River and north of the terrestrial RSA on both sides of the Athabasca River. Mikisew Cree First Nation hunters have identified the area around the Community of Fort McKay, to the north of the terrestrial RSA, as particularly good moose habitat, although in recent years the MCFN believe this has been changing (Calliou 2010).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-62

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Hunting large game by FMFN 468 traditional land users has been mapped in FMFN 468 (2006), and indicates that hunting areas are generally concentrated along the confluence of the Clearwater and Athabasca Rivers, extending to the south past Wiau Lake, and to the north as far as McClelland Lake, mainly on the east side of the Athabasca River. No traditional FMFN 468 hunting sites appear to overlap the terrestrial LSA or RSA (FMFN 2006). The bird hunting sites mapped by FMFN 468 (2006) also tend to cluster to the east of the Athabasca River and do not appear to be within the terrestrial LSA or RSA. The large game and bird hunting sites mapped by CPDFN (2007) are mainly concentrated to the south of the Clearwater River, outside the terrestrial RSA.

Traditional hunting sites mapped by FMML1935 indicate that large game species such as caribou, deer and bear may be found north of Fort McMurray to the west of Highway 63, possibly within the terrestrial LSA and RSA (FMML1935 2012). Traditional Plant Harvesting The Fort McKay Traditional Use Plant Harvesting (Berries) CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA is within an area of low to moderate use (Dover 2010). The terrestrial RSA appears to overlap areas of low use in the south and west, and intense use in the north and east, with areas of moderate use in between. The majority of berry and medicinal plant harvesting locations reported by ACFN traditional land users are located outside the terrestrial RSA along the northern extent of the Athabasca River to Lake Athabasca (ACFN 2003b). Mikisew Cree First Nation plant harvesters have indicated that traditional use plants used to be found in abundance around Fort McKay, but people today are going further north, outside the terrestrial RSA, towards Fort Chipewyan and the Embarras River to collect medicinal plants (Calliou 2010).

An area used for harvesting blueberries and mushrooms was identified and mapped within RFMA 2156 and outside the terrestrial RSA as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007). Areas used for harvesting cranberries and blueberries, as well as medicinal plants, were mapped within RFMA 587 as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007). Of these, the medicinal plant harvesting area overlaps the terrestrial RSA. An area used for harvesting blueberries and cranberries was identified and mapped within RFMA 1790, and is located outside the terrestrial RSA, as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007).

The plant harvesting zones and berry areas mapped by FMFN468 (2006) do not appear to overlap the terrestrial LSA or RSA. Berry harvesting areas mapped by CPDFN are located to the south of the Clearwater River and do not appear to overlap the terrestrial RSA (CPDFN 2007). The plant harvesting sites mapped by FMML1935 in the vicinity of the Project are concentrated along Highway 63 south of Fort McMurray, and on the east side of Highway 63, outside the terrestrial RSA (FMML1935 2012). Fishing The Fort McKay Fishing CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA is within an area of low use (Dover 2010). The terrestrial RSA appears to overlap areas of low use in the west and moderate use in the east (Dover 2010). No fishing sites were mapped by the trapline holders of RFMA 2156, 1790 or 587 (Golder 2007). The highest concentration of reported ACFN fishing sites is found outside the terrestrial RSA in the vicinity of Lake Claire in Wood Buffalo National Park, and Lake Athabasca (Canadian Natural 2002). According to the literature reviewed, no fishing sites specifically attributed to the ACFN have been identified within the terrestrial RSA. The Athabasca River, located to the east of the terrestrial RSA, was once a major source of fish for food; however, many MCFN traditional land users today feel that the river is too polluted to provide quality fish (Calliou 2010). Currently, the

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-63

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

majority of MCFN fish harvesters only consume fish from inland lakes outside the terrestrial RSA, including Gregoire Lake to the south of Fort McMurray (Calliou 2010). Fish from the Clearwater River, to the south of the terrestrial RSA, are also consumed by MCFN traditional land users (Calliou 2010). No fishing sites mapped by FMFN 468 or CPDFN traditional land users appear to overlap the terrestrial RSA (FMFN 468 2006; CPDFN 2007). Fishing sites mapped by FMML1935 traditional land users are located along the Athabasca, Clearwater and McKay Rivers, outside the terrestrial RSA (FMML1935).

Cultural Sites

The locations of one grave site, many traditional trails, five hunting camps and four potential cabins reported by traditional land users were recorded in 2002 through the trappers’ consultation process for the Horizon Project (Canadian Natural 2002). These cultural sites are all located north of the terrestrial RSA, primarily in Townships 96 and 97, Ranges 12 and 13. It appears that the camps and cabins have since been removed for the construction of Canadian Natural’s Horizon Project, but the grave site and trails may have been unaffected by the development.

Traditional use sites were mapped by the trapline holders of RFMA 2156, 1790 and 587 (Golder 2007). Four possible cabin locations were identified and mapped by traditional land users (two unverified cabin locations and one verified cabin location in RFMA 2156, and one unverified cabin location in RFMA 587) Additionally, two sweat lodges and one possible Dogrib burial site were mapped within RFMA 2156 (Golder 2007), as shown in Figure 5.14-1. Of these, only one possible cabin is located within the terrestrial RSA and none of the mapped cultural sites are located within the terrestrial LSA (Figure 5.14-1). A sweat lodge and a trail mapped within RFMA 587 appear to be within the terrestrial RSA, north of the LSA, as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007). A traditional trail mapped within RFMA 1790 is south of the terrestrial RSA, as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007).

