NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section describes and identifies the Project purpose, location, components and summarizes activities associated with the construction, operations and maintenance, as well as decommissioning and abandonment phases of the pipelines and compressor stations. Figure 1.1-1 (Section 1.0) provides the regional location of the Project. Additional Project description details are provided in Section 1.0 of the Application.
2.1 Project Purpose The Project is required to meet aggregate firm service contracts for the receipt and delivery of sweet natural gas, and all components of the Project are required to meet the firm service requests. Although the Project components are located in various areas on the NGTL System, they form the necessary components of a single system expansion. See Section 2.0 of the Application for a more thorough description of the Project purpose.
The Project will entail the construction and operations of five buried natural gas pipelines and two compressor stations. The Project will be part of the NGTL System, a network of 24,500 km of pipeline that transports natural gas for use within Alberta and BC and for delivery to other markets across North America.
2.2 Alternative Means Alternative means are the various ways that are technically and economically feasible to implement and carry out the Project and are discussed briefly in Section 4.0 in compliance with Section 19(1)(g) of the CEA Act, 2012.
2.3 Components and Locations of the Project This subsection describes and identifies the technical details and proposed location of the Project components, including the pipelines and associated permanent pipeline facilities, compressor stations, construction camps, and other temporary infrastructure and workspace and access. These various components are described separately below.
2.3.1 Pipelines This ESA assumes minimum construction right-of-way widths of 32 m plus temporary workspace for the Boundary Lake, Bear Canyon, McLeod River and Pelican Lake sections. A minimum construction right-of-way width of 27 m plus temporary workspace was assumed for the Christina River Section.
Additional temporary workspace will be necessary at log decks, soil and material storage sites, road and third-party utility crossings, locations where grading on slopes is required, sidebends and watercourse crossings (e.g., HDD staging areas), equipment and fuel storage sites, stockpile sites, contractor offices and yards, and borrow pits (see Section 2.3.4). The temporary workspace widths will vary for each proposed pipeline route and site-specific conditions. Where the pipeline is contiguous with existing linear facilities, and where disposition holder consent has been obtained, NGTL intends to make use of existing land disturbance to reduce overall linear disturbance. Table 2.3-1 summarizes the location and technical details of the proposed pipeline routes.
TABLE 2.3-1
TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTES
Pipeline Route Technical Component Project Details Boundary Lake Total length: 91.4 km Section Length parallel to existing 85.7 km (93.7%) linear disturbances: Non-contiguous length: 5.8 km (6.3%) Product: Natural gas Maximum operating pressure: 8,450 kPa
Page 2-1
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.3-1 Cont'd
Pipeline Route Technical Component Project Details Boundary Lake Source point: Alces River Compressor Station: NW 13-85-13 W6M Section (cont’d) Delivery point: Owl Lake South Meter Station: NE 20-94-12 W6M Pipe size: 914 mm O.D. (NPS 36) Minimum depth of cover: 0.9 m (1.5 m at watercourse and road crossings) Typical trench width: 1.5 m in earth and rock soil and 1.8 m in muskeg Test medium: Water/methanol mix Bear Canyon Total length: 26.7 km Section Length parallel to existing 19.8 km (74.2%) linear disturbances: Non-contiguous length: 6.9 km (25.8%) Product: Natural gas Maximum operating pressure: 8,450 kPa Source point: Saddle Hills Compressor Station: SE 5-79-9 W6M Delivery point: Valve site NW20: SW 35-80-11 W6M Pipe size: 914 mm O.D. (NPS 36) Minimum depth of cover: 0.9 m Typical trench width: 1.2 m Test medium: Water/methanol mix McLeod River Total length: 36.3 km Section Length parallel to existing 33.5 km (92.3%) linear disturbances: Non-contiguous length: 2.8 km (7.7%) Product: Natural gas Maximum operating pressure: 8,275 kPa Source point: New valve site: NW 21-55-20 W5M Delivery point: Existing valve site: SE 11-53-18 W5M Pipe size: 1,219 mm O.D. (NPS 48) Minimum depth of cover: 0.9 m Typical Trench width: 1.2 m Test medium: Water/methanol mix Pelican Lake Total length: 56.1 km Section Length parallel to existing 53.5 km (95.4%) linear disturbances: Non-contiguous length: 2.6 km (4.6%) Product: Natural gas Maximum operating pressure: 9,930 kPa Source point: Buffalo Creek Compressor Station: SW 19-86-18 W4M Delivery point: Pelican Lake Compressor Station: NE 30-81-16 W4M Pipe size: 762 mm O.D. (NPS 30) Minimum depth of cover: 0.9 m Typical trench width: 1.2 m Test medium: Water/methanol mix Christina River Total length: 19.6 km Section Length parallel to existing 17.1 km (87.5%) linear disturbances: Non-contiguous length: 2.5 km (12.5%) Product: Natural gas Maximum operating pressure: 9,930 kPa Source point: Leismer-Kettle Crossover: NW 26-80-6 W4M Delivery point: Graham Lateral Loop 2 Junction: NW 14-79-5 W4M
Page 2-2
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.3-1 Cont'd
Pipeline Route Technical Component Project Details Christina River Pipe size: 610 mm O.D. (NPS 24) Section (cont’d) Minimum depth of cover: 0.9 m Typical trench width: 1.2 m Test medium: Water/methanol mix Note: Presented values for total length, length parallel to existing linear disturbances and non-contiguous length are rounded. Length parallel to existing linear disturbances and non-contiguous length were calculated using the full (i.e., not rounded) values.
2.3.1.1 Permanent Pipeline Facilities In addition to the proposed pipeline routes, the following permanent facilities will also be constructed within the construction rights-of-way:
• tie-ins;
• valve sites;
• cathodic protection;
• launcher and receiver facilities to accommodate cleaning and in-line inspection; and
• miscellaneous works such as pipeline warning signs and aerial markers.
See Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of the Application for additional detail on the associated permanent pipeline facilities.
2.3.2 Compressor Stations The location and technical details of the components of each of the proposed compressor stations are summarized in Table 2.3-2.
TABLE 2.3-2
TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED COMPRESSOR STATION UNIT ADDITIONS
Technical Component Project Details Alces River Unit Addition Compressor Station Location: NW 13-85-13 W6M Compressor Station Components General Electric NovaL T16 gas turbine compressor (new unit) (Make/Model): Mars 100-1500S gas turbine with C601 compressor (existing unit) Fuel Type: Natural gas Construction Schedule: Q4 2016 to Q2 2017 Existing Alces River Compressor 160 m x 150 m Station Footprint: Proposed Alces River Unit Approximately 160 m x 100 m (partially within existing station boundaries) Addition Footprint: Total Compressor Station 160 m x 190 m Footprint: Structures on Site: Anticipated new structures: one compressor station building; one auxiliary power unit (APU) generator skid; two mechanical buildings; one utility gas enclosure; and one drum rack. Existing structures: two compressor station buildings (one used as heated storage); one control building; one utility gas enclosure; two local control module buildings; one heated storage building; and one drum rack.
Page 2-3
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.3-2 Cont'd
Technical Component Project Details In-Service Date: Beginning on April 1, 2017 Expected Useful Life of 25 years Compressor Station: Power Rating: 16.5 MW Otter Lake Unit Addition Compressor Station Location: SW 8-91-16 W5M Compressor Station Components General Electric LM2500 gas turbine compressor (new unit) (Make/Model): Siemens/Rolls-Royce RB211 gas turbine compressor (existing unit) Fuel Type: Natural gas Construction Schedule: Q4 2016 to Q2 2017 Existing Otter Lake Compressor 300 m x 300 m Station Footprint: Otter Lake Unit Addition Approximately 140 m x 300 m (within existing station boundaries) Footprint: Total Compressor Station 300 m x 300 m Footprint: Structures on Site: Anticipated new structures: one (Unit B2) compressor building; one APU generator skid; two mechanical buildings; one electrical building; one utility gas enclosure; and one compressor control/cooler Motor Control Centre building. Existing structures: one (Unit A1) compressor station building; one APU generator building; two mechanical buildings; one electrical building; one personnel building; one compressor control/cooler Motor Control Centre building; one utility gas enclosure; one living quarters building; one heated storage building; and one drum rack building. In-Service Date: Beginning on April 1, 2017 Expected Useful Life of 25 years Compressor Station: Power Rating: 30 MW
2.3.3 Construction Camps The temporary construction camp associated with the Otter Lake Unit Addition is considered quantitatively in this ESA. The construction camp is located at SW 10-91-16 W5M and SE 11-91-16 W5M approximately 5 km east of the compressor station site and will use existing access (Figure 1.1-1[h]).
