Great Bear River Bridge Construction Geotechnical and Granular Materials Investigation Project Description Report

Government of the Northwest Territories – Department of Infrastructure

January 2019

Table of Contents 1.0 APPLICANT’S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS ...... 1 1.1 Applicant ...... 1 1.2 Contractor ...... 1 2.0 FIELD CONTACT ...... 1 3.0 OTHER PERSONNEL ...... 1 4.0 ELIGIBILITY ...... 1 4.1 Current Land Ownership ...... 1 5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2 5.1 Summary of Operation...... 2 5.1.1 Purpose, Nature and Location ...... 2 5.1.2 Access to Test Pit and Borehole Locations...... 5 5.1.3 Investigation of Sites by Drilling ...... 6 5.1.4 Investigation of Granular Prospects by Test Pits ...... 7 5.1.5 Investigation of Prospects by Geophysical Survey ...... 7 5.1.6 Investigation Data ...... 7 5.1.7 Safety ...... 8 5.2 Camps and Helicopter Landing Areas ...... 8 6.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE IMPACTS...... 9 6.1 Environment Overview ...... 9 6.1.1 Climate ...... 9 6.1.2 Terrain ...... 9 6.1.3 Water ...... 9 6.1.4 Fish ...... 9 6.1.5 Vegetation ...... 10 6.1.6 Wildlife ...... 10 6.2 Potential Impacts ...... 18 6.2.1 Air Quality ...... 18 6.2.2 Noise ...... 18 6.2.3 Climate Change ...... 19 6.2.4 Permafrost ...... 19 6.2.5 Water Quality and Quantity ...... 19 6.2.6 Hydrology ...... 20 6.2.7 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 21 6.2.8 Vegetation ...... 21 6.2.9 Wildlife ...... 21 6.2.10 General Wildlife Effect Mitigation ...... 22 6.2.11 Archaeological Resources ...... 25 6.2.12 Socio-Economic Effects ...... 25 6.2.13 Traditional Knowledge ...... 26 7.0 PROPOSED RESTORATION PLAN ...... 26 8.0 OTHER RIGHTS, LICENCE OR PERMITS ...... 27 8.1 Land Use Permit ...... 27 8.2 Water License...... 27 8.3 Solid Waste Disposal ...... 27 8.4 Access to Sahtu Lands ...... 27 8.5 Conformity Requirements, Sahtu Land Use Plan ...... 27 9.0 PROPOSED DISPOSAL METHODS ...... 29 10.0 EQUIPMENT ...... 29 11.0 FUELS ...... 31 12.0 CONTAINMENT FUEL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLANS ...... 31 13.0 METHODS OF FUEL TRANSFER ...... 32 14.0 PERIOD OF PERMIT ...... 32 15.0 LOCATION OF ACTIVITIES BY MAP COORDINATES ...... 32 16.0 FEES ...... 32 17.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ...... 32 18.0 SUPPORTING STUDIES ...... 33 18.1 Heritage and Archaeological Resources ...... 33 19.0 REFERENCES ...... 33

List of Tables Table 5-1 Proposed Sites for Investigation ...... 4 Table 6-1 Wildlife Species of Management Concern which may occur in the Project Area...... 16 Table 6-2 Wildlife Effects Mitigation ...... 23 Table 6-3 Archaeological and Heritage Resource Summary ...... 25 Table 8-1 Sahtu Land Use Plan Conformity Requirements ...... 28 Table 10-1 Equipment List and Specifications ...... 30 Table 11-1 Type, Amount and Location of Fuels and Major Tanks ...... 31

List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed Investigation Sites ...... 3

1.0 APPLICANT’S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS

1.1 Applicant Department of Infrastructure (INF) Government of the Northwest Territories P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9

Attention: Terry Brookes Manager, Transportation Phone: (867) 767-9084 ext. 31065 Email: [email protected]

1.2 Contractor INF will identify the Contractor (not yet selected) and its key contacts prior to the start of the fieldwork.

2.0 FIELD CONTACT The field supervisor and field contact numbers are not yet known.

3.0 OTHER PERSONNEL INF will use contractors, businesses and resources that are local to the Project area where possible and feasible. INF can identify specific businesses and names at the start of the fieldwork, if desired. The estimated 20 personnel that will be required will include equipment operators, drillers, laborers, camp staff and engineering/survey/environmental monitoring staff.

4.0 ELIGIBILITY INF’s eligibility for a permit is as described in Section 18 part (b) of the Mackenzie Valley Land Use Regulations (MVLUR). A copy of permission to access Sahtu Settlement lands is included in Appendix A.

4.1 Current Land Ownership Three prospect material sites (CA2,CA3 and CA4) are situated within Sahtu Settlement lands. Additionally, access to prospect material site CA5 (FN 19) will likely require access across Sahtu Settlement lands. The remaining sites are located on crown lands.

1 5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

5.1 Summary of Operation

5.1.1 Purpose, Nature and Location The Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT) Department of Infrastructure (INF) is planning to construct a permanent bridge across the Great Bear River near Tulita, NT. INF is proposing to investigate ten (10) prospect material sources for the supply of fill and aggregates and to conduct drilling to determine geotechnical conditions in the area of proposed bridge abutments and roadway approaches. Table 5.1 illustrates the prospect material and geotechnical investigation sites, including their geographic coordinates. This Project Description Report is to support the land use permit application to conduct investigations of these prospect material and bridge/road approach sites during the winter and summer of 2019.

The prospect material sites have been selected for their potential to supply bedrock, granular and common fill. The prospect material sites include new sites and sites previously used for granular extraction. The prospect material sites are located near transportation alignments to the north, south and east of the bridge location, with the exception of prospect site CA 5 (FN19), which is located near the Little Bear River on the opposite side of the Mackenzie River from Tulita. The locations of the prospect material sources and bridge/road approach sites are illustrated in Figures 1 - 9.

The results of the Geotechnical Investigation Program (the “Project”) will inform and support the design of the Great Bear River Bridge (GBRB) and preparation of the application package for a Land Use Permit and Water Licence for the construction of the GBRB.

2 Sachs Harbour

Northwest Territories Transportation System Tuktoyaktuk Paved Highway Ferry Crossing 144 Km Gravel Highway Gateway Hub Winter Roads Regional Hub 10 Future Roads Aklavik Railways Community Airport 111 Km Inuvik August 2018 Km 272

Fort McPherson 8 Km 85 8 Peel River Ferry Km 75 Arctic Red River Ferry Km 143 Ulukhaktok Tsiigehtchic Km 143 Paulatuk

7/7 3/7 4/7 6/7 5/7 Colville Lake Fort Good Hope 165 Km Km 1173

2/7 River

Norman Wells Km 1026 1/7 Great Bear Yukon Tulità Lake Nunavut Km 938 Déline 105 Km January 11, 2019 Legend Block Land Transfer Boundaries Municipal Boundaries NTS Mapsheets

Scale 1:250,000 5 kilometres

UTM Zone: 10 COPYRIGHT Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Lands.

Wrigley Km 690 Gamètì 194 km

Mackenzie Wekweètì 1 235 km Access Road Ndulee Ferry Km 552 Whatì 35Km Behchokòç Fort Simpson TASR Km 471 Km 245 Nahanni Butte 23 Km Liard River Ferry Km 457 7 Jean Marie River 3 27 Km 4 3 Yellowknife Fort Providence Km 339 Dettah Fort Liard 1 5 Km 11 Km 5 Km British Columbia Sambaa K’e Lutsel K'e 126 km Highway Numbers & Names Great Slave 1 Lake 1 Mackenzie Highway Kakisa 13 Km Hay River 2 Hay River Highway Km 38 Fort Resolution 2 Km 90 3 Yellowknife Highway 5 6 MAP SHEET REFERENCE FIGURESEnterprise 1 THRU 7 4 Ingraham Trail 1 Km 84 5 Fort GREATSmith Highway BEAR RIVER BRIDGE (GBRB) GRANULAR INVESTIGATION SITES - LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION 6 Fort Resolution Highway DEPARTMENT OFAlberta INFRASTRUCTURE Liard Highway 5 7 DATE: JANUARY 2019 REV: 1 DRAWING NO. 8 Dempster Highway Inuvik Tuktoyaktuk Highway SCALE: NTS DRAFT:Fort- Smith 10 Km 267

FILE: GBR Land Use Permit - Mapsheets ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE: LETTER (8.5x11) H:\Technical Services\Designer\Maps\NWT Highway System (August 2018).pdf ! Site B1 Site B2 Norman Wells Area ≈ 9.7 ha Area ≈ 10.2 ha

Coordinates: Coordinates: Great Bear NE Corner: 64°56'07.44"N , 12°534'30.06"W NE Corner: 64°55'59.62"N , 125°33'50.57"W !Délįne Lake SE Corner: 64°56'00.91"N , 125°34'20.91"W SE Corner: 64°55'48.69"N , 125°33'47.58"W SW Corner: 64°55'54.53"N , 125°34'50.54"W Intermediate Point: 64°55'41.81"N , 125°34'11.22"W NW Corner: 64 56'00.94"N , 125°34'57.94"W SW Corner: 64°55'45.95"N , 125°34'16.86"W Site DHU-1 (near MVWR Km 954.2 Rt.) Intermediate Point: 64°55'50.55"N , 125°34'02.29"W Area ≈ 28.8 ha. NW Corner: 64°56'00.21"N , 125°34'02.11"W Site CA 4 (near Porcupine River, ≈ Km 75 DWR ) Coordinates: Lat. 65° 3'47.34"N, Long. 123°41'1.20"W Access: 64°59'54.5"N , 125°49'3.8"W Area ≈ 115.6 ha. NW Corner: 65°1'41.8"N , 125°47'30.2"W Great Bear River NE Corner: 65°1'51.4"N , 125°46'54.0"W Coordinates: SE Corner: 65°1'34.7"N , 125°46'38.6"W NE Corner: 65°03'56.85"N , 123°40'03.61"W SW Corner: 65°1'12.5"N , 125°47'5.7"W SE Corner: 65°03'12.06"N , 123°41'37.41"W SW Corner: 65°03'22.03"N , 123°42'01.03"W ! NW Corner: 65°04'17.53"N , 123°40'40.78"W Tulita Mackenzie Site DHU-2 (near MVWR Km 954.2 Rt.) River Area ≈ 17.1 ha.