The cultural sites identified by ACFN traditional land users in Canadian Natural (2002) appear to be located to the north of Fort McKay, north of the terrestrial RSA. The cultural sites identified by MCFN traditional land users appear to be located to the north of the terrestrial RSA, including Kearl Lake and the Birch Mountains (PACTeam 2007). The majority of the cultural sites mapped in FMFN468 (2006) are concentrated along the confluence of the Clearwater and Athabasca Rivers, to the south of Fort McMurray, and to the east of the Athabasca River. Based on the literature reviewed, no FMFN468 cultural sites appear to be within the terrestrial LSA or RSA. The cabins and trails mapped by CPDFN (2007) do not appear to be within the terrestrial LSA or RSA. Cultural sites mapped by CPDFN traditional land users tend to be concentrated to the south of the Clearwater River, outside the terrestrial RSA (CPDFN 2007). The camps and cabin locations mapped by FMML1935 are located to the east of the Athabasca River and south of Fort McMurray, outside the terrestrial RSA (FMML1935 2012). None of the traditional trails or burials mapped by FMML1935 appears to be within the terrestrial RSA (FMML1935 2012). Availability of Wildlife Lists of wildlife species typically harvested by Aboriginal traditional land users in the vicinity of the Project were compiled by cross-referencing the lists of traditional-use wildlife species provided for projects in the SAGD and oil sands regions (Cenovus 2011 and Dover 2010). The following tables identify traditional use species of furbearing animals (Table 5.14-1), hunted game species (Table 5.14-2) and birds (Table 5.14-3).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-64

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.14-1 Traditional Trapping Resources (Furbearers) Reported by Aboriginal Groups Common Name Scientific Name Badger(a) Taxidea taxus Beaver Castor canadensis Coyote Canis latrans Cougar(b) Puma concolor Fisher Martes pennant Red fox Vulpes vulpes Canada Lynx Lynx Canadensis Marten Martes Americana Mink Mustela vison Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Otter Lutra Canadensis Porcupine(a) Erethizon dorsatum Rabbit/Hare Lepus americanus Skunk Mephitis mephitis Squirrel(b) Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Weasel(c) Mustela ermine Wolf Canis lupus Wolverine Gulo gulo (a) Identified in Cenovus (2011) only. (b) Dover (2010) lists red squirrel and flying tree squirrel. (c) Dover (2010) lists least weasel, long-tailed weasel, and short-tailed weasel. Sources: Cenovus 2011; Dover 2010.

Table 5.14-2 Traditional Hunting Resources Reported by Aboriginal Groups Traditional Resource Common Name Scientific Name Barren-ground caribou(a) Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus Bison Bison bison Elk Cervus canadensis Ungulates Moose Alces alces Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus Black bear Ursus americanus Bears Grizzly bear(b) Ursus arctos horriblis (a) Identified in Cenovus (2011). (b) Identified in Dover (2010). Sources: Cenovus 2011; Dover 2010.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-65

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.14-3 Traditional Bird Resources Reported by Aboriginal Groups Common Name Scientific Name(a) Canada goose Branta canadensis Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Canvasback(b) Cormorant(b) Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Goldeneye Great blue heron Greater scaup Grebe(b) Grouse(c) Bonasa umbellus Hawk(b) Lesser scaup(b) Long-billed curlew(d) Numenius americanus Loon Gavia immer Magpie(b) Mallard duck Anas platyrhynchos Merganser(b) Owl Strigiformes Pelican (American white pelican) Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Pintail(b) Ptarmigan Lagopus leucrus Raven(b) Redhead(b) Ross' goose(b) Ruddy duck(b) Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Scoter(b) Seagull Charadriiformes Snow goose / blue goose(b) Swan(b) Teal(b) White-fronted goose(b) Whooping crane(b) (a) Where the scientific name of a species was provided in the originating report, it has been included in this table; otherwise, no scientific name has been attributed to the species. (b) Identified in Dover (2010) only. (c) Dover (2010) lists ruffed grouse, sharptail grouse and spruce grouse. (d) Identified in Cenovus (2011) only. Sources: Cenovus 2011; Dover 2010.

These species lists identify the wildlife resources currently being used by Aboriginal traditional land users in the region.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-66

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Availability of Vegetation Lists of traditional use plant species typically harvested by Aboriginal traditional land users in the vicinity of the Project were compiled by cross-referencing the lists of traditional-use plant species provided for projects in the SAGD and oil sands regions (Cenovus 2011; Dover 2010). The following tables identify traditional use species of berries (Table 5.14-4) and plants (Table 5.14-5). Table 5.14-4 Traditional Berry Resources Reported by Aboriginal Groups Common Name Scientific Name(a) Bunchberry (Dogwood)(b) Cornus Canadensis Blackberry(b) Rubus fruticosus Black current R. hudsonianum, R. Americanum Blueberry(c) Vaccinium myrtilloides Buffaloberry(c) Shepherdia canadensis Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus Cranberry (bog)(c) Vaccimun vitis-idea Dewberry(c) Gooseberry Ribes lacustre, Ribes oxyacanthoides, R. hirtellum Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Huckleberry(c) Vaccinium caespitosum, V. ovalifolium Kinnickinnik / bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Loganberry Rubus × loganobaccus Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica Mooseberry / low bush cranberry Cornus stolonifera/ Viburnum edule Raspberry Rubus idaeus Raspberry (dwarf) Rubus arcticus (also R. acaulis) Raspberry (trailing)(c) Red current Ribes triste, R. Glandulosum Rosehip Rosa acicularis, R. woodsii Saskatoon berry Amelanchier alnifolia Snowberry(c) Symphoricarpos albus, S. occidentalis Strawberry Fragaria vesca, F.virginiana (a) Where the scientific name of a species was provided in the originating report, it has been included in this table; otherwise, no scientific name has been attributed to the species. (b) Identified in Cenovus 2011 only. (c) Identified in Dover 2010. Sources: Cenovus 2011; Dover 2010.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-67

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.14-5 Plants Traditionally used by Aboriginal Groups Traditional Resource Common Name Scientific Name(a) Bracket fungus(b) Ground fungus / puffballs Lycoperdon spp. Honey mushrooms (c) Armillariella mellea Oyster mushrooms (c) Pleurotus species Fungus Pines mushrooms(c) Lactarius deliciosus Morel(c) Morchella esculenta Red touchwood fungus(b) Round fungus(c) Willow fungus Trametes suaveolens Acorns(c) Aspen poplar / trembling aspen Populus tremuloides Balsam fir Abies balsamea Black poplar(b) Populus balsamifera Birch (red) / bog birch(b) Betula glandulosa, B. pumila Birch (white) Betula papyrifera Green alder(b) Alnus viridis ssp. crispa, A. viridis Ground juniper(d) Juniperus communis Jackpine Pinus banksiana Lodgepole pine(b) Pinus contorta Trees and Shrubs Pine Pinus Red-osier dogwood / Mooseberry Cornus stolonifera River alder(b) Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia (also A. rugosa) Spruce (black) Picea mariana Spruce (white) Picea glauca Tamarack Larix laricina Water hemlock(c) Cicuta sp. or Sium suave Western mountain ash(c) Sorbus scopulina Willow Salix species. Willow (red) (c) Salix laevigata Arrow-leaved coltsfoot(c) Petasites frigidus Bastard toad-flax(c) Geocaulon lividum