Although the location and footprint of only one construction camp was known at the time of the assessment, additional temporary construction camps will be necessary during construction of the Project and have been assessed qualitatively in this ESA. The locations and number of additional sites will be determined based on NGTL’s assessment of Project component needs and available options following Application submission. NGTL will conduct a desktop study and limited field program to confirm the conclusions of the ESA during supplemental studies. Supplemental filings will be submitted to the NEB in fall 2015 (see Section 11.0).
2.3.4 Other Temporary Infrastructure and Workspace In addition to the temporary construction camps, other temporary infrastructure and workspace will be necessary, including, but not limited to:
• log decks, and soil and material storage sites;
• locations of extra depth for roadway and third-party utility crossings;
• locations where grading on slopes is required;
Page 2-4
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• sidebends and watercourse crossings (e.g., HDD staging areas);
• equipment and fuel storage sites (e.g., marshalling yards);
• stockpile sites;
• contractor offices and yards, including trailers; and
• borrow pits.
Known temporary infrastructure and workspace is considered quantitatively in this ESA, which was identified based on the proposed pipeline routes and standard TransCanada temporary workspace requirements. If additional temporary infrastructure and workspace is determined to be necessary following Application submission, NGTL will conduct a desktop study and limited field program to confirm the conclusions of the ESA during supplemental studies. Supplemental filings will be submitted to the NEB in fall 2015 (see Section 11.0).
NGTL will work to reduce the amount of land necessary for temporary workspace, to the extent practical. Temporary infrastructure will be reviewed from an environmental perspective by NGTL and its consultants prior to use and reclaimed, where applicable, following construction as part of clean-up and reclamation activities.
2.3.4.1 Access Temporary access will be necessary for construction and operations of the Project, and will include vehicle crossings at watercourses and trenchless crossings along the proposed construction rights-of-way, as well as access to the Project components. No new permanent access is anticipated for the Project. Existing infrastructure will be used, where practical. Access to the Project will be from existing public and private access points and roads (respecting traffic safety and concern for other users) and controlled existing access and rights-of-way of others.
Where existing access is not sufficient or available, access may be improved along existing roads or trails where necessary during construction by widening, regrading or by other means. NGTL will seek consent of existing disposition holders and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) through temporary field authorizations (TFAs) as required.
Where new temporary access is necessary, all applicable authorizations and approvals on private and public lands will be acquired prior to use. The location of new temporary access roads that may be necessary for construction and/or operation will be delineated during detailed engineering and design.
Although the location and footprint of temporary access was not known at the time of the assessment, temporary access has been assessed qualitatively in this ESA. The locations of existing access roads or trails where upgrading is necessary will be determined based on NGTL’s assessment of Project component needs and available options following Application submission. NGTL will conduct a desktop study and limited field program to confirm the conclusions of the ESA during supplemental studies. Supplemental filings will be submitted to the NEB in fall 2015 (see Section 11.0).
2.4 Construction This subsection describes standard activities and typical equipment needs for construction of the Project as well as environmental permits/approvals required prior to construction. All of these activities are considered in the assessment of the effects of the Project (see Sections 7.0 and 8.0) and are presented in the general order of occurrence during construction.
2.4.1 Construction Activities for the Proposed Pipelines The total length of the proposed pipeline routes to be installed for the Project is approximately 230 km. Standard activities and typical equipment requirements for pipeline construction are described in Table 2.4-1.
Page 2-5
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.4-1
PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Pipeline Construction Phase Associated Activities and Typical Equipment Engineering The proposed pipeline routes will be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards and the NEB OPR as well as federal, provincial and municipal requirements, and conditions of permits or authorizations. Construction Survey Activities include flagging and staking of the boundaries of the proposed construction rights-of-way, temporary workspaces and facility sites, as well as marking the trench line and existing utilities. Avoidance areas, such as protected habitats or rare plants, will be appropriately fenced or flagged. Clearing Vegetation (trees, stumps, brush, crops and other vegetation) and snow will be cleared from the proposed construction rights-of-way and temporary workspaces as needed to facilitate construction activities. Salvageable timber will be cut and decked. Non-salvageable vegetative debris will be burned, chipped or used for rollback as appropriate. Equipment used during clearing activities may include chain saws, rotary grinders, feller-bunchers, hydro-axes, mulchers or other tree-clearing equipment, as well as skidders, dozers and excavators. Disposal Disposal of all vegetative debris that is not salvaged for merchantability will be disposed through burning, mechanical chipping/mulching or used for rollback, as appropriate. Burning will be conducted following the Forest Protection Regulations (Alberta Reg. 310/72). Typical equipment used during disposal includes mulchers, chippers and trucks. Strippings Handling Strippings will be salvaged at areas where grading is necessary. The area stripped is (Forested Lands) to correspond to the area to be graded. The width and depth of strippings salvage depends on a number of factors including: the soil conditions at the time of construction; microtopography; and grading requirements. Typical equipment used during strippings handling activities includes dozers, graders and excavators. Topsoil Salvage Topsoil will be salvaged from agricultural lands to ensure that the soil productivity is (Agricultural Lands) maintained. The width and depth of topsoil salvage depends on a number of factors including the land use, soil conditions, microtopography, landowner requests and grading requirements. Equipment used during topsoil handling activities may include bulldozers, graders, excavators and frozen topsoil strippers. Grading Following topsoil/strippings salvage, grading will be conducted on irregular ground (Where Warranted) surfaces (including temporary workspace) to provide a safe work surface. Graders, backhoes and dozers will be used for this activity. Stringing and Welding Pipe will be transported by truck from the stockpile sites to the proposed construction rights-of-way. Pipe will be bent, lined-up, welded, joint-coated and inspected, prior to being lowered into the trench. Typical equipment used during stringing and welding activities includes pipe trucks, sideboom tractors, bending machines, pick-up trucks, and X-ray or ultrasonic inspection equipment mounted on pick-up trucks or skids. Trenching The trench will be excavated using tracked excavators or wheel ditchers to a depth sufficient to ensure the depth of cover is in accordance or in excess of applicable codes. The minimum depth of cover will generally be 0.9 m in the Green Area (i.e., the Boundary Lake, Christina River and Pelican Lake sections, and Green Area portions of the Bear Canyon and McLeod River sections) and 1.2 m in the White Area (i.e., agricultural areas of the Bear Canyon and McLeod River sections). Additional depth provided at crossings of existing pipelines, roadways and watercourses. Lowering-In The pipe will be lowered into the trench using sideboom tractors. Trench dewatering may be necessary at certain locations during lowering-in to ensure acceptable bedding for pipe and to prevent the pipe from floating or for performing tie-in welds. Weights or screw anchors will be installed in muskeg sections or areas with a high water table, where warranted.
Page 2-6
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.4-1 Cont'd
Pipeline Construction Phase Associated Activities and Typical Equipment Backfilling Prior to backfilling, subsurface erosion control structures such as trench breakers will (Forested Lands) be installed along with subdrains, where warranted, to control subsurface drainage along the trench. The trench will be backfilled using backhoes, graders, dozers or specialized backfilling equipment. Backfill material will generally consist of native trench spoil material. All available spoil will be crowned over the trench line to allow for settlement. Openings will be left in the crown at appropriate locations to allow for temporary and permanent cross right-of-way drainage. Backfilling Prior to backfilling, subsurface erosion control structures such as trench breakers will (Agricultural Lands) be installed on steep slopes or long continuous slopes, along with subdrains, where warranted, to control subsurface drainage along the trench. The trench will be backfilled using backhoes, graders, bulldozers or specialized backfilling equipment. Backfill material will generally consist of native trench spoil material. Displaced subsoil will be placed back into the trench and any excess trench spoil will be feathered-out over adjacent portions of the proposed right-of-way where topsoil salvage has occurred. Sand padding may be necessary in areas of rock. Testing All piping will be hydrostatically pressure tested and adhere to relevant provincial and federal regulations. Clean-Up and Upon completion of construction activities, clean-up and reclamation procedures will Reclamation be initiated following backfilling using dozers, backhoes and/or graders. Garbage or (Forested Lands) debris remaining on-site will be removed and disposed of in compliance with local regulations. The proposed construction rights-of-way will be graded to restore pre-construction contours, where practical. The proposed construction rights-of-way will be returned to a stable condition. The strippings, where salvaged, will be replaced with cross ditches and diversion berms installed, where warranted, on moderate and steep slopes to reduce the risk of erosion. All disturbed, upland areas will be revegetated using natural recovery or seeded with an appropriate native seed mix. Special reclamation measures will be applied, where warranted. Clean-Up and Initial clean-up and reclamation activities along disturbed portions of the proposed Reclamation construction rights-of-way and temporary access trails (e.g., shoo-flies) will be initiated (Agricultural Lands) following backfilling, once weather and soil conditions permit. Garbage or debris, remaining following construction, will be removed and disposed of in compliance with local regulations. The proposed construction rights-of-way will be returned to a stable condition. The topsoil will be replaced, with cross ditches and diversion berms installed, where warranted, on moderate and steep slopes to reduce the risk of erosion. All disturbed, non-cultivated, upland areas will be seeded with an appropriate seed mix. Watercourse Crossings Watercourse crossing methods chosen will be based on the width, streamflow, channel morphology, sensitivity, approach slopes and geotechnical considerations. Options available for crossing the watercourses include trenched (e.g., isolation [dam and pump, and flume] and open cut) and trenchless (e.g., HDD) methods.