Coordinates: Site CA 3 (near Bennet Field, ≈ Km 30 DWR ) Access: 64°59'54.5"N , 125°49'3.8"W Lat. 65° 1'27.30"N, Long. 124°39'36.44"W NW Corner: 65°0'55.8"N , 125°46'49.2"W Area ≈ 360.2 ha. NE Corner: 65°0'56.1"N , 125°46'25.8"W SE Corner: 65°0'38.3"N , 125°46'21.9"W Coordinates: SW Corner: 65°0'37.8"N , 125°46'46.9"W NE Corner: 65°01'55.98"N , 124°35'16.19"W SE Corner: 65°01'45.34"N , 124°35'23.86"W Intermediate Point: 65°01'35.65"N , 124°38'11.28"W SW Corner: 65°01'11.04"N , 124°40'08.35"W Intermediate Point: 65°01'22.96"W , 124°40'26.71"W NW Corner: 65°02'17.62"N , 124°38'47.46"W

Site CA 2 (near Little Smith Creek) Lat. 64°25'15.38"N, Long. 124°43'3.05"W Site CA 5 (near Little Bear River ) Site CFM-2 (near MVWR Km 948 Rt.) Area ≈ 143.0 ha. Lat. 64°52'59.95"N, Long. 125°55'27.79"W Area ≈ 12.1 ha. Area ≈ 161.0 ha. Coordinates: Coordinates: NE Corner: 64°25'52.55"N , 124°42'37.04"W Coordinates: NE Corner: 64°59'53.50"N , 125°42'24.05"W SE Corner: 64°24'54.48"N , 124°42'34.36"W NE Corner: 64°53'44.40"N , 125°55'23.04"W Intermediate Point: 64°59'43.19"N , 125°42'14.71"W SW Corner: 64°24'53.42"N , 124°43'32.94"W Intermediate Point: 64°53'02.72"N , 125°55'05.79"W SE Corner: 64°59'34.88"N , 125°42'12.38"W NW Corner: 64°25'52.88"N , 124°43'35.89"W SE Corner: 64°52'56.38"N , 125°54'31.66"W SW Corner: 64°59'43.20"N , 125°42'38.42"W Intermediate Point: 64°52'51.41"N , 125°54'35.44"W NW Corner: 664°59'53.30"N , 125°42'39.48"W Intermediate Point: 64°52'52.06"N , 125°55'12.99"W MVWR Access: 64°59'32.32"N , 125°42'58.20"W SW Corner: 64°52'45.79"N , 125°55'48.45"W CFM-2 Access: 64°59'41.28"N , 125°42'32.38"W NW Corner: 64°53'34.19"N , 125°56'51.19"W

Site CA 1 (near MVR Km 938.0 Rt. ) Lat. 63°55'52.36"N, Long. 124° 8'39.24"W Area ≈ 63.6 ha.

Coordinates: NE Corner: 63°56'12.69"N , 124°08'50.92"W SE Corner: 63°55'49.28"N , 124°08'06.73"W SW Corner: 63°55'36.08"N , 124°08'55.12"W NW Corner: 63°56'02.71"N , 124°09'27.73"W

SAHTU SETTLEMENT AREA - LOCATION MAP FOR LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION REV: 1 DATE: JANUARY, 2019 DRAWING NO. GREAT BEAR RIVER BRIDGE (GBRB) GRANULAR INVESTIGATION SITES SCALE: 1:750,000 - DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE DRAFT BY: AV ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE: ARCHD (24x36) ! ! MVR Km 938.0 Rt. Site CA 1 ! Lat. 63°55'52.36"N, Lon g . 124° 8'39.24"W ! Area ≈ 63.6 ha.

Coordin ates: NE Corn er: 63°56'12.69"N , 124°08'50.92"W SE Corn er: 63°55'49.28"N , 124°08'06.73"W SW Corn er: 63°55'36.08"N , 124°08'55.12"W NW Corn er: 63°56'02.71"N , 124°09'27.73"W

Lan d U se Ap p lication MVR Km 938.0 Rt. Site CA 1

LOCATION PLAN Scale: 1:50,000 | Date: Jan uary 2019 Site CA 2 (near Little Smith Creek ) Lat. 64°25'15.38"N, Lo ng. 124°43'3.05"W Area ≈ 143.0 ha.

Co o rdinates: NE Co rner: 64°25'52.55"N , 124°42'37.04"W SE Co rner: 64°24'54.48"N , 124°42'34.36"W SW Co rner: 64°24'53.42"N , 124°43'32.94"W NW Co rner: 64°25'52.88"N , 124°43'35.89"W

Land Use Applic atio n Site CA 2 (near Little Smith Creek )

LOCATION PLAN Sc ale: 1:50,000 | Date: January 2019 Lan d Use Application Site CA 3 (n e ar Be n n e t Fie ld , ≈ Km 30 DWR )

LOCAT ION PLAN Scale : 1:50,000 | Date : Jan uary 2019

Site CA 3 (n e ar Be n n e t Fie ld , ≈ Km 30 DWR ) Lat. 65° 1'27.30"N, Lon g . 124°39'36.44"W Are a ≈ 360.2 ha.

Coord in ate s: NE Corn e r: 65°01'55.98"N , 124°35'16.19"W SE Corn e r: 65°01'45.34"N , 124°35'23.86"W In te rme d iate Poin t: 65°01'35.65"N , 124°38'11.28"W SW Corn e r: 65°01'11.04"N , 124°40'08.35"W In te rme d iate Poin t: 65°01'22.96"W , 124°40'26.71"W NW Corn e r: 65°02'17.62"N , 124°38'47.46"W

! Lan d Use Ap p lication Site CA 4 (n ear Porcup in e River, ≈ Km 75 DW R )

LOCAT ION PLAN Scale: 1:50,000 | Date: Jan uary 2019

Site CA 4 (n ear Porcup in e River, ≈ Km 75 DW R ) Lat. 65° 3'47.34"N, Lon g . 123°41'1.20"W Area ≈ 115.6 h a.

Coordin ates: NE Corn er: 65°03'56.85"N , 123°40'03.61"W SE Corn er: 65°03'12.06"N , 123°41'37.41"W SW Corn er: 65°03'22.03"N , 123°42'01.03"W NW Corn er: 65°04'17.53"N , 123°40'40.78"W

! ! Existing Winte r Haul Acce ss

S ite CA 5 (ne ar Little Be ar Rive r ) Lat. 64°52'59.95"N, Lo ng . 125°55'27.79"W Are a ≈ 161.0 h a.

Co o rdinate s: NE Co rne r: 64°53'44.40"N , 125°55'23.04"W Inte rm e diate Po int: 64°53'02.72"N , 125°55'05.79"W S E Co rne r: 64°52'56.38"N , 125°54'31.66"W Inte rm e diate Po int: 64°52'51.41"N , 125°54'35.44"W Inte rm e diate Po int: 64°52'52.06"N , 125°55'12.99"W S W Co rne r: 64°52'45.79"N , 125°55'48.45"W NW Co rne r: 64°53'34.19"N , 125°56'51.19"W

Land U se Applicatio n S ite CA 5 (ne ar Little Be ar Rive r )

LOCATION PLAN S cale : 1:50,000 | Date : January 2019 ! !

! !

Site CFM-2 (nea r MVW R Km 948 R t.) Area ≈ 12.1 h a .

Coordina tes: NE Corner: 64° 59'53.50"N , 125°42'24.05"W Interm edia te Point: 64° 59'43.19"N , 125° 42'14.71"W SE Corner: 64°59'34.88"N , 125° 42'12.38"W SW Corner: 64°59'43.20"N , 125°42'38.42"W NW Corner: 664°59'53.30"N , 125°42'39.48"W MVW R Ac c ess: 64°59'32.32"N , 125°42'58.20"W CFM-2 Ac c ess: 64°59'41.28"N , 125° 42'32.38"W

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Sites B1 a nd B2 Proposed Ac c ess Alig nm ent Leng th ≈ 2.35 Km

Coordina tes: Ac c ess a t MVW R : 64° 55'37.78"N , 125° 36'59.42"W Ac c ess a t B1: 64°55'55.16"N , 125°34'51.28"W Ac c ess to B2: 64°55'56.27"N , 125°34'42.39"W Ac c ess a t B2: 64°55'56.29"N , 125°34'02.18"W

Site B1 Area ≈ 9.7 h a

Coordina tes: NE Corner: 64° 56'07.44"N , 12°534'30.06"W SE Corner: 64°56'00.91"N , 125° 34'20.91"W SW Corner: 64°55'54.53"N , 125°34'50.54"W NW Corner: 64 56'00.94"N , 125°34'57.94"W

Site B2 Area ≈ 10.2 h a

Coordina tes: NE Corner: 64° 55'59.62"N , 125°33'50.57"W SE Corner: 64°55'48.69"N , 125° 33'47.58"W Interm edia te Point: 64° 55'41.81"N , 125° 34'11.22"W SW Corner: 64°55'45.95"N , 125°34'16.86"W Interm edia te Point: 64° 55'50.55"N , 125° 34'02.29"W NW Corner: 64° 56'00.21"N , 125° 34'02.11"W

La nd Use Applic a tion Site CFM-2, Site B1, a nd Site B2

LO CATIO N PLAN Sc a le: 1:50,000 | Da te: Ja nua ry 2019 La nd Use Applic a tion S ite DHU-1 a nd DHU-2 (nea r MVWR Km 954.2 Rt.)

LOCATION P LAN S c a le: 1:50,000 | Da te: Ja nua ry 2019

S ite DHU-1 (nea r MVWR Km 954.2 Rt.) Area ≈ 28.8 h a .

Coord ina tes: Ac c ess: 64°59'54.5"N , 125°49'3.8"W NW Corner: 65°1'41.8"N , 125°47'30.2"W Ac c ess point for DHU-1 a nd DHU-2 NE Corner: 65°1'51.4"N , 125°46'54.0"W S E Corner: 65°1'34.7"N , 125°46'38.6"W Coord ina tes: S W Corner: 65°1'12.5"N , 125°47'5.7"W Ac c ess: 64°59'54.5"N , 125°49'3.8"W S ite DHU-2 (nea r MVWR Km 954.2 Rt.) Area ≈ 17.1 h a .

Coord ina tes: Ac c ess: 64°59'54.5"N , 125°49'3.8"W NW Corner: 65°0'55.8"N , 125°46'49.2"W NE Corner: 65°0'56.1"N , 125°46'25.8"W ! ! S E Corner: 65°0'38.3"N , 125°46'21.9"W ! ! S W Corner: 65°0'37.8"N , 125°46'46.9"W C:\Users\nluong\Desktop\GBRB\GBRB MAP.dwg [9] January 17, 2019 - 3:13:15 pm (BY: LUONG, NELSON) LEGEND: AREA OF INVESTIGATION ROAD CL 1. 5. 3. 2. 4. GENERAL NOTES: DATA LAYERS THAT APPEAR ON THIS MAP MAY OR NOT BE MAPPING SITE AND IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. MAP WAS ACQUIRED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. THIS MAP IS A USER GENERATED STATIC OUTPUT FROM AN INTERNET ACCURATE OR CURRENT. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS (m) UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. STAMP CLIENT JANUARY 2019 DATE: 144930134 PROJECT No. APPROACHES AND ABUTMENT DRILLING AREA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM GREAT BEAR RIVER BRIDGE GREAT BEAR RIVER BRIDGE SHEET No. YK OFFICE 1 of 1 N DWN DES NL NL CKD APP NL - STATUS REV 0 0 DRAWING FIGURE 9

Table 5-1 Proposed Sites for Investigation Site Access Latitude Longitude Area Land ownership SLUP Zone Prospect B NE 64° 56'07.44"N 12°534'30.06"W (1) SE 64°56'00.91"N 125° 34'20.91"W 9.7 ha Municipal/Crown 62 SW 64°55'54.53"N 125°34'50.54"W NW 64 56'00.94"N 125°34'57.94" W Prospect B NE 64° 55'59.62"N 125°33'50.57"W (2) SE 64°55'48.69"N 125° 33'47.58"W Intermediate 64° 55'41.81"N 125° 34'11.22"W 10.2 ha Crown 62 SW 64°55'45.95"N 125°34'16.86"W Intermediate 64° 55'50.55"N 125° 34'02.29"W NW 64° 56'00.21"N 125° 34'02.11" W DHU-1 NW 65°1'41.8"N 125°47'30.2"W NE 65°1'51.4"N 125°46'54.0"W 28.8 ha Crown 62 SE 65°1'34.7"N 125°46'38.6"W SW 65°1'12.5"N 125°47'5.7"W DHU-2 NW 65°0'55.8"N 125°46'49.2"W NE 65°0'56.1"N 125°46'25.8"W 17.1 ha Crown 62 SE 65°0'38.3"N 125°46'21.9"W SW 65°0'37.8"N 125°46'46.9"W CFM-2 NE 64° 59'53.50"N 125°42'24.05"W Intermediate 64° 59'43.19"N 125° 42'14.71"W SE 64°59'34.88"N 125° 42'12.38"W 12.1 ha Crown 62 SW 64°59'43.20"N 125°42'38.42"W NW 64°59'53.30"N 125°42'39.48"W CA 1 NE 63°56'12.69"N 124°08'50.92"W SE 63°55'49.28"N 124°08'06.73"W 63.6 ha Crown X SW 63°55'36.08"N 124°08'55.12"W NW 63°56'02.71"N 124°09'27.73" CA 2 NE 64°25'52.55"N 124°42'37.04"W SE 64°24'54.48"N 124°42'34.36"W 143 ha Sahtu 63 SW 64°24'53.42"N 124°43'32.94"W NW 64°25'52.88"N 124°43'35.89" W CA3 NE 65°01'55.98"N 124°35'16.19"W SE 65°01'45.34"N 124°35'23.86"W Intermediate 65°01'35.65"N 124°38'11.28"W 360.2 ha Sahtu 33 SW 65°01'11.04"N 124°40'08.35"W Intermediate 65°01'22.96"W 124°40'26.71"W NW 65°02'17.62"N 124°38'47.46"W CA4 NE 65°03'56.85"N 123°40'03.61"W 115.6 ha SE 65°03'12.06"N 123°41'37.41"W Sahtu 33 SW 65°03'22.03"N 123°42'01.03"W NW 65°04'17.53"N 123°40'40.78"W