(b) Schoenoplectus acutus (also Scirpus acutus), S. tabernaemontani Bullrush (also Scirpus validus), Scirpus microcarpus Common cattail Typha latifolia Chamomile Matricaria recutita Common fireweed / Great willow-herb(c) Epilobium angustifolium Common plantain Plantago major Common tall sunflower(c) Helianthus cf. nuttallii (b) Other Plants Common tansey Cow thistle(c) Sonchus asper Cow parsnip(c) Heracleum lanatum Dandelion(c) Taraxacum officinale Fiddleheads(c) Pteridium aquilinum Firewood Frog box(c) Frying pan plant(b) Harebell / bluebell Campanula rotundifolia Honeysuckle (bracted)(b) Lonicera involucrata

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-68

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.14-5 Plants Traditionally used by Aboriginal Groups (continued) Traditional Resource Common Name Scientific Name(a) Honeysuckle (fly)(b) Lonicera caerulea (also L. villosa) Honeysuckle (twining) Lonicera dioica Horsetail Equisetum spp. Labrador tea / muskeg tea Ledum groenlandicum Lichen(c) Cladina spp Lily pad(c) Nymphaea odorata Mint (wild) Mentha arvensis common mosses: Aulacomnium palustre, Brachythecium spp., (b) Drepanocladus spp., Hylocomium splendens, Pleurozium Moss schreberi, Ptilium crista-castrensis, Sphagnum spp., Tomentypnum nitens Nettle (common) Urtica dioica Northern bedstraw(b) Galium boreale Onion (wild)(c) Allium schoenoprasum Peppermint(c) Pineapple weed(c) Matricaria matricarioides Pitcher plant / Green frog plant Sarracenia purpurea Purple-stemmed aster(c) Aster puniceus Prickley rose(c) Rosa acicularis Raspberry root Rubus idaeus Other Plants (continued) Rat root / Sweet flag Acorus americanus Reindeer lichen(c) Cladina spp Rock tripe(b) Seneca root(b) Polygala senega Showy aster(b) Aster ciliolatus, A. puniceus Spreading wood fern Dryopteris expansa Stiff club moss(b) Lycopodium annotinum Sweet scented bedstraw(b) Galium triflorum Sweetgrass Hierochloe odorata Tuckahoe (b) Twisted stalk(b) Streptopus amplexifolius Western dock(b) Rumex occidentalis Western wood lily(c) Lilium philadelphicum var. andinum Water parsnip(c) Cicuta sp. or Sium suave Wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis White yarrow / Whiteflower / Whitestern (c) Achillea millefolium flower Wintergreen (creeping) Gaultheria hispidula Wintergreen (common pink) Pyrola asarifolia Wintergreen (white) Pyrola elliptica Yarrow (common) Achillea millefolium (a) Where the scientific name of a species was provided in the originating report, it has been included in this table; otherwise, no scientific name has been attributed to the species. (b) Identified in Dover 2010 only. (c) Identified in Cenovus 2011 only. (d) Dover 2010 lists common juniper. Sources: Cenovus 2011; Dover 2010.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-69

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

These species lists provide baseline information about the berry and plant resources currently being used by Aboriginal traditional land users in the region. Availability of Fish Lists of traditionally harvested species of fish in the vicinity of the Project were compiled by cross-referencing the lists of traditional-use fish species provided for projects in the SAGD and oil sands regions (Cenovus 2011 and Dover 2010). Traditional use species of fish are listed in Table 5.14-6.

Table 5.14-6 Traditionally Fished Resources Reported by Aboriginal Groups Species (Local Names) Scientific Name Lake chub Couesius plumbeus Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Grayling / Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush Burbot (Mariah, Catfish, Lingcod) Lota lota Minnows(a) Phoxinus phoxinus Northern pike (Jackfish) Esox Lucius Walleye (Pickerel) Sander vitreus Yellow perch (Perch) Perca flavescens Sucker Catostomus spp. Cisco (Tulaby, Tullibee)(b) Coregonus artedi Lake whitefish (Whitefish) Coregonus clupeaformis (a) Identified in Dover 2010 only. (b) Identified in Cenovus 2011 only. Sources: Cenovus 2011; Dover 2010.

This species list provides baseline information about the fish resources currently being used by Aboriginal traditional land users in the region. Culturally Important Sites Based on the literature reviewed, no culturally important sites were identified within the terrestrial LSA. Figure 5.14-1 shows the cultural sites mapped by trapline holders within the terrestrial RSA. Possible cultural sites within the terrestrial RSA include: two trails, one cabin and one sweat lodge. It is important to note that the trapline holder of RFMA #1790 has changed since TLU was mapped in 2007 (Golder 2007). As more information becomes available about cultural activities in the vicinity of the Project, it will be considered in Project planning. Summary of Traditional Land and Resource Use The Community of Fort McKay may use land for traditional purposes near the Project. In general, however, Fort McKay traditional land use for all traditional resources tends to be more intense closer to Fort McKay, north and east of the terrestrial LSA and RSA, and less intense moving to the south and west. Published studies have not identified any TLU sites within the terrestrial LSA or RSA used by Conklin Métis Local #193 or Fort Chipewyan Métis Local #125. No public information was available regarding Fort McMurray Métis Local #2020 or Willow Lake Métis Local #780 TLU at the time of writing this report.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-70

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

The terrestrial LSA is located within an area of moderate to intense use for traditional trapping by members of the Community of Fort McKay, and within the boundaries of RFMA 587, which is registered to a member of Fort McKay First Nation. Specific areas used for trapping were mapped within RFMA 2156 (overlapping the terrestrial LSA and RSA), within RFMA 587 overlapping the terrestrial RSA, and within RFMA 1790 (outside the terrestrial RSA), as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007). ACFN traditional trapping appears to occur outside the terrestrial RSA, to the north and east. The terrestrial LSA and RSA appear to be situated within a larger area used by MCFN members for trapping. The trapping sites mapped by members of CPDFN, FMFN 468 and FMML1935 appear to be outside the terrestrial LSA and RSA.