2.4.2 Construction Activities for Compressor Stations Construction of the proposed compressor stations will involve the following standard activities: engineering; construction surveying; clearing of vegetation; disposal; site preparation (strippings salvage); grading (where warranted); hydrovacing to confirm existing below ground utility locations; welding and hot tapping for the mainline tie-in; compressor station installation; clean-up; and revegetation of non-gravelled disturbed areas. These activities are presented in Table 2.4-2 in the general order of occurrence during construction.
Page 2-7
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.4-2
COMPRESSOR STATION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Compressor Station Construction Phase Associated Activities and Typical Equipment Engineering The proposed compressor stations will be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable CSA standards and the NEB OPR, as well as federal, provincial and municipal requirements, and conditions of permits or authorizations. Construction Survey Activities include line-of-sight clearing with chain saws (where needed), flagging and staking of the boundaries of the compressor station sites and temporary workspaces. Clearing Removal of snow, trees, shrubs and other obstacles from the construction site (including the compressor station site locations). Merchantable timber will be harvested and made available according to commercial use agreements. Non-salvageable vegetative debris will be disposed. Typical equipment used for clearing activities includes chain saws, rotary grinders, feller-bunchers, hydro-axes, mulchers or other tree-clearing equipment, as well as skidders, dozers and backhoes. Site Preparation Strippings will be salvaged during site preparation. Typical equipment used (Strippings Salvage) during strippings handling activities includes dozers, graders and backhoes. Grading Following strippings salvage, grading may be necessary to provide a safe work surface. Graders, backhoes and dozers may be used for this activity. Disposal Disposal of all non-salvageable vegetative debris that is not salvaged for merchantability will be through burning or mechanical chipping/mulching. Burning will be conducted following the Forest Protection Regulations (Alberta Reg. 310/72). Typical equipment used during disposal includes mulchers, chippers and trucks. Driven Piles and Gravel Pads The structural load of the ground at the compressor station sites can be supported by compacted gravel pads or can be transferred to stronger and more competent strata at depth by mechanically driving piles into the ground to provide support for buildings on the site. Equipment used during soil/gravel compaction would include loaders and pile driving activities includes trucks, cranes and weights. Installation of Foundations and Foundations and trenches for below ground piping will be excavated using Below Ground Piping tracked excavators to a depth sufficient to ensure the depth of cover is in accordance or in excess of applicable codes. Minimum depth of cover will be approximately 0.9 m as per CSA Z662. Foundations will be staked and forms installed prior to pouring the concrete. A compacted soil or gravel pad will be provided for all concrete foundations. The compaction work will involve using dozers, backhoes and graders. Gravel will be installed within the fenced area. Installation of Compressor Compressor packages, cable trays, pipe rack and gas piping will be installed and Packages connected throughout the compressor station sites. Compressor buildings, skid (Buildings, Generator, Skids) mounted buildings, control generators and mechanical skids will be installed and connected throughout the compressor station sites. Clean-Up and Reclamation Upon completion of installation activities, interim reclamation procedures will be initiated using dozers, backhoes and/or graders. Garbage or debris remaining on-site will be removed and disposed of in compliance with local regulations. The disturbed sites outside of the fenced area will be returned to a stable condition. The salvaged strippings will be stored at locations where the risk of erosion is minimal.
Page 2-8
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
2.4.3 Construction Activities for Camps and Other Temporary Infrastructure and Workspace Temporary construction camps and other temporary infrastructure and workspace will be used solely during the construction phase of the Project and are related to the construction of the proposed pipeline routes and compressor stations. Table 2.4-3 describes the activities associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of construction camps and other temporary infrastructure and workspace.
TABLE 2.4-3
CAMPS AND OTHER TEMPORARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND WORKSPACE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction Phase Associated Activities and Typical Equipment Engineering The construction camps and other temporary infrastructure and workspace will be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable TransCanada and CSA standards, as well as federal, provincial and municipal requirements, and conditions of permits or authorizations. Site Preparation Initial site preparation will involve clearing of vegetation, where present, salvaging of topsoil/strippings, where necessary, and grading of the site, where warranted, using equipment similar to that described for construction of the proposed pipeline routes and compressor stations. Where feasible, minimal disturbance methods will be employed. Facility Construction Temporary infrastructure and workspace required to accommodate Project construction activities includes: construction camps; temporary access; log decks, soil and material storage sites; locations of extra depth for roadway and third-party utility crossings; locations where grading on slopes is required; sidebends and watercourse crossings (e.g., HDD staging areas); equipment and fuel storage sites (e.g., marshalling yards); stockpile sites; contractor offices and yards, including trailers; and borrow pits. Access Access to the various types of temporary infrastructure and workspace will be controlled during use of the site, if warranted, for public safety and to prevent vandalism of equipment and/or facilities. Facility Dismantle Any above ground structures (e.g., fencing, buildings for temporary construction camps and office buildings) will subsequently be dismantled and removed from the site. Access roads and associated gravel will also be removed. Reclamation Reclamation procedures will be initiated following the dismantling of above ground structures using dozers, backhoes and graders. Garbage or debris remaining at the temporary facility sites will be removed and disposed of in compliance with local regulations. The site contours will be returned to a stable and maintenance-free condition. Depending upon the intended land use of the site, topsoil/strippings will be replaced where salvaged and disturbed areas will be revegetated using natural recovery or seeded with an appropriate seed mix.
2.4.4 Estimated Workforce Requirements Construction of the Project will require an estimated peak workforce of 200 to 750 people over the construction period, depending on the Project component, with a peak workforce occurring from Q4 2016 to Q1 2017. Necessary skills will range from entry level labourers to highly skilled trades. The estimated peak workforce for each Project component is outlined in Table 2.4-4.
Page 2-9
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.4-4
ESTIMATED PEAK WORKFORCE FOR THE PROJECT OVER THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
Expected Timeframe of Peak Project Component Estimated Peak Workforce Construction Workforce Pipeline Route Boundary Lake Section 750 people Q4 2016 to Q1 2017 Bear Canyon Section 300 people Q4 2016 to Q1 2017 McLeod River Section 500 people Q4 2016 to Q1 2017 Pelican Lake Section 500 people Q4 2016 to Q1 2017 Christina River Section 250 people Q4 2016 to Q1 2017 Compressor Station Alces River Unit Addition 200 people Q4 2016 to Q1 2017 Otter Lake Unit Addition 200 people Q4 2016 to Q1 2017
2.4.5 Construction Schedule The Project schedule has been developed assuming all of the requisite federal, provincial and municipal regulatory approvals authorizing the construction and operation of the Project are received by Q3 2016 for the Project components. Detailed engineering is underway and it is expected that design activities, including procurement of materials, will continue through to the start of construction during Q4 2016. See Section 9.0 of the Application for construction schedule details of all Project components.
Table 2.4-5 outlines the details of the estimated construction and operations schedule for the Project.