CA 5 (FN19) NE 64° 53' 34.19" N 125° 56' 51.19" W Intermediate 64°53'02.72"N 125°55'05.79"W 161 ha Crown 63 SE 64°52'56.38"N 125°54'31.66"W Intermediate 64°52'51.41"N 125°54'35.44"W

Table 5-1 Proposed Sites for Investigation Site Access Latitude Longitude Area Land ownership SLUP Zone Intermediate 64°52'52.06"N 125°55'12.99"W SW 64° 52' 56.38" N 125° 54' 31.66" W NW 64°53'34.19"N 125°56'51.19"W Bridge Site NE and approaches 64° 57' 47.69" N 125° 40' 3.98" W 48 ha Crown X NW 64° 57' 25.51" N 125° 41' 4.02" W SW 64° 54' 20.74" N 125° 32' 14.98" W SE 64° 54' 54.61" N 125° 32' 20.69" W Total of Investigation areas 969.3 ha Access Trails 6.5 ha Total Land Use Area 975.8 ha

5.1.2 Access to Test Pit and Borehole Locations The investigations are scheduled to occur during winter and summer 2019.

Access to sites investigated during the winter will be by travel over a prepared frozen ground surface. Three of the sites will require access to cross the Enbridge Pipeline. Winter access to site CA 5 (FN19), Little Bear River, also requires travel over an ice crossing of the Mackenzie River and an ice crossing of the Little Bear River.

Establishment of trails to access prospect sites may require clearing of vegetation. The reopening of existing cutline alignments will be utilized where reasonable for site access. Average cutline widths will not exceed 7.5 m. A maximum cutline width of up to 10 m may be required to accommodate site topography, ground condition or volume of cleared vegetation. Clearing will be done by a tracked excavator with a mulcher head or a tracked mulcher. Tracked dozers may be used for this clearing work by installing shoes on the blade so it cannot cut into/disturb the frozen ground. With this method all timber over 125 mm in diameter will be salvaged and placed along the edge of the clearing. If permitted, clearing in the vicinity of water courses will use the same methods; otherwise it will be done by hand.

As the clearing of the access routes proceeds, the contractor will prepare the route as a winter road and prepare ice crossings of watercourses as required. Typical safety precautions such as signing will be used to protect and inform the public as well as to protect the safety of the work crews (see Section 5.1.6). The preparation of the winter road will involve the use of snowcats, drags and may include the addition of water as needed to produce and maintain a 10 cm thickness of compacted snow and ice over the original ground. The 10 cm base will also be maintained at any camp locations.

The preparation of watercourse crossings with all-season flow might require increasing the thickness of the natural ice cover to meet the weight-bearing capacity required for the equipment and vehicles. The flooding of the ice surface by pumping water from the watercourse (or from another water source) and/or by the addition and compaction of snow is proposed to establish and maintain safe crossings. Where the watercourse has no winter flow, a snow fill crossing will be constructed.

Access for drilling at the bridge site on the south side of Great Bear River will be by existing municipal roadway with access to the north side of the river either by ice crossing of the river, winter access from Winter Road on the north side of the river or by helicopter during summer.

Water will be sourced from water bodies either on or off the cleared routes. If water sources off the access routes are selected, then further access trails to reach those sources will be required. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) protocols for the withdrawal of water will be applied. The water use per day will be less than 100m3/day. Where site topography thwarts access to tracked equipment, the use of helicopter for transport of test equipment might be needed.

Summer access to most sites will be by helicopter; however, summer access to the south side of the Great Bear River will be by municipal roadway. Clearing of drill sites and access between drill sites will be done by hand.

INF is requesting land use approval for the use of approximately 969.3 ha for geotechnical investigation and approximately 6.5 ha (8670 m length X 7.5 m width) for access routes to the investigation sites for a total of 975.8 ha. The amount of clearing required will be substantially less than the land use area requested. An initial survey at each site will establish drill and/or test pit target locations within each prospect site. As noted in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4, a total of 88 boreholes and 126 test pits are proposed. It is estimated that the program will require clearing of approximately 26 ha; summarized below:

• Cutline clearing for site access and test pits within prospect sites 14.4 ha • Clearing for helicopter landing of core drill on bedrock sites 5.6 ha • Cutline clearing for drills at CA 5 site 1.6 ha • Cutline clearing for drilling at bridge abutments and approaches 4.5 ha • Total 26 ha

Wherever possible, existing cut lines to prospect sites will be used to further reduce the amount of clearing required.

5.1.3 Investigation of Sites by Drilling The use of core drilling is proposed for the investigation and assessment of bedrock sources. The retained cores will be tested for rock quality and environmental suitability. The method of core drilling will require small quantities of water, estimated at 0.5 m3 per borehole. Usual depth of drilling is to 10 m into target material. This depth may be extended based on site characteristics. Where a blanket of overburden is present over the bedrock the site, the excavation of test pits may be done to identify the prime locations for access to the bedrock resource. The use of auger drilling may be utilized for investigation of granular and common fill prospects, such as at site CA 5 (FN19). Drilling at prospect material sites will occur during summer 2019 with a helicopter portable tracked drilling rig. The rig will be mobilized to each prospect site by helicopter and will be moved to targets within each site either by helicopter or overland.

Drilling to determine geotechnical conditions is proposed to occur at the abutment locations on the north and south side of the Great Bear River and along the road approaches on the north and south side of the river. Maximum drilling depth is estimated at 20-30 m using a 150 mm diameter drill. Drilling at these sites will occur either during winter 2019 using a track mounted drilling rig or during the summer of 2019 with a helicopter portable tracked drilling rig.

It is proposed that 58 boreholes in total be drilled at the prospect material sites and a maximum of 18 and 12 boreholes on the roadway approaches and bridge abutment locations, respectively.

5.1.4 Investigation of Granular Prospects by Test Pits The excavation and backfill of test pits is proposed to investigate some granular prospects during winter 2019.

The use of a tracked excavator with a reach to 6 m depth is proposed. Test pit area disturbance will vary with depth. A usual surface area size for a test pit excavation is approximately 5 m by 3 m. Test pitting will be conducted throughout the prospect sites using an excavator; the test pits will be approximately 3 m3 in volume and to a depth of 6 m. Test pits will likely be spaced 150-200 m apart and in areas that show viable material sources, the spacing will be reduced to a spacing of 50-100 m.

Upon completion of each test pit, the contractor will, unless otherwise directed, immediately backfill the pit with the excavated material and the material will be mounded to account for subsidence in the backfilled material. A total of 86 test pits are proposed to be excavated at the prospect material sites during winter 2019.

5.1.5 Investigation of Prospects by Geophysical Survey The survey of prospect material sites may include the use of geophysical surveys to assist in identification of overburden thicknesses, granular thicknesses and ground conditions.

5.1.6 Investigation Data The data accumulated from drilling and test pitting investigations will provide assessment of environmental acceptability and of the quality of materials for use in embankment, surface construction and the foundation conditions for the bridge and roadway approaches. The data will be reported by location plans, logs, laboratory test results and photographs.

Assessments of the site materials will include metal leaching and acid rock drainage (ML/ARD), durability and soundness, gradation etc., to provide recommendations for use.

Boreholes and test pits will be logged, samples will be taken for laboratory analysis, and comprehensive reports will be developed to inform INF in finalizing the project.

The logging of the boreholes will include:

• Location and elevation, • Soils descriptions and lithology, • A record of sampling types and depths, • The results of Standard Penetration test (SPT) once per 1.5 m of borehole depth, and • Photographs related to the work.

The Unified Soil Classification system will be used for soil descriptions and classification. The minimum sampling requirements for testing each borehole are:

• Natural moisture at 1 m intervals, • 2 Atterberg limits per borehole, • 2 grain size analysis and hydrometer tests per borehole, and • 1 soluble sulphate content test per borehole.

5.1.7 Safety The Contractor will be required to conduct site orientation for all persons on site. The orientation shall include site safety, communications and emergency procedures. A daily on-site meeting is also required at the beginning of each workday to review the work plan and provide instructions as needed and to ensure the preparedness of all persons to operate safely on the site. The Contractor will send copies of the meeting notes to the designated INF representative along with daily reporting information. For field emergency preparedness the Contractor will maintain an operational portable satellite phone at the camp location and at active work locations.

5.2 Camps and Helicopter Landing Areas A mobile camp may be used for the estimated 20 people that will be required for the Project. It is anticipated that a camp will be composed of skid-mounted trailers and will include a separate kitchen, wash and accommodation units. The proposed mobile camp locations will be provided to GNWT Lands Inspector for approval.

The camp supply of potable water will be hauled to the camp by water truck from domestic water supply at Tulita. Wastewater (sewage and grey water) is proposed to be handled by removal by sewage truck to the Municipal facility at Tulita.

Where the use of helicopter transport for the investigation is necessary, landing locations will be selected in closest proximity to testing locations.

6.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE IMPACTS

6.1 Environment Overview The Project area is located in the Taiga Plains Low Subarctic Ecoregion of the Taiga Plains Ecoregion of the Northwest Territories (GNWT 2009). Features of this ecoregion are summarized in the following sections.

6.1.1 Climate The climate in the Project area is characterized by long cold winters and short summers, with mean annual temperatures ranging from -3.5 to -9°C. July is typically the warmest month with temperatures averaging 16°C while January is the coldest month with temperatures averaging -24 to -29°C. The mean annual precipitation in the Taiga Plains Low Subarctic Ecoregion ranges from 230 to 350 mm. The daily solar input is highly variable in the Project area and can be as low as 0.2 to 1.5 mj/m2/day in December and as high as 22 mj/m2/day in June, with a mean annual daily solar input ranging from 9.5 and 11 mj/m2/day (GNWT 2009).

6.1.2 Terrain

The Project sites are located on sedimentary rocks from the Mesozoic and Mesozoic-Cenozoic eras of the Interior Plateform geological province (NRCAN 1997). The surficial geology of the Project Sites broadly consists of till veneer, till blanket and fine grained glaciolacustrine deposits. Drumlins are common in the Project area showing past glacial ice movement (Fulton 1995).

Soils within the active layer of the Project area are dominated by mineral and organic cryosols but brunisols and regosols may also be found (GNWT 2009). The Project area falls within the zone of extensive discontinuous (50-90%) permafrost (NRCAN 1993). The term “permafrost” describes a ground thermal condition where the soil or rock remain below 0°C for two or more years, regardless of material type, ground ice distribution, or thermal stability. Elevation in the Project area ranges between 100 and 350 metres above sea level (masl).