The Large Game Harvesting CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA may be within an area of intense use by Fort McKay traditional land users, while the Bird Harvesting CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA is within an area of low use in the west and moderate use in the east. Moose hunting areas overlapping the terrestrial LSA and RSA were mapped within RFMA 2156, as shown in Figure 5.14-1 (Golder 2007). Traditional hunting sites mapped by FMML1935 indicate that large game species such as caribou, deer and bear may be found north of Fort McMurray to the west of Highway 63, possibly within the terrestrial LSA or RSA (FMML1935 2012). Based on the literature reviewed, specific sites for traditional hunting by members of ACFN, MCFN, CPDFN and FMFN468 have not been identified or mapped.

The Traditional Use Plant Harvesting (Berries) CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA is within an area of low to moderate use. No traditional plant harvesting sites were identified to be within the terrestrial LSA by ACFN, MCFN, FMFN 468, CPDFN or FMML1935 traditional land users, or by the trapline holder of RFMA 2156, in the literature reviewed. Traditional plant harvesting sites that may overlap the terrestrial RSA were identified and mapped by trapline holders of RFMA 2156, 1790 and 587 (Figure 5.14-1).

The Fort McKay Fishing CSE indicates that the terrestrial LSA is within an area of low use. No fishing sites were identified to be within the terrestrial RSA by Aboriginal traditional land users in the literature cited.

Based on the literature reviewed, no cultural sites were identified to be within the terrestrial LSA by Aboriginal traditional land users. Some cultural sites were identified to be within the terrestrial RSA by trapline holders (Figure 5.14-1). These include: one cabin location (RFMA 2156); one sweat lodge and one trail (RFMA 587); and one trail (RFMA 1790). Aboriginal Concerns Based on the literature review, members of Aboriginal groups have expressed concerns about the availability of, and access to, resources for traditional uses, and the effect of specific projects and development in general, on environmental resources in the region. The following general concerns have been expressed in previously published studies, not specific to this Project:  moose is an important food resource valued by all Aboriginal groups in the area; concern about moose health and the conservation of moose habitat;  the potential adverse effect on water quality at watercourse crossings, and in general Aboriginal groups would like to receive maps and descriptions of the crossing techniques used at watercourses;  the overall health of the ecosystem, including culturally-important species such as caribou and birds; and  a desire to be involved in field work opportunities and to provide opportunities for youth and Elders.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-71

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.15 Quality of Life This section presents a description of the existing conditions relating to quality of life in the socio-economic study area. Based on experience from previous social assessments, a review of assessments conducted for similar projects and public consultation conducted by TransCanada, it is anticipated that the socio-cultural concerns of local residents relate to potential disruptions to quality of life, such as an increased presence of transient workers, increase in traffic and associated noise during construction activities, and water supply and quality.

Traditional culture of Aboriginal groups in the socio-economic study area is discussed in the Traditional Land and Resource Use section (Section 5.14). 5.15.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods As described in Human Occupancy and Resource Use (Section 5.12), a desktop review was conducted to collect information regarding indicators of quality of life in the socio-economic study area. 5.15.2 Baseline Conditions Section 5.12.2 describes the population of the socio-economic study area. The transient workforce in the socio- economic study area is large. Of the total RMWB population (116,407), 34% (39,271) are housed in project accommodations. An additional 2% (2,505) are considered part of the shadow population (i.e., population temporarily residing in a location for employment purposes) residing in hotels, campgrounds and other temporary accommodations in Fort McMurray.

Traffic in the socio-economic study area is concentrated along Highways 881 and 63. Highway 63 is used to access the RMWB from the nearest large population centre, Edmonton, and continues north from Fort McMurray. Section 5.17 discusses traffic volumes on roads in the socio-economic study area that have the potential to interact with Project traffic. Section 5.11 described the baseline noise conditions in the acoustic environment LSA.

Section 5.5 describes baseline water quality and quantity conditions in the aquatic LSA. 5.16 Human Health This section presents a description of the existing conditions relating to human health in the socio-economic study area. Based on professional social assessment experience, a review of assessments conducted for similar Projects and consultation conducted by NGTL, it is anticipated that potential effects to human health as a result of the Project are related air quality, surface water quality, and traffic accidents. 5.16.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods As described in Human Occupancy and Resource Use (Section 5.12), a desktop review was conducted to collect information regarding indicators of human health in the socio-economic study area. 5.16.2 Baseline Conditions Due to the Project location, the main groups potentially affected by the Project with respect to human health are those hunting, fishing and trapping within the resource use LSA, and commuters using Highway 63. Traffic accidents have the potential to result in bodily harm or loss of life, and so have also been discussed below.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-72

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

The number of traffic accidents has declined in the socio-economic study area over the past two years. In rural areas, the total number of vehicle collisions was 54, a 10% reduction from 2010 to 2011. In Fort McMurray, the number of collisions fell by 24% to 13 over the same period (Devon 2012). The Government of Alberta has committed to twinning Highway 63 by 2016 (Government of Alberta 2012b). This is expected to partially mitigate potential for collisions on the busy highway. Inadvertent leaks and spills from vehicles or equipment may also occur during construction, potentially resulting in soil or water contamination as well as adversely affecting the health of workers present.

An assessment of the current air quality in the Project area is provided in Section 5.10 (Air Quality).

Information regarding the existing measured conditions of water quality is presented in Section 5.5 (Water Quality and Quantity). 5.17 Infrastructure and Services The Project workforce has the potential to increase demand on infrastructure and services. This section describes infrastructure and services in the socio-economic study area, including transportation and traffic, education facilities, emergency and health care services, protective services, waste and water management, commercial accommodations and recreational services. 5.17.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods A desktop review was conducted to collect baseline information for the study area. The following data sources were reviewed:  Government of Alberta Transportation website;  Websites pertaining to transportation services in the socio-economic study area;  Alberta Energy Electronic Transfer System Search for disposition holders;  Municipal websites (RMWB and Fort McMurray);  School District websites;  Regional Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), fire and emergency management websites; and  Waste management service provider websites. 5.17.2 Baseline Conditions Transportation and Traffic The socio-economic study area is accessible from Provincial Highways 63 and 881. Highway 63 will be used to access the Project. Canadian National Railway Company operates a rail line that extends from Lac la Biche to Fort McMurray. The Fort McMurray Airport is the primary hub for air transportation in the socio-economic study area.