TABLE 2.4-5
ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS SCHEDULE
Anticipated Commencement of Estimated Duration of Major Activity1 Major Activity2 Major Activity Pipeline Construction Q4 2016 6 months Compressor Station Construction Q4 2016 7 months Establishment of Temporary Q4 2016 2 months Facilities Surveying Q3 2016 7 months Clearing Q4 2016 3 months Grading Q4 2016 3 months Stinging and Welding Q4 2016 3 months Trenching Q4 2016 3 months Lowering-In Q4 2016 3 months Backfilling Q4 2016 3 months Pipeline Tie-In Q4 2016 3 months Testing Q1 2017 1 month In-Service Date Q2 2017 Beginning on April 1, 2017 Rough Clean-up and Reclamation Q1 2017 3 months Pipeline Operations Q2 2017 50 years Compressor Station Operations Q2 2017 25 years Final Clean-Up and Reclamation Q4 2017 3 months Post-Construction Monitoring (PCM) Q1 2018 5 years Line Patrols As required < 1 day Vegetation/Weed Management As required As required
Page 2-10
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.4-5 Cont'd
Anticipated Commencement of Estimated Duration of Major Activity1 Major Activity2 Major Activity In-Line Inspections/Maintenance As required TransCanada’s comprehensive Digs/Facility Inspections pipeline Integrity Management Program (IMP) will be utilized by NGTL to monitor and ensure the integrity of the Project Notes: 1 Contingent on weather conditions. 2 Anticipated commencement of the major activities is based on the assumption that all requisite federal, provincial and municipal regulatory approvals for the Project are received by Q3 2016.
2.4.6 Key Environmental Permits and Approvals: Construction Key environmental permits and authorizations that may be required and will be obtained prior to the commencement of construction activities related to the Project are identified in Table 2.4-6.
TABLE 2.4-6
KEY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL PERMITS/APPROVALS
Agency Agency Permit, Approval and/or Notification FEDERAL NEB CPCN pursuant to Section 52 of the NEB Act and Leave to Open pursuant to Section 47 of the NEB Act. PROVINCIAL Alberta Culture and Tourism Historical Resource Act Clearance pursuant to the Historical Resource Act. (ACT) AESRD • Burning Permits pursuant to the Forest and Prairie Protection Act. • Fish research licence (FRL) for fish rescue at isolated crossings. • Notification under the Code of Practice (COP) for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body. • Notification under the Code of Practice for the Temporary Diversion of Water for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines. • Notification under the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. • Public Land Agreements on Crown land. • Temporary Field Authorization under the Public Lands Act. • Registration under the Code of Practice for the Release of Hydrostatic Test Water from Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Gas Pipelines. • Water Act approval – Temporary Diversion License (TDL). • Water Act approval – Permanent removal of a wetland. • Wildlife Damage Permits for beaver, lodge and beaver dam removal. • Wildlife Research and Collection Licence pursuant to the Wildlife Act Alberta Transportation • Highway Road Crossing Permit. Municipal Districts and Counties • Burning Permit, Road Crossing Agreements, etc.
2.5 Operation and Ongoing Maintenance Operation and maintenance activities for the Project are described in Table 2.5-1 under three headings: Aerial Pipeline Patrols; Vegetation Management; and In-Service Inspections. See Section 10.0 of the Application for a discussion of the operation and ongoing maintenance activities.
Page 2-11
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 2.5-1
OPERATION AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Operation and Maintenance Phase Associated Activities Aerial Pipeline Patrols As part of routine operations and maintenance procedures, patrols will be conducted to visually inspect the pipeline rights-of-way for: environmental issues; evidence of pipeline damage; erosion and wash-out areas; areas of sparse vegetation; damage to permanent erosion and sediment control structures; exposed pipe; and other potential problems that may affect the integrity and safe operation of the proposed pipelines. Vegetation Management Areas along the pipeline routes and within valve sites not necessary for ongoing operations and maintenance will be specifically managed to revert to a natural vegetative state, where feasible. Vegetation control (including weed control), if warranted, will be conducted along the pipeline construction rights-of-way in accordance with requirements from the appropriate regulatory authority. Pipeline In-Service The proposed pipelines will be cathodically protected to prevent or reduce Inspections external corrosion of the pipelines. In the event that an actual or suspected pipeline integrity problem is identified, the pipeline will be exposed and visually inspected. Repairs will be made, when needed. Maintenance digs will be conducted in a manner similar to the pipeline construction activities (i.e., topsoil/strippings will be salvaged and replaced; subsoil will be stockpiled separately, backfilled and feathered out; and reseeding and reclamation will be conducted).
2.5.1 Operation Schedule and Workforce The Project is expected to be in service beginning on April 1, 2017. Operating staff requirements will be drawn from existing NGTL resources.
2.5.2 Environmental Permits and Approvals Operations and maintenance activities associated with the proposed pipeline routes, compressor stations and associated facilities may require permits or approvals depending on the nature and location of the activity. Routine operations and maintenance activities will be evaluated by the NEB as part of the Section 52 Application for Project construction and operations. For those activities listed under Section 4.1 of the Operations and Maintenance Activities on Pipelines Regulated under the NEB Act: Requirements and Guidance Notes (NEB 2005, 2014), NGTL will provide notification to the NEB, as required. Depending upon the scope and location of planned operation and maintenance activity, NGTL will also seek, where required, approval from other applicable federal, provincial and municipal agencies.
2.6 Decommissioning and Abandonment The proposed pipeline routes have been designed to have a useful life in excess of 50 years and the proposed compressor stations have been designed to have a useful life in excess of 25 years. NGTL is participating in and will comply with the process established by Stream 3 of the NEB Land Matters Consultation Initiative and Reasons for Decision RH-2-2008. Any decommissioning and abandonment activities will require prior approval by the NEB and other applicable agencies. Decommissioning and abandonment is discussed further in Section 7.21.
Page 2-12
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
2.7 References 2.7.1 Literature Cited National Energy Board. 2005. Operations and Maintenance Activities on Pipelines Regulated under the National Energy Board Act: Requirements and Guidance Notes. Calgary, Alberta.
National Energy Board. 2014. Filing Manual. Release 2014-03. Updates to November 2014. Calgary, AB.
Page 2-13
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
3.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT 3.1 Introduction Consultation and engagement provide those who could be affected by the Project with the opportunity to participate in the ESA and, while consultation and engagement are ongoing, any interests or concerns identified to date have been addressed in this ESA. Consultation and engagement activities for the Project generally began in July 2014 when stakeholders and potentially affected Aboriginal communities were asked to participate in order to identify and address concerns about the Project.
Details on the full consultation and engagement programs for the Project are provided in Sections 11.0, 12.0 and 13.0 of the Application. Details of the Stakeholder Consultation Program and Aborignal Engagement Program are provided below in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3, respectively.
As part of the consultation and engagement programs, NGTL endeavored to gather feedback that could be incorporated into the ESA. Where feedback relevant to the ESA was obtained, it was considered in the development of the scope of the environmental assessment. The following subsections provide information on how consultation and engagement informed the Project design as well as the scoping of biophysical and socio-economic elements to be included in the ESA.
The stakeholder consultation program has been designed to foster positive relationships with stakeholders as well as provide opportunities to be involved in the consultation process. The following principles have been and will continue to be used to guide the development and execution of Trans Canada’s consultation and engagement programs, as employed by NGTL.
• Openness and Transparency - NGTL provides information to stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to ensure that:
− they have access to the information they require to provide meaningful input into the process; and
− they understand the Project as it relates to the regulatory processes.
• Credibility and Professionalism - NGTL is seen as a credible and reliable source of information, and utilizes third-party expertise, where required, to ensure a successful Project.
• Responsive - NGTL values input from stakeholders and Aboriginal communities, and aims to integrate input, where possible, into Project design and implementation in a timely and coordinated fashion. NGTL will communicate to stakeholders and Aboriginal communities how their input has been incorporated into Project plans.
• Flexible - NGTL’s consultation and engagement process and approach are flexible to accommodate the needs of stakeholders and Aboriginal communities.
• Respectful - NGTL respects the diverse stakeholders and Aboriginal communities that may be interested in or affected by the Project, and values the perspectives that each brings to the Project.
• Timely - NGTL’s consultation and engagement process ensures affected stakeholders and Aboriginal communities receive accurate Project information in a timely fashion, at a level commensurate with their interest in the Project.
3.2 Stakeholder Consultation Program The stakeholder consultation program for the Project has been designed and is being conducted in accordance with TransCanada’s commitment to being a good neighbour by building and maintaining positive relationships with the people who reside near its operations.
The overall objectives of consultation are to foster ongoing relationships that are based on mutual respect toward the following goals:
Page 3-1
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• build community understanding of the Project;
• share information about the Project plans and activities; and
• gain a clear understanding of how people may be affected by the Project.
The objectives of stakeholder consultation specific to this Project are provided in Sections 11.0 and 12.0 of the Application.
Of the consultation objectives specific to this Project, one was to gather feedback from stakeholders which could be used to inform the ESA. Where feedback relevant to the ESA was obtained, it was considered in the development of the scope of the environmental assessment.
The following subsection provides information on consultation that took place between September 2014 and January 1, 2015. While consultation is ongoing, any interests or concerns identified prior to January 1, 2015 which are relevant to the biophysical and socio-economic aspects of the Project have been addressed in this ESA.