6.1.3 Water

The Project area overlaps with two water sub-basins, which are part of the larger Mackenzie River Basin. Most sites are in the Great Bear sub-basin while site CA 5 (FN19) is located in the Central Mackenzie - The Ramparts sub-basin (AANDC 2011). The Mackenzie River is the most prominent feature in the Project area. Tributaries in the Project area drain into the Mackenzie River, which flows north and drains in the Arctic Ocean (GNWT 2009).

6.1.4 Fish

Fish resources are known to occur in the Project Area where there is potential spawning, rearing and feeding habitat. At least 29 fish species are known to potentially inhabit the Great Bear watershed. These include lake and bull trout (Salvelinus namaycush and confluentis); lake, round, broad and

mountain whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis, Prosopium cylindraceum, Coregonus nasus and Prosopium williamsoni, respectively), lake, arctic and least cisco (Coregonus artedii, autumnalis and sardinella, respectively), northern pike (Esox lucius), Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), yellow walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), burbot (Lota lota),slimy and fourhorn sculpin (Cottus cognatus and Myoxocephalus quadricornis), ninespine and brook stickleback (Pungitius pungitius and Culaea inconstans), longnose and white sucker (Catostomus catostomus and commersoni), trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus), inconnu (Stenodus leucichthys), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), flathead and lake chubs (Platyogobio gracilis and Couesius plumbeus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), spottail and emerald shiner (Notropis hudsonius and atherinoides), goldeye (Hiodon alosoides) and Arctic lamprey (Lampetra japonica) (Scott and Crossman 1973, MacDonald et al. 2004). The bull trout is listed as sensitive under the NWT General Status Rank (GNWT 2016) and as special concern by COSEWIC (GNWT 2018).

6.1.5 Vegetation The vegetation in the Project area is influenced by fire regime, parent material and low subarctic climates. Large areas of the Taiga Plains Low Subarctic Ecoregion have burned in the last decade (GNWT 2019). Mixed spruce stands dominate regenerating areas in the Taiga Plains Low Subarctic Ecoregion (GNWT 2009 and 2010).

Vegetation in unburned areas generally consists of spruce stands (black and white) with shrubby understories with species such as Labrador tea, mosses, lichens and dwarf birch. Bogs, fens and peat plateaus can be found throughout the Project area (GNWT 2009).

6.1.6 Wildlife

A number of wildlife species have to potential to occur in the Project area. They are described in the following sections.

6.1.6.1 Birds

The Mackenzie River acts as a major flyway for Arctic breeding birds during spring and fall migrations. Numerous bird species, including waterfowl and water birds, raptors, and other upland birds use the Mackenzie River during migrations and disband along the route to appropriate breeding habitat. As with breeding territories, the migration routes between wintering and breeding grounds are traditional and are used each year. Migration is influenced and governed by weather (Terres 1982). Birds travel northward as the weather warms up for breeding and return south for wintering when the weather cools. The speed of migration varies among species and is influenced by the annual prevailing weather patterns. Eighteen bird species of management concern have the potential to occur in the Project area (GNWT 2016 and 208, GOC 2019).

6.1.6.2 Raptors

Although this group covers a small number of species, it is diverse and includes hawks, eagles and osprey, falcons, and owls. Two raptor species of management concern have the potential to occur in the Project area, peregrine falcon and short-eared owl (GNWT 2018).

Sixteen raptor species have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project. The majority of these species are summer residents; however, five species (northern goshawk, gyrfalcon, northern hawk owl, great horned owl, and great grey owl) may overwinter, particularly in years when prey densities are high. Little is known about the local population abundance of individual species. However, appropriate nest sites and food are the main resources that naturally limit breeding populations of peregrine falcon (Bromley 1992) and other raptors (Blood and Anweiler 1994).

Some species nest in trees, while others nest on cliffs and on the ground. Raptors exhibit high nest site fidelity, potentially returning to the same nest or nesting area each year. Summer residents may appear within the area as early as mid-April and depart in October, while others overwinter. Other raptors are spring and/or fall migrants and may pass through on the way to and from their breeding ranges on the tundra.

6.1.6.3 Caribou

Two species of caribou may occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project. Woodland or boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) remain in the region throughout the year, whereas barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) are known to infrequently use the area in winter.

Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population Woodland caribou, boreal population (herein referred to as boreal caribou) are found year-round in the vicinity of the Project area. Boreal caribou may occur in all forested habitats in the vicinity of the Project area. They require expansive tracts of undisturbed habitat, principally mature or old growth coniferous forests (> 100 years old) associated with peatland complexes, lakes, and ponds and uplands with an abundance of ground and tree lichens and few predators (Species at Risk Committee 2012, Environment Canada 2008). Traditional knowledge also describes ridges and high hills in the Sahtu Settlement Area important for boreal caribou in the summer and fall, as well as muskeg, areas of dense vegetation including old growth forests, and shorelines (Species at Risk Committee 2012, Environment Canada 2012). All habitat within the Project area is considered boreal caribou habitat, except for the existing disturbed areas (e.g. winter road, cut lines).

Boreal caribou are listed as Threatened under the Species at Risk (Northwest Territories) Act and the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) (GNWT 2018, GOC 2019). Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are driving factors leading to a declining population. In the Northwest Territories, the boreal caribou population is estimated to be between 6,000 to 7,000 animals, with densities in the western Sahtu estimated at 1 caribou per 100 km2 (ENR 2012, 2015). Boreal caribou are considered common near Norman Wells and their populations are thought to be increasing due to low incidence of disturbance from fire and lower harvest rates (Auld and Kershaw 2005).

Barren-Ground Caribou Barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) are ranked by the GNWT as at risk under the general status program and are listed as threatened by COSEWIC and under the Species at Risk (Northwest Territories) Act (GNWT 2018 and GOC 2019).

Based on caribou collaring data, two Project sites (CA3 and CA4) overlap with the annual range of barren-ground caribou, Bluenose East herd (ACCWM 2014a, ENR 2012). The 2018 population estimate for the Bluenose East herd was 18,000 animals, which has decreased from 31,000 since 2015 (ENR 2019). Traditional knowledge indicates that caribou distribution and abundance cycles in response to feeding conditions, weather, and human activities (ACCWM 2014a, 2014b).

Caribou from the Bluenose East herd may be present in the vicinity of the Project during winter months. The Bluenose East herd calves and summers on the tundra and ruts in the fall near the tree line. By November, the herd begins migrating south to its winter range within the taiga forest and remain there until spring migration. Occupied winter ranges are known to vary annually in response to food availability, snow depth, and predator abundance.

Winter is a critical period for caribou populations. Caribou dig craters in the snow and graze on the exposed vegetation, principally ground lichens. Habitats that provide winter foraging habitat include open, mature spruce forests with an abundance of lichen, and areas with low snow depths (e.g., hills and ridgelines). Lichens are an important food for caribou all year, but especially during the winter. Sedges and evergreen leaves are also eaten during the winter. During times with low snowfall, caribou will also feed in richer valleys and low-lying lakeshores and wetlands. Carruthers et al. (1986) reported overwintering Bluenose caribou use open coniferous habitats in proportion to the habitat available in the landscape; all other habitat types, particularly fire regenerating habitats are used less.

Caribou seek security from predators and travel in open habitats such as frozen lakes where wind action has hardened the snow and predators are easily visible (Carruthers et al. 1986). Carruthers et al. (1986) reported Bluenose caribou use lakes and open wetlands four times more often than their availability on the landscape.

6.1.6.4 Moose

Moose (Alces americanus) do not have any special conservation status but are considered to be a valued resource to the people in the Sahtu Settlement Area.

In the Northwest Territories, the moose population is estimated between 20,000 to 40,000 (ENR 2015) and are considered common along the Mackenzie River and near Norman Wells (Auld and Kershaw 2005, ENR 2015). In 1995, moose surveys west of Norman Wells reported 0.17 moose/km2, which represented a population size of approximately 497 ± 490 (90% confidence interval) (Veitch et al. 1995). An unpublished survey from 2001 completed by Veitch and Popko found a decline in the same area, with a density of 0.07 moose/km2 and an estimated population size of 196 ± 85 (90% C.I). Early winter moose surveys conducted by McLean (1994) in the Kelly Lake area and the Keele and Redstone River area reported that moose densities ranged from 0.06 moose/km2 to 0.19 moose/km2, with an average

of 0.08 moose/km2. Although moose are considered common now (Auld and Kershaw 2005), their densities have been reportedly low. A story presented to Auld and Kershaw (2005) indicated that moose were once “very scarce” along the Mackenzie River during the trading post times.

Moose are generally non-migratory and may occupy all habitats within the vicinity of the proposed Project throughout the year. Moose prefer semi-open early successional habitats, such as floodplains along the Mackenzie River, riparian areas, lakeshores, regenerating burns (approximately 15 to 30 years following the fire), and disturbance areas that have an abundance of willow and young deciduous trees/shrubs. Preferred habitats, particularly during the fall and winter are those dominated by shrubs and deciduous trees; most conifer dominated habitats provide sub-optimal moose feeding habitat but provide thermal cover. During the spring and summer when forbs, grasses, and aquatic plants are available the use of browse material declines. The use of wet and aquatic habitats for food commonly occur during all non-winter months; but tend to peak during late June to early August when plant nutrition and digestibility and insect harassment are highest (Peek 1998).

Moose also seek forests or tall shrub stands to reduce detection from bears and wolves, their primary predators. Shorelines and islands are also used to reduce predator encounters, particularly during calving (late May to early June).

Winter moose surveys conducted in the Sahtu have identified high moose densities within the riparian areas along the Mackenzie River and its tributaries. Winter track surveys conducted by Imperial Oil (2004) noted high moose use in recent burn areas in the northern Taiga Plains Ecozone and in mixed wood forests and black spruce-tamarack (i.e., open coniferous) and shrub habitats in the southern Taiga Plains Ecozone.

6.1.6.5 Grizzly Bear

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) may be present in the Project area from time to time. In the Northwest Territories, the estimated grizzly bear population is approximately 5,100 (ENR 2012). In the Sahtu, grizzly bears are most common in the Mackenzie Mountains west of Norman Wells; however, a few are expected to occasionally occur in the taiga forest (Auld and Kershaw 2005). Both grizzly and black bears use similar habitat types and their distributions may overlap. Bears require extensive home ranges (on average, male ranges extend over 2,000 km2) with a variety of landforms and plant types to adequately provide food and cover.

Bears are omnivores and feed on a variety of plant material, small and large mammals, birds, fish, and insects. In the spring, bears gravitate towards areas with early-emerging vegetation such as roadsides and wetlands, as well as areas with winter-killed wildlife. Moose and caribou calves are also preyed upon opportunistically during this time. In summer, insect activity peaks and bears feed heavily on colonies of ants, bees, and wasps. By fall time, their diet shifts as berries become ripe and available. Forests regenerating from fires (at least 20 years prior) commonly provide summer and fall feeding habitat for bears as berry producing plants regenerate and ants invade downed and burned trees (Laviviere 2001, Snyder 1991).

Grizzly bears typically begin denning in September to early October with the first frosts and emerge from their dens beginning in April (Miller et al. 1982). Bears typically dig dens in till material available on mountain slopes, eskers, drumlins, stream banks, or in natural cavities.

Grizzly Bears are listed as special concern by COSEWIC and under SARA (GNWT 2018, GOC 2019). In the Northwest Territories, grizzly bears are ranked by Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) as sensitive under the general status program and may require special attention or protection to prevent their population from becoming at risk in the future (GNWT 2016). Local threats to their population include over hunting, defense kills, and disturbance from land developments (ENR 2012).