Traffic volume statistics are available from Alberta Transportation (2013) for Highway 63. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes for key locations along the Highway are shown in Table 5.17-1. Locations were chosen to capture traffic entering Fort McMurray from the south, traffic entering Fort McMurray from the airport, traffic exiting Fort McMurray to the north, and traffic continuing to Fort McKay. The largest volume of traffic is at

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-73

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

the Highway 63–Confederation Way intersection in Fort McMurray, with 25,540 vehicles traversing daily. The largest proportional increases in traffic, however, is at the junction of Highways 63 and 69 (the latter of which leads to the airport) and on Highway 63 south and north of Fort McKay. Traffic at these points has increased by 34.2%, 36.1% and 77.3%, respectively, suggesting an increasing trend of airport-related traffic, and traffic travelling through Fort McKay.

Table 5.17-1 2012 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on Highway 63 % Change Highway and Location AADT for 2008 AADT for 20010 AADT for 2012 2008 to 2012 Highway 63 S of Highway 69 at Fort McMurray 8,580 7,620 10,540 22.8 Highway 63 N of Highway 69 at Fort McMurray 11,270 11,800 15,120 34.2 Highway 63 N of Confederation Way in Fort McMurray 23,070 23,620 25,540 10.7 Highway 63 S of Fort MacKay 7,200 9,120 9,800 36.1 Highway 63 N of Fort MacKay 4,840 8,250 8,580 77.3 Source: Alberta Transportation 2013.

There are no primary or secondary highways leading to the Project; local range roads, industry access roads, existing pipeline ROW and the Project ROW will be used to access the Project during construction and operation (Figure 1.0-1). Utilities and Waste Management All required utilities are available to residents of the RMWB. ATCO provides both electricity and natural gas to homes and facilities in the RMWB, and Telus provides telephone services. The RMWB sources municipal water from the Athabasca River, and provides water and sewage treatment via an aerated lagoon. The RMWB provides weekly curb-side garbage collection to Fort McMurray residents. The municipal landfill is located 8.5 km south of Fort McMurray, and is accessible by Highway 63. Curb-side recycling programs are available in Fort McMurray, and there are several recycling depots throughout the Urban Service Area (RMWB 2012). Emergency and Protective Services Emergency services in the RMWB are provided by the RMWB Regional Emergency Services. The Regional Emergency Services provides emergency medical response, fire and fire prevention services, and maintains four fire halls in Fort McMurray, and five volunteer firefighter departments in Conklin, Anzac, Saprae Creek, Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan (RMWB 2013a). A total of 129 full-time firefighters and 90 volunteer fire fighters are staffed by the Regional Emergency Services. Currently, the Regional Emergency Services’ resources are adequate to meet demand, however this may change in years to come as the regional population continues to grow (Devon 2012).

Protective services in the RMWB are provided by the RCMP. Based out of Fort McMurray, the RMWB RCMP detachment currently has 95 officers and 30 support staff. Bylaw services are under the direct supervision of the RCMP, and have 16 officers and three support staff (RMWB 2013b). Health and Education Services and Infrastructure Healthcare services in the RMWB are provided by Alberta Health Services through the Northern Lights Regional Health Centre. The centre is a full service hospital with acute and continuing care, diagnostics, mental health services, ambulatory care, surgery, rehabilitation, home care and community health services (Alberta Health Services 2013). Other healthcare agencies operating in the RMWB include the Canadian Mental Health

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-74

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Association, the Wood Buffalo HIV/Aids Society, the Wood Buffalo Health Advisory Council and the Fort McMurray SOS Crisis Line (RMWB 2013c). The Fort McKay Health and Human Services department operates a health centre with a permanent staff of one physician and one nurse, and additional part-time staff including physiotherapists and mental health practitioners. The centre offers primary care, public health, prenatal visits, mental health therapy, physiotherapy, geriatric/palliative care and diagnostics (Fort McKay 2013a).

The Fort McMurray Public School District has more than 300 teachers and nearly 300 support staff providing education to over 5,000 students. The district has a kindergarten to Grade 6 elementary school, two Grade 9-12 high schools, eight kindergarten to Grade 8 elementary–junior high schools and the Frank Spraggins Alternative School. French immersion is offered in schools from kindergarten to Grade 8 (RMWB 2013d).

The Fort McMurray Catholic School District serves over 4,200 students in nine schools. The Ecole St. Paul French Immersion Centre and Holy Trinity Catholic High School offers French immersion programs from kindergarten to Grade 12 (RMWB 2013d).

Ecole Boreal is the only completely francophone school in the RMWB. The school is funded by the Alberta Government, and offer education from kindergarten to Grade 12 (RMWB 2013d).

The Fort McKay school falls within the Northland School Division No. 61. As of 2011, the school had an enrollment of 84 students in kindergarten to Grade 8, instruction being provided by nine teachers and nine paraprofessionals (Fort McKay 2013b).

Keyano College provides post-secondary education to the RMWB. The college is based in Fort McMurray, and an enrolment of over 3,000 full time students annually. The college was originally established to address the local training needs in the RMWB, and has grown to focus on educational programs relevant to the region, including EMT-A and paramedic programs (RMWB 2013d). Social and Recreation Infrastructure There are numerous parks and recreation areas throughout the socio-economic study area, including natural areas, trail systems, sporting facilities and courts, libraries, arenas and recreation centres. McDonald Island Park in Fort McMurray offers aquatics, dance, art and fitness programs, a golf course, rock climbing walls and facilities for meetings and events (MacDonald Island Park 2013). Guided sightseeing and outfitting opportunities also exist in the RMWB. Commercial Accommodation and Housing As a result of rapid population growth in Fort McMurray over the past decade, and the inability of the existing construction sector to develop real estate at a similarly rapid rate, the cost of housing and accommodations in Fort McMurray has greatly increased.

In Fort McMurray, nearly half of all houses are single family detached (47.4%). Condos (27.7%), manufactured homes (9.6%), townhomes (9.2%) and semi-detached homes (6.1%) make up the remaining 52.6%. In rural parts of the RMWB, single family detached houses make up the majority of residences (73.3%), with manufactured homes accounting for an additional 20.0%, and condos, semi-detached and townhomes making up the remaining 6.7% (RMWB 2012). The average resale price of a house in 2012 was $625,000, and is expected to increase to $642,000 in 2013 (Government of Alberta 2012).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-75

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Vacancy rates have increased in the RMWB from 3.9% in 2010, to 9.4% in 2011, while the average cost of rental units has declined by 6.9% to $1,949 in 2011 (Government of Alberta, 2012). The decrease in rental costs is likely in part a response to market conditions (i.e., the increased vacancy rate).