3.2.1 Stakeholder and Issue Identification Identification of Issues and Concerns As a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada, NGTL has more than 60 years of history developing and maintaining positive working relationships with stakeholders across its pipeline system. Based on concerns and comments from stakeholders received during NGTL’s ongoing maintenance programs, it was anticipated that the following concerns regarding the Project would arise:
• location of worker camp sites;
• local licencing requirements for camp operations;
• effects on local infrastructure;
• effects on community services;
• visual scarring on the land;
• employment and training;
• maximizing economic benefits to the communities;
• lifespan of pipeline infrastructure; and
• protection of surface water.
These anticipated concerns were considered in the development of Project communications.
Identification of Stakeholders Using a combination of desktop research and existing contacts, NGTL identified a preliminary list of potential stakeholders who may be affected or have an interest in the Project. Additional stakeholder identification was accomplished through ongoing consultation with local government members, government authorities and community members, and by searching land titles and land use rights. The following stakeholder groups were identified as being interested in and/or potentially affected by the Project:
• landowners and occupants whose lands are encountered by the Project;
• adjacent landowners and occupants;
• land users (e.g., guides, outfitters and trappers);
Page 3-2
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• community members;
• municipal leaders and representatives (e.g., regional districts and municipalities);
• elected officials (i.e., provincial and federal);
• government agencies and representatives;
• non-governmental organizations; and
• emergency responders.
Most pertinent to the ESA was consultation with and feedback from regulatory authorities. In cases where other stakeholder groups provided feedback relevant to biophysical and socio-economic elements of the Project, it has been incorporated into the ESA where applicable.
The stakeholder consultation program was developed to be sufficiently flexible to respond to new information gathered during consultation and to address specific needs or requests of stakeholders as they were identified.
3.2.2 Stakeholder Consultation Consultation activities commenced with the purpose of:
• communicating Project details to identified interested and potentially affected stakeholders;
• proactively seeking input on Project development activities;
• identifying specific issues/concerns as well as expectations for involvement amongst stakeholders to resolve them; and
• providing notifications to satisfy the NEB Filing Manual Chapter 3 Common Information Requirements.
In order to ensure that consultation opportunities would be made available to the full range of stakeholders, the stakeholder consultation program included the activities described below.
• distribution of Project notification packages;
• dedicated Project webpage;
• federal and provincial representative consultation;
• municipal and county consultation;
• meetings with environmental regulatory authorities;
• guide outfitter consultation;
• landowner consultation;
• open houses;
• dedicated Project stakeholder email address; and
• dedicated Project stakeholder telephone line.
For details on how these activities were carried out, see Sections 11.0 and 12.0 of the Application.
Page 3-3
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
Specific to the ESA, consultation with environmental regulatory authorities was conducted (by email, phone and in-person meetings) in order to obtain input on the Project design and ESA requirements. During consultation sessions, regulatory authorities were given an overview of the Project and had the opportunity to provide feedback. Questions were asked of regulatory authorities relating to indicators and ESA methods, routing feedback and permitting, watercourse crossings, timing windows for Project activities, environmental mitigation measures and field methodology.
Consultation activities with elected officials as well as staff of directly affected counties and regional municipalities were also conducted as part of the socio-economic data collection and assessment process. Municipalities located in the socio-economic Local Study Area (LSA) and Regional Study Area (RSA), who were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, were engaged via telephone and/or email contact. A summary of the socio-economic consultation to date is provided in Appendix 11.
3.2.3 Stakeholder Consultation Outcomes The results of consultation have helped refine the Project by identifying community benefit opportunities, informing mitigation measures for the Project and helping develop the scope of the environmental assessment. NGTL communicated routing plans with affected municipalities and interested land user groups to ensure that current and future land use was respected. Specific mitigations were successfully proposed for the McLeod River Section to address concerns regarding proximity of the proposed right-of-way to frequented sections of a local trail system. These mitigations can be found in the records of consultation appended to Section 12.0 of the Application. With the information gathered from consultation activities, NGTL identified issues, addressed concerns and responded to questions about the Project. Consultation has also provided communities and government with an understanding of the Project.
Although a wide range of issues were raised by stakeholders throughout the consultation process, recurring themes have emerged, including the following:
• weed and crop disease control;
• emergency services capacity;
• low vacancy rates;
• shortage of skilled labour in the community; and
• traffic safety (traffic volume and speed).
Key environmental and socio-economic issues raised during the consultation program are discussed in the relevant sections of this ESA. The consultation conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA was designed to complement the NGTL consultation program. Results of consultation have been considered and incorporated throughout the ESA and EPP where relevant, including the effects assessment as well as mitigation and enhancement measures. A detailed summary of stakeholder issues or concerns as well as where feedback is addressed in this ESA is outlined in Appendix 13.
For a detailed record of consultation, refer to Sections 11.0 and 12.0 of the Application.
Additional stakeholder (e.g., landowner, government) consultation was conducted as part of the socio-economic data collection and assessment process. Mitigation measures to address socio-economic and environmental concerns are outlined in Section 7.0 and Appendix 11. Consultation activities conducted as part of the biophysical studies for the Project are also summarized in Appendices 3A to 9B.
NGTL will continue to work with stakeholders to identify and address issues and concerns with the objective of resolving these in a manner that meets the interests of all parties.
3.3 Aboriginal Engagement Program The Aboriginal engagement program for the Project was developed and implemented to anticipate, prevent, mitigate and manage potential Project-related effects on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights and
Page 3-4
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345 interests. NGTL will continue to work closely with Aboriginal communities to identify and address concerns that may arise regarding the Project.
For this Project, NGTL adopted TransCanada’s policies, principles and practices in the design and implementation of the Aboriginal engagement program. A description of the principles and goals are provided in Section 13.0 of the Application.
The following subsections provide a summary of Aboriginal engagement activities conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA.
3.3.1 Aboriginal Community Identification Based on the engagement process described in Section 13.0 of the Application and guided by TransCanada’s Aboriginal Relations Policy, NGTL identified and has subsequently engaged Aboriginal communities interested in or potentially affected by the Project (Table 3.3-1 and Figures 3.1 to 3.3).
Any potential issues or concerns raised to date have been considered in this ESA.