6.1.6.6 Black Bear

American black bears (Ursus americanus) are the most common bear species present in the Project area. In the Northwest Territories, black bear densities are estimated at 10 bears/100 km2 (ENR 2012). There have been no formal attempts to estimate black bear densities in the Project area; however, a black bear collaring program was undertaken for problem bears active at the Norman Wells solid waste facility in 1985-1988 (Clarkson 1993).

Black bears were most abundant in Clarkson’s (1993) Norman Wells problem bear study; however, grizzly bears were also detected during this time. Both grizzly and black bears use similar habitat types and their distributions may overlap.

Black bear diets are similar to grizzly bears. They too are omnivores and feed on a variety of plant material, small and large mammals and birds, fish, and insects (Laviviere 2001, Snyder 1991).

Based on local black bear collaring data, black bears entered their dens in early to mid-October and emerged in late April to late May (Clarkson 1993). Bears typically dig dens in till material available on eskers, drumlins, stream banks, or in natural cavities. From the collaring data, black bears dens were excavated principally in sandy soil found in upland mixed spruce forests and were located in a variety of landforms ranging from lowlands near the Mackenzie River to rock outcrops (Clarkson 1993). The majority of the dens were found on south facing slopes (Clarkson 1993). The den sites of three collared bears were found over two years. In subsequent years, all three bears were found to den in the same local area (ranging from approximately 12 to 28 km apart), but not the same den (Clarkson 1993).

6.1.6.7 Grey Wolf

The density of wolves in the northern Northwest Territories is estimated at 1 wolf/944 km2 (ENR 2012). During a muskox aerial survey across much of northern Sahtu Settlement Area, wolves were reported incidentally, and their density was estimated at 1 wolf/1,000 km2 (Veitch 1997).

Two different groups of grey wolves may occur in the Project area: migratory and resident. Migratory grey wolves (also known as tundra wolves) follow the barren-ground caribou herds and would infrequently occupy the area in the winter when barren-ground caribou are present. Resident wolves, also known as timber or boreal wolves remain below the tree line year-round and would be present throughout the proposed Project area year-round. These timber grey wolves depend on non-migratory

prey such as moose, and their population densities cycle with prey abundance. Timber wolves maintain regular territories, which also vary in size depending on prey densities. Besides moose, wolf diets also include boreal caribou, snowshoe hares, small rodents, beaver, muskrat, birds, fish, eggs, and even small quantities of grass and other vegetable matter.

Wolf dens may be used for many years; however, some wolves may have several dens in the territory and may relocate litters to another den if one is disturbed. Wolf dens are constructed in esker material, within a rock crevice, or along creeks or riverbanks. Suitable denning habitat may occur within the Project area, especially near the Prospect sources. Dens are commonly constructed near water or heights of land. The denning period typically begins in early May, and litters are born inside the den in late May or early June.

6.1.6.8 Wolverine

Wolverines (Gulo gulo) are listed as Special Concern by COSEWIC and under SARA and ranked by ENR as sensitive under the general status program. In the boreal forests of the Northwest Territories, wolverine densities are unknown. The population of mature individuals across the Northwest Territories are estimated between 3,000 to 6,000, and the population is considered to be stable (ENR 2012, Species at Risk Committee 2014). Threats to their population include oil and gas exploration, reduced prey abundance, and mortality of problem individuals and harvesting pressure (ENR 2012). The Sahtu Harvest Study (1999 to 2001) reported annual harvest rates between five and twelve wolverine per year (Bayha, pers. comm. as cited in COSEWIC 2003).

Wolverines live at low densities even under optimal conditions (Banci 1994, Species at Risk Committee 2014). They are opportunistic hunters and travel extensively in search of food. Their diet includes carrion, moose and caribou, small mammals, birds, fish, beaver, berries (Banci 1994, ENR 2012, Pasitschniak-Arts et al. 1995). Wolverines occupy multiple habitat types provided sufficient food resources are present and require extensive ecologically intact areas (Species at Risk Committee 2014).

Although active year-round, wolverines will construct snow dens to escape predators, cache food, and raise their young. Traditional Knowledge indicates kits (young) are born in June or July in a shallow pit dug in the ground, and scientific knowledge indicates kits are born between January and April within a constructed snow den (Species at Risk Committee 2014, Species at Risk Secretariat 2015). Nonetheless, natal dens have also been documented in abandoned beaver lodges and bear dens, in upturned roots and fallen logs, or rocks crevices (Banci 1994). Suitable year-round wolverine habitat exists throughout the proposed Project Area.

6.1.6.9 Species of Management Concern

Wildlife species of management concern in the NWT are defined as wildlife that are protected under federal or territorial legislation, including species:

• listed under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as endangered, threatened, or special concern (GOC 2019), or

• listed under the NWT Species at Risk Act as endangered, threatened or special concern (GNWT 2018)

This document also considers a wider group of species of management concern, which includes wildlife species identified in federal or territorial tracking lists including species:

• listed by COSEWIC as endangered, threatened, or special concern (GNWT 2018) but not yet listed under SARA • listed as at risk, may be at risk, or sensitive by the NWT General Status Ranks of Wild Species (GNWT 2016)

Based on a review of known species distribution ranges, species life histories, and land cover types, there is potential for 25 wildlife species at risk and species of management concern to occur in the Project area, including four mammals, 18 migratory birds and three insects (Table 6.1).

Table 6-1 Wildlife Species of Management Concern which may occur in the Project Area

NWT Species SARA COSEWIC at Risk Act NWT General Species Latin Name Status1 Status1 Status2 Status Rank3 Mammals Barren-ground Rangifer tarandus Not Listed Threatened Threatened At Risk caribou (Bluenose groenlandicus east population) Boreal caribou Rangifer tarandus Threatened, Threatened Threatened At Risk caribou Schedule 1 Grizzly bear Ursus arctos Special Concern, Special Not listed Sensitive Schedule 1 Concern Wolverine Gulo gulo Special Concern, Special Not listed Sensitive Schedule 1 Concern Migratory Birds Bank swallow Riparia riparia Threatened, Threatened Not listed At Risk Schedule 1 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Threatened, Threatened Not listed At Risk Schedule 1 Common Chordeiles minor Threatened, Threatened Not listed At Risk nighthawk Schedule 1 Harlequin Duck Histrionicus Not listed Not listed Not listed May Be At histrionicus Risk Harris’s sparrow Zonotrichia querula Not listed Special Not listed Undetermined Concern Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Special Concern, Special Not listed Sensitive Schedule 1 Concern Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Not listed Not listed Not listed Sensitive

Table 6-1 Wildlife Species of Management Concern which may occur in the Project Area

NWT Species SARA COSEWIC at Risk Act NWT General Species Latin Name Status1 Status1 Status2 Status Rank3 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Not listed Not listed Not listed Sensitive Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Not listed Not listed Not listed Sensitive (migration only) Northern pintail Anas acuta Not listed Not listed Not listed Sensitive Olive-sided Contopus cooperi Threatened, Threatened Not listed At Risk flycatcher Schedule 1 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Special Concern, Special Not listed Sensitive anatum/tundrius Schedule 1 Concern Red-necked Phalaropus lobatus Not Listed Special Not listed Sensitive phalarope Concern Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Special Concern, Special Not listed Sensitive Schedule 1 Concern Semipalmated Calidris pusilla Not listed Not listed Not listed Sensitive Sandpiper (migration only) Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Special Concern, Special Not listed Sensitive Schedule 1 Concern Surf Scoter Melanitta Not listed Not listed Not listed Sensitive perspicillata White-winged Melanitta fusca Not listed Not listed Not listed Sensitive Scoter Insects Gypsy cukoo Bombus bohemicus Endangered, Endangered Not listed At Risk bumble bee Schedule 1 Yellow-banded Bombus terricola Special Concern, Special Not listed Undetermined bumble bee Schedule 1 Concern Transverse lady Coccinella Not listed Special Not listed Secure beetle transversoguttata Concern SOURCE: 1 Government of Canada, Species at Risk Public Registry (2019) 2 Department Environment and Natural Resources, Government of Northwest Territories (2018) 3 Department Environment and Natural Resources, Government of Northwest Territories (2016)

6.2 Potential Impacts In evaluating the potential effects of this Project, the following factors provide context:

1) Construction of land access and excavation of test pits will occur over a 4 to 6 - week period during winter 2019. Drilling along the bridge approaches and at the abutment locations could occur in winter or summer 2019. Drilling at prospect material sites will occur during summer 2019. Summer drilling will be helicopter supported. 2) The Project is mobile. The work will constantly progress among the different sites so activity at any particular location will be temporary in nature. The longest activity duration in any one location would be at camp locations should the contractor choose to establish a camp. 3) The Project will require some clearing of trees and brush, but it will not require the removal of the surface organic layer. It is estimated that a maximum of 26 ha will require clearing. 4) The Project will require limited access to undisturbed areas. Many of the prospect sites are on an existing cut lines and or adjacent to existing transportation infrastructure. For those locations where new clearing is required, existing cut lines will be used where possible to reduce the amount of vegetation clearing.

6.2.1 Air Quality

There will be a low number of vehicles and equipment used for the Project with the typical localized and temporary effects on air quality that are associated with the use of such vehicles and equipment. While the camp would likely stay at specific locations for a number of weeks, the equipment and vehicles will be moving between sites as the work progresses and the localized effects on air quality will not be persistent at a particular location over the length of the Project. There will be no incineration or unusual air quality emissions.

Effects mitigation methods will include:

1) Vehicles and equipment will be maintained in proper operating condition. 2) Unnecessary idling will be discouraged. 3) Vehicles and equipment will be plugged in at camps to minimize the need to keep running during cold weather.

6.2.2 Noise

There will be a low number of vehicles and equipment used for the Project with the typical immediate vicinity effects upon noise that is associated with the use of such vehicles and equipment. While the camps may stay at specific locations for a number of weeks, the equipment and vehicles will be moving between sites and the anticipated effects on noise will be localized, low and rapidly reversible. There will be no blasting or other unusual loud noises. Helicopter flights will follow established flight corridor and height restrictions. Adequate maintenance of equipment will reduce possible effects associated with construction noise.

Effect mitigation methods will include:

6.2.3 Climate Change

It is not expected that this Project will have a consequential effect upon climate change.

Recognizing that climate change is a cumulative effect of human use of fossil fuels, this Project will take steps to avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. Effect mitigation methods will include:

1) The camp will be properly insulated and winterized to minimize the use of heating fuel. 2) Vehicles and equipment will be maintained in proper operating condition. 3) Unnecessary idling will be discouraged. 4) Vehicles and equipment will be plugged in at camps to minimize the need to keep running during cold weather.

6.2.4 Permafrost

It is not expected that this Project will have a consequential effect on permafrost. During the clearing of trees and brush to provide access for the Project, the surface organic layer will not be removed and root structures will be left intact, which will help to protect the permafrost. The clearing of the trees and brush will nonetheless allow for the potential expansion of the active layer and the thawing of the ground-ice and permafrost in the future. This Project will not disturb the soils with the exception of the drilling of the boreholes and excavation of test pits. The drill cuttings will be placed back into the boreholes after sampling to mitigate that effect. Test pit excavation will be undertaken during winter when most soils will be frozen. Test pits will be immediately backfilled upon completion and mounded to promote positive drainage and protection of underlying permafrost.

6.2.5 Water Quality and Quantity

6.2.5.1 Groundwater

Quantity This Project will not use groundwater resources and as such, no effects on groundwater quantity are anticipated.