There are 19 hotels, ten care facilities, six campgrounds and 88 project accommodations in the RWMB that provide institutional housing for 2,619 people (RMWB 2012). Single occupancy hotel rooms in Fort McMurray range from $140 to $300 per night, and RV spots can cost between $760 and $1,200 per month (Devon 2012). 5.18 Employment and Economy This section summarizes current labour market and economic features in the socio-economic study area. Labour force activity and revenues to local, regional and national governments are the key indicators associated with employment and economy.

Features contributing to revenues include individual incomes, local and regional economic participation, and taxes paid by major capital projects. Labour force activity features include employment, unemployment and participation rates. Participation in the labour force is affected by educational attainment, as skilled labour positions related to pipeline construction require the completion of high school and, potentially, the possession of a trade or apprenticeship certificate. These contributing socio-economic features are not considered indicators, but relevant information is provided to support discussion of baseline conditions. 5.18.1 Baseline Setting Data Collection Methods The following data sources were examined to describe the existing labour market and economy in the socio- economic study area:  Government of Alberta website; and  Statistics Canada Census Community Profiles. Labour force data presented in the RMWB 2012 census has not been extrapolated to represent the entire working-age population in the RM, and so has not been considered in this baseline discussion. Labour force information from the 2011 Statistics Canada census was not available at the time of the baseline studies. The most current publicly available information on labour force in the RMWB is from the 2006 Statistics Canada census. Select labour force characteristics related to employment are available from Statistics Canada for the year 2010, and have been included for comparative purposes. Data for communities in the RMWB is not disaggregated in the 2006 census. As such, the discussion of labour force activity, educational attainment and individual incomes is presented at a regional scale.

Statistics Canada does not report census economic information on small communities in the interest of maintaining the anonymity and confidentiality of the residents. The Indian Reserves (IRs) that can be reasonably expected to have some interaction with the Project fall into this category. Thus, data from the Aboriginal community (IRs) profiles developed from the 2006 census is also presented at the regional level.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-76

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

5.18.2 Baseline Conditions Labour Force Activity The study area had a labour force participation rate of 82.3% and an unemployment rate of 4.0% in 2006 as shown in Table 5.18-1. The study area population is highly experienced in the construction and resource-based industries, with over half of both the rural and urban populations employed in these industries. Skilled labour for the Project is expected to be drawn from Fort McMurray, or potentially other large population centres such as Edmonton. Project labour might also be drawn from the smaller communities located closer to the Project (e.g., Fort McKay). Since 2006, both the participation rate and the unemployment rate have increased in the RMWB, suggesting that there are fewer people aged 15 and over in the region who are not participating in the labour force (e.g., retirees, individuals with disabilities impeding their ability to participate in the labour force). An increased participation rate can also increase competition for jobs, and subsequently affect unemployment rates. This is not likely the cause of increased unemployment rates in the RMWB, however, given the abundance of jobs in the oil and gas industry, and the service industry that supports the rapidly expanding population in the region.

Table 5.18-1 Labour Force Activity in 2006 and 2010 in the Socio-Economic Study Area Population In the Labour Participation Rate Unemployment Rate Community Employed Unemployed Age 15 and Over Force [%] [%] RMWB, 2006 41,055(a) 33,790 32,440 1,350 82.3 4.0 RMWB, 2010 56,200 37,100 35,700 1,400 84.7 4.8 Alberta 2,625,140 1,942,820 1,859,965 82,860 70.9 4.3 (a) The shadow population in Fort McMurray and outside of the Fort McMurray region is not included in the 2006 Census data. Source: Statistics Canada 2007a, 2010.

The labour force activity for the Aboriginal population aged 15 and over in the socio-economic study area for 2006 is presented in Table 5.18-2. The unemployment rate for the Aboriginal population in the study area (7.9%) was less than the unemployment rate for the Alberta Aboriginal population (11.1%) (Table 5.18-2). The participation rate of the Aboriginal population in the socio-economic study area (76.0%) was higher than both the participation rate for the Alberta Aboriginal population (68.3%), and the Alberta population as a whole (70.9%) (Tables 5.18-1 and 5.18-2). As with the general population in the socio-economic study area, high participation rates in the Aboriginal population are linked to the abundance of accessible jobs in the oil and gas and service industries. Table 5.18-2 Labour Force Activity in 2006 in the Aboriginal Population in the Socio-Economic Study Area Compared to Alberta

Population In the Labour Participation Rate Unemployment Rate Community Employed Unemployed Age 15 and Over Force [%] [%] RMWB 4,070 3,095 2,845 245 76.0 7.9 Alberta 129,745 88,655 78,845 9,810 68.3 11.1 Source: Statistics Canada 2007b.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-77

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Educational Attainment In 2006, the portion of the socio-economic study area population without a certificate or diploma (19.8%) was lower than the provincial average (23.4%). Nearly a quarter (24.7%) of the population aged 15 and over in the study area reported that their highest level of educational attainment was a high school diploma or certificate (Statistics Canada 2007a) (Table 5.18-3). In addition, 18.2% of the population aged 15 and over held a trades certificate or diploma, which was higher than the provincial rate (10.9%). The socio-economic study area population with a university certificate or degree (12.9%) was lower than the provincial rate (17.5%). In contrast, those in the socio-economic study area with a college or non-university certificate (20.5%) was higher than the provincial rate (18.0%).

Table 5.18-3 Educational Attainment in 2006 in the Socio-economic Study Area Compared to Alberta Apprenticeship College or Other University High School No Certificate, or Trades Non-University Certificate, Population Certificate or Community Diploma Certificate or Certificate or Diploma or Age 15 and Over Equivalent [%] Diploma Diploma Degree [%] [%] [%] [%] RMWB 41,055 19.8 24.7 18.2 20.5 12.9 Alberta 2,625,145 23.4 26.2 10.9 18.0 17.5 (a) The shadow population in Fort McMurray and outside of the Fort McMurray region is not included in the 2006 Census data. Source: Statistics Canada 2007a.