TABLE 3.3-1
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES
Boundary Lake Section Bear Canyon Section McLeod River Section • Beaver First Nation • Beaver First Nation • Alexander First Nation • Dene Tha’ First Nation • Dene Tha’ First Nation • Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation • Doig River First Nation • Doig River First Nation • Enoch Cree Nation • Duncan’s First Nation • Duncan’s First Nation • Horse Lake First Nation • Horse Lake First Nation • Horse Lake First Nation • Nakcowinewak Nation of • Sucker Creek First Nation • Sucker Creek First Nation Canada • Métis Settlement: • Métis Nation Alberta of Alberta • Paul First Nation − Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Region 6: • Saddle Lake Cree Nation Society − Fairview Métis Local No. 207 • Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6: − Grande Prairie Métis Local • Métis Nation of Alberta − Fairview Métis Local No. 207 No. 1990 Region 4: − Grande Prairie Métis Local − Marlboro Community No. 1990 Association − Gunn Métis Local No. 55 Pelican Lake Section Christina River Section Alces River Unit Addition • Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation • Athabasca Chipewyan First • Beaver First Nation • Beaver Lake Cree Nation Nation • Dene Tha’ First Nation • Bigstone Cree Nation • Beaver Lake Cree Nation • Doig River First Nation • Chipewyan Prairie Dene First • Chipewyan Prairie Dene First • Duncan’s First Nation Nation Nation • Horse Lake First Nation • Fort McMurray No. 468 First • Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Nation • Heart Lake First Nation • Heart Lake First Nation • Mikisew Cree First Nation • Mikisew Cree First Nation • Saddle Lake Cree Nation • Saddle Lake Cree Nation • Whitefish Lake No. 128 First Nation
Page 3-5
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 3.3-1 Cont’d
Alces River Unit Addition Pelican Lake Section (cont’d) Christina River Section (cont’d) (cont’d) • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1: • Métis Nation of Alberta • Métis Settlement: − Christina River Dene Nation Region 1: − Paddle Prairie Métis Council − Christina River Dene Nation Settlement Society − Conklin Métis No. 193 Council • Métis Nation of Alberta − Fort McMurray Métis Local − Conklin Métis No. 193 Region 6: No. 1935 − Fort McMurray Métis Local − Fairview Métis Local No. 207 − Fort McMurray Métis Local No. 1935 • Grande Prairie Métis Local No. 2020 − Lakeland Métis Local No. 1990 − Lakeland Métis Local No. 1909 No. 1909 − Owl River Métis Local No. 1949 − Owl River Métis Local − Willow Lake Métis Local No. 1949 No. 780 • Willow Lake Métis Local No. 780 • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 5: • Wabasca Métis Local No. 90 Otter Lake Unit Addition • Lubicon Lake Band • Woodland Cree First Nation • Métis Settlements: − Gift Lake Métis Settlement − Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society − Peavine Métis Settlement • Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6: − Cadotte Métis Local No. 1994
Page 3-6
T.116 6 Aboriginal Community Letter CodesR.11 R.6 12 11 10 8 7 94P 12 10 9 8 7 5 4 3 2 1 R.23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 R.9 W6M W6M W5M W5M Code Community Name Region/Council Name 115 C Beaver First Nation r G Cadotte Lake Métis Local No. 1994 Métis Nation Section (Region 6) e v K Dene Tha' First Nation Zama Ri 114 L Doig River First Nation H a y ¯ Lake M Duncan's First Nation Caribou 113 N East Prairie Métis Settlement Métis Settlement General Council Mountains Q Fairview Métis Local No. 207 Métis Nation Section (Region 6) Wildland Park W Gift Lake Métis Settlement Métis Settlement General Council 112 X Grande Prairie Métis Local No. 1990 Métis Nation Section (Region 6) AA Horse Lake First Nation (K) Hay Lake 111 AD Lubicon Lake Band I.R. 209 AI Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Métis Settlement General Council 58 110 AK Peavine Métis Settlement Métis Settlement General Council UV AM Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation AN Sucker Creek First Nation 109 AP Whitefish Lake No. 128 First Nation AR Woodland Cree First Nation (C) Child (C) Boyer 108 Lake River I.R. 164A I.R. 164 107 94I 106
105
104
A (AI) Paddle Prairie I 103
B Métis Settlement r M e 102 v i U A R L T
a R 101 O g
E
C a
h B c
L 100 H n
S i
A
I h C T 99
I
R
B 98 94H
97 UV35 96
95 KP 91.4 !. 94 Chinchaga 88 B UV e Wildland a 93 t Park t Otter Lake Otter Lake o n Unit Addition Compressor Station 92 R N Unit Addition Construction Camp i o v t i e er k e w in River 91 r iv R )" g GF i 90 o
D 89 (L) Doig River (AR) I.R. 206 W (AR) Woodland 88 h Alces River it Woodland Cree I.R. 227 e m (AR) 87 Compressor Station u Cree I.R. 226 d R iver Woodland 94A Unit Addition Cree I.R. 228 ") 86 r ") e (G) Cadotte v (AD) Little 85 KP 0 )"!. 64 i Lake UV R Buffalo e c 84 a e
P (W) Gift 83 Lake Métis (AP) Dunvegan West UV2 82 Wildland Park (Q) Fairview Settlement Utikoomak Lake 81 KP 26.7 (M) Duncans I.R. 155 I.R. 151A !. 80 97 (AK) Peavine UV 79 Peace River Métis !. Wildland Park Winagami Settlement 78 KP 0 49 Wildland Utikuma
K UV Park Lake
i 77 s
k a t i Lesser Slave 76 n k o y Ri r a Sm v e (AN) Sucker Wildland Park w 93P Creek 75
R
i I.R. 150A Lesser Slave
v L 2 Lak e 74 e
r i UV 59 t
UV t l
e 73
43 S
(AA) Horse UV m
o (N) East Prairie 72
Lakes k y Métis Settlement
(AM) Sturgeon I.R. 152B 34 R
(X) Grande UV 71 Lake I.R. 154A i
Prairie v e
r r 70 ti R i v e api W (AM) Sturgeon Lake I.R. 154B (AM) Sturgeon 69 Lake I.R. 154 UV40 68
67 93I R.13 14 13 12 11 10 T.66 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R.26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 W6M W5M
Proposed Compressor Station 64 Highway Indian Reserve FIGURE 3.1 ") Unit Addition ¾À POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES Proposed Unit Addition Métis Settlement GF Construction Camp Railway !. Kilometre Post (KP) PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. Watercourse Park/Protected Area 2017 NGTL SYSTEM EXPANSION !. Kilometre Post (KP) (NORTHWEST MAINLINE LOOP BOUNDARY LAKE SECTION, SCALE: 1:1,450,000 Proposed Northwest Mainline Loop Municipal Boundary/ Waterbody NORTHWEST MAINLINE LOOP NO.2 BEAR CANYON SECTION, Boundary Lake Section Regional District km ALCES RIVER COMPRESSOR STATION UNIT ADDITION AND 0 20 40 Proposed Northwest Mainline Loop OTTER LAKE COMPRESSOR STATION UNIT ADDITION AND No.2 Bear Canyon Section City/Town Provincial Boundary (All Locations Approximate) CONSTRUCTION CAMP)
UTM Zone 11N 650026/650027/ March 2015 Proposed Compressor Station Unit Addition/Construction Camp/KP/Pipeline Routing: NGTL 2014a,d,e,f; Highway: ESRI 2005a; Railway: NRCan 2012a; Hydrology: IHS Inc. 2004; 652265/652345 City/Town: AltaLIS 2015, NRCan 2003; Indian Reserve: Government of Canada 2015; Métis Settlement: IHS Inc. 2013c; Park/Protected Area: ATPR 2012, BC MFLNRO 2008b; Municipal Boundary: AltaLIS 2015; Regional District: BC MFLNRO 2007; Provincial Boundary: AltaLIS 2009; Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008. Mapped By: DT Checked By: SK Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. SXP_Stakeholder_Figure3_1_Potentially_Affected_Aboriginal_Communities_RouteRev0_Rev0_West.mxd SXP_Stakeholder_Figure3_2_Potentially_Affected_Aboriginal_Communities_RouteRev0_Rev0_McLeod.mxd
27 ¯ (AM) Sturgeon (AM) Lake I.R. 154B I.R. Lake UV 34 W5M R.26 L
i t
t
W5M
l
N R.24
e
J
a
a P
25
t
S s
Hinton
a
i
p
o
(AG) m
r
e
k
n
U V (AM) Sturgeon (AM)
Lake I.R. 154A I.R. Lake
r
a
o
4
(
l 23
A 0
k L 24
A a M y
th k ) a e
W R
b S W 22
a i I
h t .
ve R
s u
i 23 i
P t
l c
.
r
d
e a
a
r g
1
l
h r
a e
k R
5 o
n i ver
o
K 4
21
r
(
d
A s n
22
P
e
E
)
U V
3
M
4
( C
20
B
6
3
I
.
a
a
) R
21
.
r
r
3 A
.
d
l ! .
b
2
l
i
e
o n
3 x
19
a
r 4
UV
i o
20
l s
47
" )
S L
18
n a
19
i
k
p
e
e M
17
(
! .
N
é K
18
R
t
( )
(A) Alexander (A)
P
B i
i
s
E
v
)
I.R. 134A I.R. a
S
e
0
A
s 16
e
r
17 t
l
t
e
I
t
P .
x
R
l
r
e
i
.
a
s
m
2
i
E 15
r
3
e
i l
16
e
k
3
n
B
t
r
a
z 14 e
15
a
u
W
13
R
( B
14 I
Reservoir
h
U V . i
Brazeau
)
R
i
v
1
U V
t
A
6 .
e e
3
2
l
2
c
r
e 12
3
o
13 x
2
u
i
s
r t 11 12 10 11 9 10 Lake Chip 8
9
P e UV
7 (
Wildland Park Wildland
a 33 Grizzly Ridge Grizzly A
8
v
K
i
n )
e
" ) 6 (A) Alexander (A) UV 7 UV 18
UV W 22 I.R. 134B I.R.
88
(
B
I
a
. L
5
)
R
b
a
6
A
. a
P
k
1
l m
e e
3 e
x m
3
u
(
I i
4
A
s . Wabamun (AJ)
n b R
5
J
L .
) Wabamun (AJ) i
a
133A I.R. n
1 B
k a
3
e u I.R. 133B I.R.
3 3
c R C 4
k i (
I v P
. e
R ) P r UV
2
.
Hubert Lake Hubert
S l
20
1 a
3 UV t
Wildland
i 3 o Pigeon
39
n 5 Park
Lake n
A y
1
U V
2
4
4
( (Y) Stony (Y) A
W4M ) R.26
Plain
I
A
.
( R
1
P l
I
e
.
.