Quality If the Contractor encounters groundwater during the drilling of the boreholes, it will be noted on the borehole logs. The augers used for the drilling will be free of any contaminants and so the intersection of the boreholes with groundwater will not introduce any contaminants to the groundwater. Further,

each of the boreholes will be backfilled only with drill cuttings that came from that borehole so there will be no introduction of contaminants through backfilling.

Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during the winter test pit excavation. Excavation equipment will be clean and will not introduce contaminants to the subsurface. Test pits will be backfilled immediately upon completion.

The Spill Contingency Plan (SCP) will be in place to protect against spills and if any spills were to occur, they would be cleaned up promptly and thoroughly to prevent groundwater contamination.

6.2.5.2 Surface Water Surface water could be used for three purposes:

1) Use in the camp –non-potable, 2) Preparing the winter road, and 3) Preparing the ice crossings.

The camp supply of potable water will be hauled to the camp by water truck from domestic water supply at Tulita. Water will be sourced from water bodies either in the Project area. DFO protocols for the withdrawal of water will be applied. Water use will be less than 100 m3/day, therefore a water licence is not required.

Quantity Although exact quantities are unknown, the quantity of water to be used is expected to be low and less than 100 m3/day. DFO protocols regarding the removal of water will be applied.

Quality There will be no effect upon surface water quality due to the Project as there will be no deposits of waste or other contaminants in surface water. Mitigation methods to protect surface water quality include:

1) All drilling and test pit excavation will be above the ordinary high-water mark of water bodies. 2) Any sumps for the disposal of wastewater will be located at least 100 m from any waterbody. 3) Any spills will be cleaned up properly in accordance with the SCP. 4) Fuel transfer and vehicle maintenance will occur at least 100 m from any water body 5) Any debris on the ice crossings will be removed by the end of the Project.

6.2.6 Hydrology

This Project is not expected to cause any significant effects on hydrology. There will be no damming of flow or installation of water-control structures. Ice and/or snow crossings will melt in the spring with no residual effects. Water withdrawn for the building of ice crossings will remain in the watercourse from which it was extracted. Water withdrawn from potential water sources for other purposes such as for

building the winter road or use in the camp will be low volume and will adhere to applicable DFO protocols.

6.2.7 Fish and Fish Habitat

The Project is not expected to cause any significant effects on fish and fish habitat. Potential project interactions with the aquatic environment are limited. During winter, access trails will be built near and over water; however, frozen conditions will prevent direct interaction with fish or fish habitat. Drilling and test pit excavation will be above the ordinary high-water mark. There will be no disposal of waste or other contaminants in water bodies. The extraction of water from potential water sources will be low volume and will adhere to applicable DFO protocols. There might be limited and localized disturbance effects on fish from the use of the ice crossings and the drilling of boreholes near the watercourses. Summer drilling activities will not interact with the aquatic environment. Any spills will be cleaned up in accordance with the SCP with no resulting effects upon fish or fish habitat.

Mitigation methods to protect fish and fish habitat include:

1) All drilling and test pit excavation will be above the ordinary high-water mark of water bodies 2) Machinery used will be in a clean condition and maintained free of fluid leaks and invasive species 3) Any sumps for the disposal of wastewater will be located at least 100 m from any waterbody. 4) Any spills will be cleaned up properly in accordance with the SCP. 5) Fuel transfer and vehicle maintenance will occur at least 100 m from any water body 6) Water withdrawals will adhere to DFO protocols to protect fish and fish habitat. 7) Use existing trails and water crossing sites where possible. 8) Design any access trail approaches to waterbodies so that they are perpendicular to the waterbody and avoid steep slopes to protect riparian vegetation.

6.2.8 Vegetation

The Project is expected to have minimal effect on vegetation. It is estimated that a maximum of 26 ha of vegetation will need to be cleared; however, the actual amount is expected to be less as existing cut lines and disturbed areas will be used where possible. During the clearing of the vegetation, care will be taken to not disturb the surface organic layer and to leave root structures intact. This will protect permafrost and rare plant communities that are not known to be at a specific location. Equipment and vehicles used for the Project that are coming from outside of this area will be cleaned to prevent the spread of non-native plant species.

6.2.9 Wildlife

The Project is expected to have will have minimal effect on wildlife. Potential direct and indirect effects on wildlife from the Project include:

• Habitat loss from clearing vegetation • Temporary habitat loss from sensory disturbance (e.g. noise and visual disturbances)

• Reduction in habitat connectivity; and • Wildlife mortality (direct and indirect)

6.2.9.1 Habitat loss Execution of the summer and winter program will result in the clearing of a maximum of 26 ha of vegetation, although the actual amount is expected to be less as existing cut lines or cleared areas will be utilized as best as possible. This limited amount of clearing is not predicted to have a significant effect on habitat availability.

6.2.9.2 Temporary habitat loss Sensory disturbance from project activities (e.g. noise and visual disturbances) has the potential to displace wildlife from their preferred habitats temporarily, resulting in potential effects to feeding, nesting and movement.

For example, caribou are known to be sensitive to sensory disturbance (noise from machines, human presence and vehicles [Dyer et al. 2001]). Moose may be somewhat more tolerant of disturbance than caribou. Many factors affect the size of a zone of influence of a disturbance, such as topography, the presence of security cover, and environmental conditions such as wind and snow cover.

Migratory birds nest in the Project area between May and early August. Prior to proceeding with any clearing or drilling during this period, a professional biologist will conduct nest sweeps of proposed activity areas. Should active nests be found, setbacks restricting the work area from nests in accordance with Northern Land Use Guidelines (GNWT 2015) and Environment and Climate Change Canada requirements will be established.

Given the temporary and short-term nature of this Project and low level of activity, disturbance effects are expected to be short-term and localized, and overall not significant.

6.2.9.3 Habitat Connectivity and Fragmentation There will be little habitat fragmentation due to this Project. The clearing required will be limited and will be in discrete locations, not resulting in the establishment of linear corridors or breaks.

6.2.9.4 Wildlife Mortality There will be a low number of Project vehicles and equipment moving at slow speeds along the access routes. It is not expected that vehicle-wildlife collisions will be an issue for this Project; however, the issue will be mitigated with the general wildlife mitigation methods described in table 6.2

6.2.10 General Wildlife Effect Mitigation Table 6.2 presents a summary of wildlife mitigations to be implemented during the project.

Table 6-2 Wildlife Effects Mitigation Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Habitat Loss • Clearing will be minimized to only those areas that are required. and/or • Previously disturbed areas will be used wherever possible. Alteration • Personnel will not travel off corridor unless there is a specific requirement. • Project vehicles and equipment entering the area will be cleaned to minimize transport of non-native/invasive species of vegetation. • An approved Spill Contingency Plan (SCP) will be followed to prevent spills and if they were to occur as a result of an accident, that they will be controlled to prevent the spills from affecting a large area. Sensory and • Vehicles and equipment will be maintained in proper operating condition, other including the use of mufflers. Disturbances • Unnecessary idling will be discouraged. • Vehicles and equipment will be plugged in at camps to minimize the need to keep running during cold weather. • During construction, traffic along the alignment will be minimized by ensuring workers are transported to site via vans or extended crew cabs. • Observations of wildlife by project staff will be reported to ENR. • Operations will be temporarily suspended if caribou or moose are noticed within 500 m of Project activities. • Setback distances and guidelines outlines in the Northern Land Use Guidelines (GNWT 2015) will be followed. • In the event that an active den is identified, ENR will be consulted to determine an appropriate strategy. • Wildlife monitors will be on site to monitor wildlife and manage risks. • Bird nest sweeps and appropriate activity setbacks established when conducting activity between May 1 and August 12 annually. • Snow banks along the alignment will be kept low and escape points will be ploughed out for wildlife crossing. Frequency and distance intervals will be discussed with the land use inspector and ENR. • Cleared brush will be spread to prevent wildlife entanglement. • Traffic volumes and speeds will kept be low. Wildlife • An appropriately designated supervisor will provide all field workers with wildlife Incidents response training and general wildlife awareness. • Workers will avoid all interactions with wildlife unless crew safety is at risk. • Workers will not feed, harass or approach wildlife. • All humans/wildlife conflicts and incidents will be reported to the appropriately designated supervisor and to INF. • All significant wildlife features, such as dens, will be documented and reported. • Firearms will not be allowed on-site except for firearms in the possession and control of authorized wildlife monitors. • No hunting or fishing by workers will be permitted. • All food and stored garbage will be kept in bear-proof areas or bear-proof containers to prevent wildlife attraction. • Any grease, oils, fuels stored on-site will be stored in bear-proof areas or containers and the Waste Management Plan will be followed.

Table 6-2 Wildlife Effects Mitigation Potential Effects Mitigation Measures • Workers will be directed to report any suspicious activities related to wildlife. The appropriately designated supervisor will be responsible for obtaining and reporting this information to INF. • Wildlife sightings will be recorded (including GPS location data if possible), submitted to INF and ENR, and included in annual permit reporting to Sahtu Land and Water Board (SLWB). Wildlife • Waste products will be stored in secured containers and transported to Attraction to Site appropriate receiver facilities where arrangements have been made to receive and Waste the waste, if necessary. Management • Wildlife deterrent mechanisms (including fencing and lights) will be used as needed. • The camp will be designed to prevent wildlife interactions. • Adequate outdoor lighting will be installed. • Personnel will follow an approved Waste Management Plan. Wildlife • Equipment and vehicle movements and speeds will be kept low, which should Mortality minimize risk of collisions. • Any wildlife injury or mortality will be immediately reported to INF which will then inform ENR and the SLWB. The cause will be investigated with potential new mitigation developed and applied. • Maintenance measures to reduce attraction of wildlife will be employed. • Additional mitigation, if required, to minimize effects on wildlife will be developed. Spills of • Vehicles will be equipped with spill kits and fuelled 100 m away from Hydrocarbons or waterbodies. Toxic Substances • Fuel storage areas will be equipped with spill kits, will be located at least 100 m Resulting in away from waterbodies and large fuel storage tanks (above 2,000 L) will be Injury to Wildlife double walled. and/or Wildlife • Spill response and containment will be completed expeditiously in accordance Habitat with the Spill Contingency Plan and the contractor’s HSE manual and procedures. • Any spill will be reported to the NWT 24-hour Spill Report Line ((867) 920-8130 or [email protected]) as per the reportable quantities. • Appropriate deterrents will be used to discourage wildlife from entering the area. • ENR will be contacted immediately to determine appropriate course of action, which may include capturing, relocating or treating contaminated wildlife.

6.2.11 Archaeological Resources All sites proposed for investigation have been subject to the desktop analysis of archaeological potential. Those sites with high potential for archaeological resources were subject to an archaeological impact assessment, involving field investigation of archaeological and heritage resource potential. The results of the investigations are documented in the following reports:

Stantec Consulting Limited. 2018a. Archaeological Impact Assessment: Proposed Granular Supply Sources along the Mackenzie (No.1) and Liard (No. 7) Highways and a section of the 2011 proposed Mackenzie Valley Highway, NWT. Prepared for the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Stantec Consulting Limited. 2018b. Tulita Borrow Sources, AIA Results Summary. Prepared for the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The reports have been submitted and reviewed by the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre (PWNHC). A summary of results and associated mitigations are presented in Table 6.3

Table 6-3 Archaeological and Heritage Resource Summary

Sites Investigation summary and mitigations Prospect B1 • No archaeological sites identified Prospect B2 • No archaeological sites identified DHu 1 • Low archaeological potential, site not assessed in field. DHu2 • No archaeological sites identified CFM2 • No archaeological sites identified CA 3 • One archaeological site detected, will be avoided during program CA 4 • One traditional use site detected, will be avoided during program CA 5 (FN19) • One traditional use site detected, unassessed area of site at confluence of Little Bear and Mackenzie rivers and along banks of Little Bear River will be avoided during program.