The educational attainment level of the Aboriginal population aged 15 and over in 2006 in the socio-economic study area is presented in Table 5.18-4. The number of Aboriginal residents without a certificate or diploma (33.3%) was noticeably lower than that of the Alberta Aboriginal population overall (44.3%), whereas high school diploma attainment rates were higher for Aboriginal residents within the socio-economic study area (i.e., 26.1%) than for the Alberta Aboriginal population overall (21.4%) (Table 5.18-4). The Aboriginal population in the socio- economic study area is characterized by higher levels of technical training, with trade and college diploma attainment rates (17.7% and 17.1%, respectively) surpassing those identified for the provincial Aboriginal population (11.5% and 15.2%, respectively). This is largely driven by high demand for trades and skilled labour in the region’s oil and gas industry. University degree completion by Aboriginal people was; however, lower in the RMWB than the province (5.8% versus 7.7%). Table 5.18-4 Educational Attainment of the Aboriginal Population in 2006 in the Socio-Economic Study Area Apprenticeship College or Other University High School No Certificate, or Trades Non-University Certificate, Population Certificate or Community Diploma Certificate or Certificate or Diploma or Age 15 and Over Equivalent [%] Diploma Diploma Degree [%] [%] [%] [%] RMWB 4,065 33.3 26.1 17.7 17.1 5.8 Alberta 129,745 44.3 21.4 11.5 15.2 7.7 Source: Statistics Canada 2007b.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-78

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Personal Income In 2005, the population in socio-economic study area aged 15 and over had a higher median income ($43,920) and change in median income ($13,473) over the previous five years compared to the province ($28,896 and $5,871, respectively) (Table 5.18-5). The median income and change in median income over the five year period for the Aboriginal population in the study area, was similarly high ($38,322 and $18,144, respectively) than when compared to both the provincial Aboriginal population ($18,335 and $4,898, respectively), and the general provincial population (Table 5.18-6). This pattern is largely influenced by employment in the oil and gas industry (Statistics Canada 2007a and 2007b).

Table 5.18-5 Personal Income in 2005 in the Socio-Economic Study Area Median Income, Persons 15 Years Change in Median Income from 2000, Persons 15 Years and Over with Community and Over Persons 15 Years and Over Income [$] [$] RMWB(a) 39,435 43,920 13,473 Alberta 2,514,665 28,896 5,871 (a) The shadow population in Fort McMurray and outside of the Fort McMurray region is not included in the 2006 Census data. Source: Statistics Canada 2007a.

Table 5.18-6 Personal Income of the Aboriginal Population in 2005 in the Socio-Economic Study Area Median Income, Persons 15 Years Change in Median Income from 2000, Persons 15 Years and Over with Community and Over Persons 15 Years and Over Income [$] [$] RMWB 3,875 38,322 18,144 Alberta 121,110 18,335 4,898 Source: Statistics Canada 2007b.

Major Capital Projects The major industries in the socio-economic study area include oil and gas, infrastructure construction, and pipelines (Government of Alberta 2013). A list of the major proposed and approved projects (those over $5 million in capital expenditures) in the RMWB is presented in Table 5.18-7. Projects in the region do not only create jobs but also contribute to municipal revenues and the RMWB economy as a whole. As of March 2013, oil sands and pipeline projects, such as this Project, comprised nearly 98% of all projects proposed in the region, approved or under construction in the socio-economic study area, with a total estimated capital cost of $103.5 billion (Government of Alberta 2013).

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-79

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.18-7 Major Proposed and Approved Projects in the Socio-economic Study Area Cost Construction Company Name Project Description [M $] Schedule Commercial/Retail Melcor Development 'Stonecreek Village' Retail/Commercial Development 30.0 2012-2014 Forestry Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Prairie Loop Blvd Contract 3 Phase 1 13.7 2013-2014 Infrastructure Alberta Transportation Highway 63 Twinning 1,100.0 2013-2016 Fort McMurray Regional Airport Authority Fort McMurray Airport Upgrade / Expansion 198.0 2011-2014 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Athabasca Water Treatment Plant Upgrades 161.5 2010-2013 Enbridge Inc. / Keyera Corp. South Cheecham Rail And Truck Terminal Phase 1 90.0 2012-2013 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Lower Townsite Redevelopment 60.0 2011-2013 Alberta Transportation Highway 63 Grade, Base And Pave - Fort McMurray 51.6 2011-2013 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Saline Creek Sanitary Outfall/Waterline Contract 3 38.2 2013-2013 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo South Operations Centre, Ft. McMurray 36.0 2012-2013 Fort McMurray Airport Authority Airport Expansion / Redevelopment Site Works 35.0 2011-2014 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Saline Creek Drive And Bridge Project Phase 1 34.0 2012-2013 Alberta Transportation Hwy 63 Grading Algar Tower To Horse Creek 33.0 2013-2013 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo 2011 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Abasand Heights 24.0 2011-2013 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Mackay River Replacement Bridge 23.6 2012-2013 Alberta Transportation Highway 63 Southbound Bridge Replacement 23.3 2011-2014 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Saline Creek Supply Line, Water Treatment Plant 15.5 2010-2013 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo RCMP Holding Cell And Traffic Operations Facility 15.3 2012-2013 Alberta Transportation Hwy 63 Grading N Of Mariana Lake 15.0 2013-2013 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Septage Receiving Station 14.5 2012-2013 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Airport Sewer Servicing 12.5 2012-2013 Alberta Infrastructure Parsons Creek Roadway Construction Phase 2 12.0 2012-2013 Alberta Social Housing Corp. Parsons Creek Road Construction Stage 1 10.0 Proposed Alberta Transportation Parson's Creek Interchange Utility Corridor 9.5 2012-2012 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Regional Landfill Cells 2, 3 And Stockpile Pad 8.0 Proposed Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Saline Creek Trunk Sewer 7.6 Proposed Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Firebag Bridge Replacement, Ft Chipewyan 7.3 2013-2013 Alberta Transportation Highway 63 Passing Lanes 7.1 2012-2013 Institutional Alberta Infrastructure Fort McMurray Continuing Care Centre 50.0 2012-2014 Alberta Education* Two New Schools (K To Grade 6), Ft. McMurray 32.8 2013-2014 Alberta Infrastructure Community Health Centre, Parsons Creek 28.2 2012-2015 Keyano College Power Engineering / Process Operator Power Lab 22.0 2012-2013 Alberta Infrastructure Northern Lights Regional Health Centre Emergency A 13.0 2011-2014 Alberta Education* Modernization, Fort McMurray Composite 9.0 2012-2014 Oil Sands Teck Coal Ltd. 'Frontier' Oil Sands Mine Phases 1 And 2 14,500.0 Proposed Suncor Energy Inc./Total SA 'Voyageur' Oil Sands Upgrader 11,600.0 On Hold Fort Hills Energy Corp. (Suncor Energy Inc./Total SA/ 'Fort Hills' Oil Sands Mine 9,600.0 Proposed Teck Cominco) Imperial Oil Ltd. 'Kearl Lake' Oil Sands Project Phase 2 Of 2 8,900.0 2011-2014 Total E&P Canada Ltd. / Suncor Energy Inc. Joslyn North Mine 8,900.0 2013-2017