) P
R
x
1
l
S
.
a
a 3
W4M
t
R.28 1 n
25
i
4
o
n
3
d
n
5 e
UV y
UV r 37 16X 27
24
U V
6 0
UV E 23 26
53
d
m o
UV
C n 2
25
L a
22
t
a
l o
l
U V
k n
1 i
UV
6
e n
2A
A g 24 21 N o r t h 23 20
Elk Island Elk S National a sk Park at
c UV
63 V U h 19 UV
22 1 Wildland Park Wildland La Biche River Biche La 21 e 5 w a n Rive 21 r 18 Code Community Name Community Code MSugo aeCe ain Nation Cree Lake Sturgeon AM AB Kikino Métis Settlement Métis Settlement General Council General Settlement Métis 1) (Region Alberta Nation Métis No. 1909 Local Métis Lakeland AC Settlement Métis Kikino AB AK Peavine Métis Settlement Métis Settlement General Council General Settlement Métis Settlement Métis 1) (Region Peavine Alberta Nation Métis AK No. 1949 Local Métis Owl River ofAH Canada Nation Nakcowinewak AG AJ Paul First Nation First Paul AJ 4) (Region Alberta Nation Métis Association Community Marlboro AE LSdl aeCe ain Nation Cree Lake Saddle AL D Beaver Lake Cree Nation Cree Lake Beaver Nation Sioux Nakota Alexis D Nation First B Alexander A N East Prairie Métis Settlement Métis Settlement General Council General Settlement Métis Nation Enoch Cree Settlement Métis Prairie P East N
F Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement Métis Settlement General Council General Settlement Métis Settlement Métis Lake Buffalo F Y Gunn Métis Local No. 55 Métis Nation Alberta (Region 4) (Region Alberta Nation Métis Nation First Lake Heart No. 55 Local Z Métis Gunn Y
M
(
U V
F
é
2 ) 20
17
t
8
B
i
s
u
S
f
e
f
a
t
l 16
t
o
l
e
L
U V
m
U V
Aboriginal Community LetterCodes Aboriginal Community
a
4 5
18
k e 5
Heritage Rangeland Heritage 5
Beaverhill
U V
e n
15 1
Beaverhill Lake Beaverhill t
B 3
U V Natural AreaNatural (
Lake A
a 1
L
4
C
t ( S
a
t A /
l e e
R 14
A
B
i La Lac B
t v M
Biche
t
H i
e )
c l
r
e
)
é K
h
m
L
t
i e
k
L i
a
( s
13
" )
e
a
i
A c n
Region/Council Name Region/Council n
k
L
o
e t
Lake I.R. 131 I.R. Lake
)
Beaver (D)
I
S
.
U V
a R
12
2
d
.
3
d
1
l 2 T.72 R.11
e 5 W5M 71 70
69
U V 68
67 3 Lake I.R. 167 I.R. Lake 66
65 6 64 63
(Z) (Z) Heart R 10
62 P
61 L
60 e
59
r a
Heart
c o 58
Lake
A
57 k r
56 v
55
e
e
r
U V
i
54 e
2
l
n a
53 a
52 8
a t
51
c n
T.49
A
i 9 50 i
T.47
o T.46 a
48
d
n l Métis Settlement: IHS Inc. 2013c; Park/Protected Area: NRCan 2015, NRCan Area: Park/Protected 2013c; Inc. IHS Settlement: Métis PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the the with associated errors any are there that believe to reason no is there Although Railway: NRCan 2012a; Hydrology: IHS Inc. 2004; City/Town: AltaLIS City/Town: 2004; Inc. IHS Hydrology: 2012a; NRCan Railway: data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are are data these of users itself, product the in or product this generate to used data KP, Proposed Pipeline Routing: NGTL 2014b; Highway: ESRI 2005a; ESRI Highway: 2014b; NGTL Routing: Pipeline KP, Proposed 2015, NRCan 2003; Indian Reserve: Government of Canada 2015; Canada of Government Reserve: Indian 2003; NRCan 2015, (GRANDE PRAIRIE MAINLINE LOOP NO.2 UV Mapped By: DT Checked By: SK By: Checked By: DT Mapped 53 45 30 15 0 16 !. Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008. Consultants Environmental TERA Hillshade: 2017 NGTL SYSTEM EXPANSION ATPR 2012; Municipal Boundary: AltaLIS 2015; AltaLIS Boundary: Municipal ATPR2012; ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES MCLEOD RIVER SECTION) (All Locations Approximate) Locations (All advised that errors in the data may be present. be may data the in errors that advised POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Métis Settlement Métis Municipal Boundary Municipal Area Park/Protected Indian Reserve City/Town Waterbody Watercourse Railway Highway Section River McLeod No.2 Loop Mainline Prairie Grande Proposed (KP) Post Kilometre SCALE: SCALE: March 2015 March FIGURE 3.2 UTM Zone 11N Zone UTM 497874 1:1,225,000 km SXP_Stakeholder_Figure3_3_Potentially_Affected_Aboriginal_Communities_RouteRev0_Rev0_East.mxd W5M R.15 (AN) Sucker (AN) W5M R.14 Whitecourt Code Community Name Community Code I.R. 150A I.R. (B) Alexis (B) (AR) Woodland (AR) 1) (Region Alberta Nation Métis Nation First Cree Woodland No. 780 AR Local Métis Lake Willow AQ AO Wabasca Métis Local No. 90 Métis Nation Section (Region 5) (Region Section Nation Métis No. 90 AP Local Métis Wabasca AO Nation First Creek 1) (Region Sucker Alberta Nation Métis AN Settlement Métis Peavine AK No. 1949 Local Métis River Owl AH AC Lakeland Métis Local No. 1909 Métis Nation Alberta (Region 1) (Region Alberta Nation Métis Band Lake Lubicon No. 1909 Local AD Métis Lakeland AC Settlement Métis Kikino AB Métis Settlement Métis AS Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation First Chipewyan Athabasca AS AL Saddle Lake Cree Nation Cree Lake Saddle AL Nation First Cree Mikisew AF Settlement Métis Lake Gift W otMMra o 6 is ain Council General Settlement Nation Métis First No. 468 McMurray Fort Council No. 2020 General Local V Métis Settlement McMurray Fort Métis U Council General Settlement Settlement Métis Métis Lake Fishing Nation Cree Enoch R Settlement Métis P Elizabeth Settlement Métis O Prairie East N Nation First Dene Prairie Chipewyan H Nation Cree Lake Beaver Nation Sioux Nakota D Alexis Nation First B Alexander A T Fort McMurray Métis Local No. 1935 Métis Nation Alberta (Region 1) (Region Alberta Nation Métis No. 1935 Local Métis McMurray Fort T Council General Settlement Métis Settlement Métis Lake Buffalo Nation Cree F Bigstone E Z Heart Lake First Nation First Lake Heart Z J Conklin Métis Local No.193 Métis Nation Alberta (Region 1) (Region Alberta Nation Métis No.193 Local Métis Conklin J I Christina River Dene Nation Council Métis Nation Alberta (Region 1) (Region Alberta Nation Métis Council Nation Dene River Christina I I.R. 232 I.R. Cree I.R. 228 I.R. Cree Creek
") ¾À (W) Gift Lake (W) Gift 14 63 !. !. UV Whitefish Lake No. 128 First Nation First No. 128 Lake Whitefish Prairie Métis Prairie 13 (AD) (AD) Little 32 lave La e ak L e v a Sl Settlement Buffalo (N) East (N) 13 esser e s s Le 12 Highway Pelican Lake Section ProposedLiege Lateral Loop No.2 ChristinaRiver Section ProposedKettle River Lateral Loop Kilometre(KP) Post Kilometre(KP) Post 12 Wildland Park Wildland Aboriginal Community Letter Codes LetterCommunityAboriginal 11 Lesser Slave Lesser t a m u k Uti 11 ake k La 10 (AP) Utikoomak (AP) Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. be may data the in errors that advised are data these of users itself, product the in or product this generate to used data the with associated errors any are there that believe to reason no is there Although Lake I.R. 155 I.R. Lake UV 10 58 9 Peavine UV Indian Reserve: Government of Canada 2015; Métis Settlement: IHS Inc. 2013c; Park/Protected Area: NRCan 2015, ATPR 2012; Municipal Boundary: AltaLIS 2015; Provincial Boundary: ESRI 2005b; ESRI Boundary: Provincial 2015; AltaLIS Boundary: Municipal 2012; ATPR 2015, NRCan Area: Park/Protected 2013c; Inc. IHS Settlement: Métis 2015; Canada of Government Reserve: Indian UV 22 9 (AK) 88 8 UV KP, Proposed Pipeline Routing: NGTL 2014a,c; Highway: ESRI 2005a; Railway: NRCan 2012a; Hydrology: IHS Inc. 2004; City/Town: AltaLIS 2015, NRCan 2003; Military: IHS Inc. 2013b; Inc. IHS Military: 2003; NRCan 2015, AltaLIS City/Town: 2004; Inc. IHS Hydrology: 2012a; NRCan Railway: 2005a; ESRI Highway: 2014a,c; NGTL Routing: Pipeline Proposed KP, UV 8 43 33
Métis Settlement General Council General Settlement Métis Métis Settlement General Council General Settlement Métis Region/Council Name Region/Council
Métis Settlement General Council General Settlement Métis Wildland Park Wildland 7 Grizzly Ridge Grizzly
") (B) (B) Alexis I.R. 133 I.R. (A) Alexander (A) 7 6
M I.R. 134B I.R. eeress s rle e Pe
i 6
ake k La k 5
Lesser Slave Lake Slave Lesser UV k
Provincial Park Provincial
18 w
5
4 a r m a h Gra R
(P) (P) Stony I.R. 135A I.R.