These studies were both conducted by Stantec and concluded that the program could proceed with low likelihood of disturbing any cultural or archaeological resources at the proposed locations. INF and the Contractor will adhere to conditions included in the land use permit (LUP) concerning the discovery of potential archaeological sites during the investigation.

6.2.12 Socio-Economic Effects This Project is temporary and short-term as it will be completed between March and September 2019, likely involving a total of about 8-12 weeks of activity. It is anticipated that there will be 10- 20 field personnel although that number could vary depending on whether a camp is established and the rate of progress of the work. INF has not yet selected a Contractor for the Project, therefore cannot say with certainty where those workers will be coming from. However, it is our expectation that there will be short-term employment opportunities from this Project for residents of local communities (Tulita,

Norman Wells and Fort Good Hope), with wildlife monitors, truck drivers, equipment operators, camp workers and drillers being examples.

INF is working on the contracting process and will be issuing a public Request for Proposals to complete the program. INF expects that businesses in the local communities will be part of the bidding process either as the primary Contractor or as sub-contractors.

While there are employment and business opportunities associated with the Project, given the low level and short period of activity, the Project will not create any significant or long-term effects on employment and business for the local communities.

There is the possibility that Project could disrupt hunting or trapping activities. However, with the entire Project lasting only about 8-12 weeks over two seasons, it is INF’s view that this potential effect is minimal. As well, with the Project consistently moving between sites, disturbance will not be persistent at any particular location with the exception of the camp, which could be located in one place for several weeks. Finally, by notifying the local communities as to the start and end date for the field work as well as where the camps are located, INF believes that Project conflicts with hunting and trapping activities will be minimal to non-existent.

6.2.13 Traditional Knowledge In preparing this application INF has been guided by traditional knowledge collected during engagement and a report generated during the initial project application in 2006. INF is in discussions with the Tulita Renewable Resource Council (TRCC) to conduct an updated traditional knowledge study and will proceed with the study upon receipt of a proposal from the TRCC. Initial correspondence committing to the study is provided in the Information Documents (Appendix E).

7.0 PROPOSED RESTORATION PLAN The access routes and sites for the investigations will require the clearing and handling of trees and the preparation of a compacted snow layer to protect the organic soils surface. Cleared vegetation will either be mulched or windrowed with breaks every 200 m. The clearings will be allowed to revegetate naturally. Snow fill crossings will be notched to allow for free flow during spring freshet.

Drill cuttings and material excavated for test pits will be placed back into the respective boreholes and test pits. Drill holes will be sealed. The material being placed back in the test pits will be compacted with the excavator bucket and mounded to promote positive drainage and minimize terrain effects.

At the end of the project, the camp and all of the equipment, materials, fuels and waste will be removed from the Project area.

8.0 OTHER RIGHTS, LICENCE OR PERMITS

8.1 Land Use Permit INF has prepared and is submitting this Project Description Report in support of the land use permit application for the Geotechnical Investigation Program to support the design and construction of the Great Bear River Bridge.

8.2 Water License No water licence is required for this Project.

8.3 Solid Waste Disposal INF will secure agreement for the disposal of solid waste from this Project at municipal waste management facilities in Tulita. The sewage and solid waste disposal will be in Tulita. If required, INF can provide an update on this matter prior to the start of fieldwork.

8.4 Access to Sahtu Lands The Department of Infrastructure has acquired permission to access Sahtu land for the purposes of this Project. A letter providing permission for access is included in Appendix A.

8.5 Conformity Requirements, Sahtu Land Use Plan The Sahtu Land Use Planning Board (SLUPB) is one of three regional, co-management boards of public government that were established by the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (SDMCLCA) and, as with the SLWB, was given effect under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA). Working with the SLWB and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB), the SLUPB provides for an integrated and coordinated system of land and water management in the Sahtu.

As of August 8, 2013, licences, permits or other authorizations relating to the use of land or waters or the deposit of waste, are required to conform to the plan. While the plan does not generate a new level of mandatory regulatory review, the SLUPB may make a conformity determination on a land use activity. Proposed investigation sites are located within three Special Management Zones: Zone 62 – Willow Lake Wetlands (Prospect B1 and B2, DHU1 and 2, CFM-2), Zone 63 – Mackenzie River (CA5) and Zone 33 – Great Bear River (CA 3 and 4). Special Management Zones 33, 62 and 63 require compliance with conformity requirements (CR) 2-13 and 14. The determination of whether or not a project under development conforms to the land use plan is made during the application review. The Proponent is developing the Project to conform to the plan. The CRs have been addressed in Table 8.1.

Table 8-1 Sahtu Land Use Plan Conformity Requirements Conformity Status Supporting Requirement Evidence 1. Land Use Zoning • Most sites are in Special Management zones with only No bulk water prohibited activity being Bulk Water Removal. Project removal activities do not include bulk water removal. 2. Community • Multiple communications and meetings; Engagement Appendix B Engagement and TK completed in every Sahtu community between January in Appendix C August and October 2018. Appendix D • Appended Engagement Plan provides commitment to Appendix E continue community engagement throughout duration of project. 3. Community Include but not limited to: Section Benefits • Employment and economic activities, contract work 6.2.11 • Identification of quarry sources to support construction of GBR bridge and other potential needs which will generate further employment and economic activity for residents 4. Archaeological AOA and AIA’s conducted in 2018 by Stantec Section sites and burial sites • No significant archaeological, cultural, or heritage resources 6.2.10 identified or suspected • Mitigation will involve avoidance of known sites and unassessed areas 5. Watershed • Proposed project has little to no reasonable potential to Section 6.2.5 Management substantially alter quality, quantity, or rate of flow for waters that flow on, through or are adjacent to Sahtu lands. 6. Drinking water • Proposed project will not result in the contamination of Section 6.2.5 surface or groundwater within a community catchment. 7. Fish and wildlife • Work to be conducted at 8 different sites over an 8-12-week Section 6.2.7 period, activity at any one site will be limited in duration. Section 6.2.9 • Proposed work not likely to have significant impact on fish or wildlife • Mitigations planned to avoid interactions with fish and wildlife 8. Species introduced • The proposed project will take all reasonable precautions to Section 6.2.8 prevent the introduction of non-native species or sub-species • Equipment and vehicles used for the Project that are coming from outside of this area will be cleaned to prevent the spread of non-native plant species. 9. Sensitive Species • Mitigations are applied to minimize effects on sensitive Section and Features species. 6.1.6.9 • Potential effects on sensitive species are not significant Section 6.2.9 10. Permafrost • Proposed project will be designed and carried out in a matter Section 6.2.4 that prevents and/or mitigates adverse environmental impacts resulting from the degradation or aggradation of permafrost. • Project will increase knowledge of permafrost condition and distribution in the Project area • Tracked dozers may be used for this clearing work by installing shoes on the blade so it cannot cut into/disturb the frozen ground

Table 8-1 Sahtu Land Use Plan Conformity Requirements Conformity Status Supporting Requirement Evidence 11. Project-specific • TDB based on execution of project 6.2.9 monitoring • Wildlife monitor may be hired during field programs 12. Financial Security • Not applicable – GNWT does not need to provide financial NA security 13. Closure and • All equipment, materials and waste to be removed from Section 7.0 Reclamation Project sites upon project conclusion Section 9.0 • Natural revegetation of any disturbed areas , which are expected to be restricted to summer drill locations 14. Protection of • No indication of impact of project on archaeological and Throughout Special Values burial sites • No lasting or irreversible impacts to water quality of wildlife, and impacts minor and will be minimized through mitigation measures outlined in PDR

9.0 PROPOSED DISPOSAL METHODS The Waste Management Plan (WMP) for this Project is in Appendix F. The following are the primary waste management methods in the WMP:

• Non-hazardous garbage will be taken to an approved solid waste facility. • Camp sewage and grey water will be disposed of in natural depressions or to the sewage lagoon in Tulita. • Hazardous waste will be taken to an approved hazardous waste facility. • Trees and brush cleared along the alignment will be mulched or windrowed and compacted by heavy equipment along the side of the cleared area. • Drill cuttings will be placed back into the borehole. • Excavated material will be returned to the test pits.

The SCP will be updated by the contractor selected to perform the work.

10.0 EQUIPMENT The exact types, numbers, and weights of the equipment which will be used are not known until a contractor has been selected. However, equipment that would be used for a geotechnical project of this calibre would include: heavy construction equipment, a drill rig, pick-up trucks, a water truck, a sewage truck and possibly a fuel truck. Summer activities will also require the use of helicopter support and a helicopter portable drill rig. Table 10-1 below contains typical equipment and the associated information.

Table 10-1 Equipment List and Specifications Equipment Size Weight Numb Purpose (kg) er Snowcat Various 10,000 1 to 2 The opening and maintenance of cut lines and models preparation of water crossings. Grader Various 21,000 1 to 2 The opening and maintenance of cut lines and models preparation of water crossings. Plow truck Tandem 25,000 1 to 2 The opening and maintenance of cut lines and axle preparation of water crossings. Loader Various Up to 1 to 2 Developing and maintaining ice crossings models 40,000 Tracked Dozer D8 or Up to 2 to 3 The opening and maintenance of cutline access and equivalent 40,000 preparation of water crossings. Water truck Tandem Up to 2 Provide water supply for winter access preparation, axle or 40,000 and for core drill operations. semi-trailer Tracked Excavator Cat 320 or Up to 1 to 2 For the opening of access cut lines, mulcher head equipped with or equivalent 40,000 will be used for this. Bucket attachment will be used without mulcher for test pitting. head Tracked mulcher Various Up to 1 The opening of cut lines and drill clearings. models 60,000 Fuel truck Tandem 25,000 1 to 2 Commercial, licensed fuel carrier to provide axle resupply of diesel and gasoline to portable tankage. Helicopter Various N/A 1 Provide transport of personnel, supplies, fuel as required. Provide emergency transport ability. Geotechnical drill Various Up to 1 to 2 For use in advancing boreholes on bridge approaches rig (track or truck 40,000 and abutments. mounted) Core drill unit Various Up to 1 For use in advancing boreholes at bridge abutments. (track, skid or truck 40,000 mounted) Heli- portable drill Various Up to 1-2 For use in drilling boreholes during summer. 7,500 lbs Service Pickup ½ to 5 ton 5,000 5 to 10 Provide personnel transport, fuel transport by on capacity board tidy tanks, mobile heavy equipment repair capacity. Highway tractor Various Winter 1 to 2 Winter road mobilization of equipment to the with lowboy or Road legal project site. Movement of equipment within the highboy axle work site. weight Skidoo Up 300 4 to 10 Provide transport for personnel on cutline opening and tidying work. Provide transport for environment and wildlife monitors. Chainsaw 4 to 12 For the opening of cutline in the vicinity of watercourses, if required. Portable Diesel and 2 to 6 To provide electrical power at drill work sites. Gas Generators Portable 2 to 4 For illumination at drill/test pit site locations. lighting/generator set

Table 10-1 Equipment List and Specifications Equipment Size Weight Numb Purpose (kg) er Various Up to Carry out operations of opening and maintaining construction and 20,000 winter access and for support of site investigations. winter road equipment

11.0 FUELS The contractor for the project will select the types of fuels and fuel storage tanks to meet the needs of the project as well as any storage tank volumes and locations. INF expects that diesel and gasoline will be the two primary fuels used. Diesel will be used for use in the mobile equipment and vehicles and for space heating and power generation at the camp. Gasoline might not be required depending on the vehicles that are used.