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-80

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.18-7 Major Proposed and Approved Projects in the Socio-economic Study Area (continued) Cost Construction Company Name Project Description [M $] Schedule Suncor Energy Inc. 'Voyageur South' Oil Sands Mining Operation 4,400.0 Proposed Syncrude Canada Ltd. Two New Mine Trains, Mildred Lake Mine Site 3,600.0 2012-2014 Husky Energy Inc. / BP PLC 'Sunrise Thermal Project' SAGD Oil Sands Project 2,700.0 2011-2014 Dover Operating Corp. (Dover OPCO) 'Dover' Commercial Oil Sands Project Phase 1 2,500.0 Proposed Teck Coal Ltd. 'Equinox' Oil Sands Mine (Lease 14) 2,500.0 Proposed ConocoPhillips Canada / Total Canada 'Surmont Phase 2' Oil Sands Development 2,000.0 2010-2015 Shell Canada Ltd. Athabasca Oil Sands Project Debottleneck 2,000.0 Proposed Syncrude Canada Ltd. Centrifuge Plant For Mature Fine Tailings Process 1,900.0 2014-2015 Cenovus Energy Inc. / ConocoPhillips 'Narrows Lake' In Situ Oil Sands Project 1,600.0 2013-2017 Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (Canadian Natural) 'Project Horizon' Mining And Drilling Project 1,550.0 2012-2015 Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited (JACOS) / Nexen Hangingstone SAGD Commercial Production Project 1,400.0 2013-2016 Inc. MEG Energy Corp. In Situ Oil Sands Project Phase 2b 1,400.0 2011-2013 Cretaceous Oilsands Holdings Ltd. (previously listed 'Mackay River' Oil Sands Project Phase 1 1,300.0 2012-2014 under Dover Operating Corp. [/MacKay OPCO]) Ivanhoe Energy 'Tamarack' Bitumen Project Phase 1 1,250.0 2012-2013 Southern Pacific Resources Corp. 'McKay' SAGD Project Phases 2A And 2B 1,140.0 2013-2016 Cenovus Energy Inc. 'Telephone Lake ' SAGD Project Phase 1 (Phase A) 1,000.0 2014-2018 Connacher Oil & Gas Ltd. 'Great Divide' SAGD Expansion Phase 1 600.0 Proposed Harvest Energy Corp. 'BlackGold' Oil Sands Project Phase 2 540.0 2013-2015 Athabasca Oil Corp. Hangingstone Oil Sands Phase 1 536.0 2013-2014 Marathon Oil Canada Corp. 'Birchwood' SAGD Oil Sands Project 510.0 2013-2015 Williams Energy Bitumen Liquids Extraction Plant 500.0 Proposed MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake SAGD Project Phase 3 500.0 Proposed Sunshine Oilsands 'West Ells' Oil Sands Project Phase 1 Of 2 480.0 2012-2013 Grizzly Oil Sands ULC 'Thickwood' SAGD OIL SANDS PROJECT 420.0 Proposed Alberta Oilsands Inc. 'Clearwater West' SAGD Production Phase 1 415.0 Proposed Syncrude Canada Ltd. Composite Tailings Plant, Aurora North Mine Site 300.0 2012-2013 Grizzly Oil Sands ULC 'May River' Commercial Bitumen Project Phase 1 250.0 Proposed Grizzly Oil Sands ULC 'Algar Lake' SAGD Oil Sands Project Phase 1 220.0 2012-2013 Enbridge Inc. Tankage Expansion 150.0 2012-2013 Horizon North Logistics Inc. Work Camp (Dormitory Complex) 140.0 2012-2014 Nexen Inc. 'Kinosis' Oil Sands Project Phase 1a 100.0 2012-2014 Oak Point Energy Ltd. 'Lewis' SAGD OIL SANDS PROJECT 65.0 2013-2014 'Hangingstone' OIL SANDS PHASE1 Athabasca Oil Corp. 27.0 2013-2014 INFRASTRUCTURE Horizon North Logistics Inc. Oil Sands Work Camp 27.0 2012-2013 Pipelines Grand Rapids Pipeline Limited Partnership 'Grand Rapids' Dual Pipeline 3,000.0 Proposed Enbridge Inc. 'Athabasca' Oil Pipeline Twinning 1,200.0 2013-2015 Inter Pipeline Fund Cold Lake Pipeline Expansion 1,100.0 2013-2016 MEG Energy Corp. / Devon NEC Corp. 'Access' Pipeline Expansion 1,000.0 2013-2014 Enbridge Inc. 'Woodland' Pipeline Extension 1,000.0 2013-2014 Inter Pipeline Fund Polaris Pipeline System Expansion 1,000.0 Proposed Enbridge Inc. 'Wood Buffalo' Crude Oil Pipeline 370.0 2011-2013 Enbridge Inc. 'Hangingstone' CONNECTOR PIPELINE 200.0 2014-2015

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-81

MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT ESA

Table 5.18-7 Major Proposed and Approved Projects in the Socio-economic Study Area (continued) Cost Construction Company Name Project Description [M $] Schedule Inter Pipeline Fund Polaris Expansion Christina Lake Extension 200.0 2013-2016 Enbridge Inc. 'Athabasca' Pipeline Capacity Expansion 185.0 2012-2013 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Leismer To Kettle River Crossover Project 157.0 2012-2013 Inter Pipeline Fund Polaris Expansion Foster Creek Connection 75.0 2013-2016 Inter Pipeline Fund Polaris Expansion Narrows Lake Connection 72.0 2013-2016 Inter Pipeline Fund Pipeline Metering Facility 8.0 2012-2013 Residential Fort McMurray Family Crisis Society Apartment Building 50.0 2013-2014 Tourism/Recreation Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo / Macdonald Shell Place (Macdonald Island Park Expansion) 107.9 2012-2014 Island Park Corp. Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Performing Arts Centre, Macdonald Island Park 10.0 Proposed Total 103,496.1 Source: Government of Alberta 2013.

June 2013 Report No. 1213340055/6000/6001 5-82