INF expects the external fuel tanks required for the project will include: stationary fuel tanks for heating and powering the work camp and for vehicle refueling; fuel tanks mounted in the back of pickup trucks for refueling mobile equipment and vehicles away from the camp; and a designated fuel truck for refueling a camp.

Estimated fuel requirements are provided in Table 11.1. Mobile and stationary tanks used for the project will meet regulatory requirements. If required, INF will provide the Board with an updated list of fuels, tanks, and volumes prior to the start of the fieldwork.

Table 11-1 Type, Amount and Location of Fuels and Major Tanks

Capacity of Containers Containment Type (including Type of Fuel Number Storage Location (L) secondary) Diesel 25,000 2 Double wall enviro tanks A local start up point Gasoline 5,000 2 Double wall enviro tanks A local start up point

12.0 CONTAINMENT FUEL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLANS The Spill Contingency Plan (SCP) for this Project is in Appendix G. The SCP will be updated by the contractor selected to perform the work.

13.0 METHODS OF FUEL TRANSFER The Contractor for this Project will select the exact methods of fuel transfer. However, INF expects that fuel will be transferred using pumps and hoses to stationary tanks and to equipment and vehicles from fuel tanks mounted in the back of pick-up trucks and/or a designated fuel truck. The staff conducting fuel transfer operations will be experienced.

Fuel transfer operations will follow the regulatory requirements that are included in the LUP such as maintaining fuel transfer set back distances from watercourses.

If the land use inspector notes concern with fuel storage and transfer, INF and the Contractor will make changes to the equipment, operations and/or personnel as required to maintain regulatory compliance and to protect the environment.

14.0 PERIOD OF PERMIT The date of mobilization of staff and equipment will be dependent upon the date of receipt of the LUP from the Sahtu Land and Water Board. INF intends to start the fieldwork as soon as possible after receipt of the LUP, aiming for the last week of February 2019.

The length of the winter field program is proposed from permit issuance to the closure of the Mackenzie Valley Winter Road, anticipated to be on or about March 31, 2019. Summer work would occur during snow- free conditions, likely May to September 2019. However, to accommodate potential delays or setbacks in project execution, INF requests the permit be issued for a 5-year period.

15.0 LOCATION OF ACTIVITIES BY MAP COORDINATES Please see Table 5.1 in Section 5 for the coordinates of each of the proposed investigation sites.

16.0 FEES The GNWT is not required to pay any fees associated with acquiring land use permits.

17.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT The GNWT has carried out pre- application engagement and is committed to continuing with engagement throughout the project. Please see Appendix B (Engagement Plan), Appendix C (Engagement Record), Appendix D (Summary of Community Engagement) and Appendix E (Information Documents) for complete engagement information.

18.0 SUPPORTING STUDIES 18.1 Heritage and Archaeological Resources

INF contracted Stantec Consulting Limited to conduct an Archaeological Impact Assessment of sites to be investigated under this application. The results of the investigations are documented in the following reports:

Stantec Consulting Limited. 2018b. Tulita Borrow Sources, AIA Results Summary. Prepared for the Government of the Northwest Territories.

These reports are the property of the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre and are not to be released without their permission. Summary results of the AIAs and mitigations for each of the sites are reported in Section 6.2.10.

19.0 REFERENCES

AANDC. 2011. Watersheds of the Northwest Territories. Accessed January 2019. http://www.nwtwaterstewardship.ca/sites/default/files/YELLOWKN-%23492871-v1- MAP_WATERSTRATEGYMRB_SB_E_PDF_0.pdf. Advisory Committee for Cooperation on Wildlife Management (ACCWM). 2014a. Taking Care of Caribou: The Cape Bathurst, Bluenose-West, and Bluenose-East barren-ground caribou herds management plan. Yellowknife, NT. Advisory Committee for Cooperation on Wildlife Management (ACCWM). 2014b. We have been Living with the Caribou all our Lives: a report on information recorded during community meetings for “Taking Care of Caribou – the Cape Bathurst, Bluenose-West, and Bluenose-East barren-ground caribou herds Management Plan”. Yellowknife, NT. Auld, J. and R. Kershaw. 2005. The Sahtu Atlas: Maps and stories from the Sahtu Settlement Area in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Friesens, Canada. 68 pp.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (Eds.). General Technical Report RM-254, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ft. Collins, CO. Birtwell, I.K. 1999. The Effects of Sediment on Fish and Their Habitat. Cdn. Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document 99/139, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Blood, D.A. and Anweiler, G.G. 1994. Status of the bald eagle in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-62. Prepared for the Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.

Bromley, R.G. and Trauger, D.L. ND. Birds of Yellowknife: a regional checklist. Yellowknife, NWT.

Cardinal, N. 2006. “Challenges and implications of using ATK for species conservation: a case study of Northern Canada wolverines.” Proceedings of Bridging Scales and Epistemologies: Linking Local Knowledge and Global Science in Multiscale Assessments. Conference for Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 17-20 March 2006. Retrieved November 2013 from: http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/bridging/proceedings.aspx Carruthers, D.R., Ferguson, S., Jakimchuk, R.D., and Sopuck, L.G. 1986. Distribution and habitat use of the Bluenose caribou herd in mid-winter. Rangifer Special Issue 1. Clarkson, P.L. 1993. The ecology and management of problemblack bears at Norman Wells, NWT, 1985-88. Manuscript Report No. 70. Department of Renewable Resources, Inuvik, NT.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the wolverine Gulo gulo in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Dyer, S.J., J.P. O’Neil, S.M. Wasel and S. Boutin. 2001. Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3): 531-542. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. 2011. Project Description Report for the Construction of the Mackenzie Valley Highway in the Tulita District. Prepared for the Department of Transportation, Government of the Northwest Territories. EBA Project No. Y22101155. Ecosystem Classification Group. 2008. Ecological Regions of the Northwest Territories Taiga Shield. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT.

Environment Canada. 2008. Scientific Review for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. August 2008. Environment Canada, Ottawa. Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 138 pp.

Environment and Natural Resources (ENR). 2019. Barren-ground caribou. Accessed January 2019. https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/en/services/barren-ground-caribou Environment and Natural Resources (ENR), Government of Northwest Territories. 2012. NWT Species Monitoring Infobase. Web access: http://www.nwtspeciesatrisk.ca/en/Infobase (accessed September 2018).

Environment and Natural Resources (ENR), Government of Northwest Territories. 2015. Species at Risk in the NWT. Web access: http://www.nwtspeciesatrisk.ca/en/SpeciesAtRisk (accessed September 2018).

Fulton, R.J. 1995. Surficial Materials of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1880A.

Government of Canada (GOC). 2019. Species at Risk Public Registry. Accessed January 2019. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=24F721

Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT). 2019. NWT Spatial Data Warehouse Geospatial Portal. Accessed January 2019. https://www.maps.geomatics.gov.nt.ca/Html5Viewer_PROD/index.html?viewer=SDW

GNWT. 2018. Department Environment and Natural Resources. Species at Risk on the Northwest Territories 2018. Accessed January 2019. https://www.nwtspeciesatrisk.ca/sites/default/files/speciesatriskinthenwt_english_2018.pdf

GNWT. 2016. Department Environment and Natural Resources. 2016. NWT Species 2016-2020 – General Status Ranks of Wild Species in the Northwest Territories, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT. www.enr.gov.nt.ca.

GNWT. 2015. Northern Land Use Guidelines. Northwest Territories Seismic Operations. Accessed January 2019. https://www.lands.gov.nt.ca/sites/lands/files/resources/nlug_seismic_2015_english_- _16_sept_2015.pdf

GNWT. 2012. NWT Species at Risk Infobase. Retrieved August 2013 from: http://nwtspeciesatrisk.ca/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Infobase.

GNWT. 2010. Ecological Regions of the Northwest Territories Cordillera. Accessed January 2019. https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/enr/files/resources/cordillera_ecological_land_classfication_re port.pdf

GNWT. 2009. Ecological Regions of the Northwest Territories Taiga Plains. Accessed January 2019. https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/enr/files/resources/taiga_plains_ecological_land_classification _report.pdf Heginbottom, J. A. (2000). Permafrost distribution and ground ice in surficial materials. The physical environment of the Mackenzie valley, Northwest Territories: A base line for the assessment of environmental change, edited by: Dyke, LD and Brooks, GR, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, 31-39. Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited Partnership, ConocoPhillips Canada (North) Limited, ExxonMobil Canada Properties, Shell Canada Limited and Mackenzie Valley Aboriginal Pipeline Limited (IOL et al.). 2004. Environmental Impact Statement for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Submitted to the National Energy Board.

Laviviere, S. 2001. Ursus americanus. The American Society of Mammalogists 647: 1- 11. In: Haysson, V. (editor). Mammalian Species online reference. Web access: http://www.science.smith.edu/ departments/ Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/msi_intro.html (accessed November 2018).

Lloyd, D.S., J.P. Koenings, and J.D. LaPerriere. 1987. Effects of Turbidity in FreshWater of Alaska. N. Am. Journal of Fish. Mgmt. 7.

MacDonald, D.D., D.A Levy, A. Czarnecki, G,. Low ad N. Richea. 2004. State of Aquatic Knowledge of Great Bear Watershed. Prepared for Water Resources Division, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 191 p. McLean, N. 1994. Population size and composition of moose in the Fort Norman Area, NTW, November 1993. Manuscript Report No. 80. Prepared by the Department of Renewable Resources, Government of Northwest Territories.

Miller. S.J., N. Barichello, and D. Tait. 1982. The Grizzly Bears of the Mackenzie Mountains Northwest Territories. Completion Report No. 3. N.W.T. Wildlife Service. 128 pp.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN). Geological Map of Canada - Map D1860A [CD-ROM]. 1997. Ottawa, Ontario: Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/atlas-canada/selected-thematic- maps/16876 NRCAN. 1993. Canada-Permafrost [map]. Fifth Edition, National Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 2019. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/atlas-canada/selected-thematic- maps/16838

Pasitschniak-Arts, M., & Larivière, S. (1995). Gulo gulo. Mammalian species, (499), 1-10. Peek, J.M. 1998. Habitat relationships. Pages 351-375 in A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz, eds. Ecology and Management of North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Richardson, E.S., J.D. Reist, and C.K. Minns. 2001. Life History Characteristics of Freshwater Fishes Occurring in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, With Major Emphasis on Lake Habitat Requirements. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2569. 158 pp. Robinson, S; Couture, R; Burgess, M, 2001. Climate change, permafrost, and community infrastructure: a compilation of background material from a pilot study of Norman Wells, Northwest Territories Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3913, 2001; 1 CD-ROM, doi:10.4095/211899

Scott, W.B. and Crossman, E.J. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Resources Board Canada Snyder, S.A. 1991. Ursus americanus. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (February 2011). Fire Effects Information SystemWeb access: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/URAM/all.html. (accessed November 2018). Species at Risk Committee (SARC). 2012. Species Status Report for Boreal Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the Northwest Territories. Species at Risk Committee. Yellowknife, NT.

Species at Risk Committee. (SARC). 2014. Species Status Report for Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in the Northwest Territories. Species at Risk Committee. Yellowknife, NT.

Species at Risk Secretariat. 2015. Request for clarification, Species at Risk Committee (SARC) Status Report for Wolverine in the NWT. Letter to the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board. Web access: http://www.nwtspeciesatrisk.ca/sites/default/files/2015_03_03_request_for_clarification_grrb.pd f

Stantec Consulting Limited. 2018b. Tulita Borrow Sources, AIA Results Summary. Prepared for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Terres, J.K. 1982. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Veitch, A.M., R.A. Popko, and N. McDonald. 1995. Size, Composition, and Harvest of the Norman Wells Area Moose Population, November 1995. Manuscript Report No. 93. Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Government of Northwest Territories, Norman Wells, NT.