4 i
ake k La v
Plain
(A) Alexander (A) e
W (AO) Wabasca r 3 Settlement
a
ab a c s ba Wa I.R. 134 I.R. b
th rt o N a
ake k La
UV s
44
2 1 c Military City/Town Waterbody Watercourse Railway a
W5M
28 R.1 R
W4M i
R.27 v ab a c s ba Wa
24 UV e outh t u So
")
ake k La r Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008. Consultants Environmental TERA Hillshade: 2 26 23 (E) Wabasca (E) I.R. 166A I.R. 25 22
B
Otter-Orloff Lakes Otter-Orloff i
r 24 UTM Zone 12N Zone UTM Wildland Park Wildland
c 21
h
R 23 20 li g in ll a C
i
v ake k La Birch Mountains Birch KP 55.7 KP 22
Wildland Park Wildland e
r 19 Wood Buffalo Wood National Park National 21 UV 18 15 Provincial Boundary Provincial Boundary Municipal Area Park/Protected Settlement Métis Reserve Indian 20
!. 17 19 16 Settlement Lake Métis Lake (F) Buffalo r u m a N UV ake k La 45 18
A 15
!. t h KP 0 KP 17 a 14 Wildland Park Wildland
Grand Grand Rapids b
a aire i la C 16 ake k La s Lake I.R. 125 I.R. Lake 13
Settlement Kikino (AB) c (AL) Saddle (AL)
a Métis 15 (AC/AH) (AS) Chipewyan (AS) R 12 Lac La Lac Biche (AS) Chipewyan (AS) 0
UV i
v 63 ") I.R. 201G I.R. 14 e I.R. 201F I.R. 11
(All Locations Approximate) Locations (All r CL:1:1,750,000 SCALE: Lake I.R. 167 I.R. Lake (AS) Chipewyan (AS) 13 (Z) (Z) Heart (AF) Dog Head Dog (AF) Lake I.R. 131 I.R. Lake 10 (D) Beaver (D) UV Wildland Park Wildland Mountain Stony I.R. 201 I.R. UV 36 12 I.R. 218 I.R. 25 28 La Saline La 9 Natural Area (AS) Chipewyan (AS) 11 Chipewyan I.R. 201E I.R. 8 Wildland Park Wildland I.R. 201B I.R. River River Dunes McMurray Richardson (T/U) Fort (AS) 10 (AQ) (AQ) Anzac 7 (I) (I) Chard 50 Marguerite River Marguerite km Wildland Park Wildland
9 C
Lake I.R. 176B I.R. Lake
6 F Chipewyan (AS)
(V) (V) Gregoire
")
") l
KP 0 KP i
e r 8 e KETTLE RIVER LATERAL LOOP CHRISTINA RIVER SECTION) RIVER CHRISTINA LOOP LATERAL RIVER KETTLE (J) Conklin (J) UV Maybelle River Maybelle (LIEGE LATERAL LOOP NO.2 PELICAN LAKE SECTION AND SECTION LAKE NO.2 PELICAN LOOP LATERAL (LIEGE
a a c as b a Ath I.R. 201A I.R. Wildland Park Wildland
5 55 b POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES ABORIGINAL AFFECTED POTENTIALLY Chipewyan
inef d e fr e n Wi ") r WEAPONS RANGE WEAPONS a I.R. 201C I.R.
!. n o rd Go w UV
ake k La Chipewyan 7 g ake k La Wildland Park Wildland 41 I.R. 201D I.R.
ake k La a
(AS) 4 Gipsy Gipsy Lake R PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. GAS TRANSMISSION NOVA PROPOSED
DND COLD DND ") Mapped By: DT Mapped By: t (H) Janvier (H)
LAKE AIR LAKE e
(AS) March 2015March
r i
!.
I.R. 194 I.R.
6 (I) Janvier v
R e 3
KP 19.6 KP
(O) Elizabeth (O) South
r i
Settlement
2017 NGTL SYSTEM EXPANSION SYSTEM 2017 NGTL v
T.114 Settlement Lake Métis Lake 5 (R) (R) Fishing e 113
112
111 Métis r 110 109 2 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 W4M 96 4 95 94 93 R.1 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 FIGURE 3.3 FIGURE 77 76 75 74 3 A 73 RT 72 BE 71 AL 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 T.53 N 55 WA 54 SASKATCHE W4M R.1 650028/650029 Checked By:CheckedSK
¯ NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
Once Aboriginal communities were identified, Aboriginal engagement began in 2011 with respect to the McLeod River Section and 2014 for all other Project components through phone calls, in-person consultation, one-on-one meetings and emails. During these activities, NGTL representatives presented an overview of the Project and discussed questions, suggestions and concerns with Aboriginal communities’ representatives. In order to accurately document Aboriginal issues of concern and interests, and ensure follow-up, records of contact forms and applicable supporting documents were tracked using a database (see Section 13.0 of the Application).
Individual Aboriginal group engagement summaries are provided in Section 13.0 of the Application and detailed engagement logs are provided in Appendix 13-2 of the Application.
3.3.2 Components of Aboriginal Engagement The three main components of the engagement conducted by NGTL include:
1. Sharing Project information with Aboriginal communities. These activities also included the exchange of information with respect to Project details as well as environmental and socio-economic studies. 2. Providing an opportunity for Aboriginal communities to participate and contribute to field studies as a part of the Aboriginal Field Study Program. 3. Conducting a determination and consideration of the potential effects on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by providing Aboriginal communities the opportunity to share Traditional Land Use (TLU) information.
Each of these components are described in the subsections below.
3.3.2.1 Sharing Project Information A number of methods have been used to provide information to Aboriginal communities, obtain feedback and identify issues about the Project, including: community meetings; meetings with staff or leadership; formal and informal discussions; and distribution of Project brochures, GIS data, maps and fact sheets. The results of these engagement efforts, in conjunction with the Aboriginal Field Participation and TLU study results, have contributed to the development of this ESA, including mitigation and enhancement measures.
Meetings and community gatherings were arranged with the assistance of Aboriginal community leadership and staff. In general, introductory meetings were conducted by both NGTL and TERA, while TERA conducted subsequent meetings as representatives of NGTL.
Meetings with Aboriginal leadership and staff, harvesters and trappers were an important method of engagement. Meetings were held to:
• introduce the Project (timelines, Project description, regulatory requirements, process);
• provide a broad understanding of the NEB process;
• discuss methods for conducting engagement in the community;
• determine the TLU approach;
• negotiate work plans and funding for those Aboriginal communities who proposed to conduct their own TLU studies or socio-economic data collection;
• initiate environmental field work, TLU studies and socio-economic assessment discussions;
• identify economic development opportunities;
• identify capacity issues with Aboriginal communities to address the ability of the community to participate in the Project review;
Page 3-10
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• identify community concerns, interests and opportunities;
• obtain input and feedback on environmental field studies;
• identify site-specific concerns and interests; and
• identify site-specific locations important for historical and cultural reasons.
Meetings are summarized in Section 13.0 of the Application. Information regarding issues and concerns raised during meetings are provided in Appendix 13.
3.3.2.2 Aboriginal Field Study Program Participation Aboriginal participation during the environmental field program provided opportunities for sharing and documenting baseline data and issues or concerns from Aboriginal participants to help inform the determination of potential Project-related environmental effects.
The objectives of Aboriginal participation during the environmental field surveys were to:
• augment the design and execution of the field surveys;
• inform baseline/existing conditions;
• document issues and concerns expressed by participants;
• document socio-economic information shared during the Aboriginal Field Study Program;
• provide an opportunity for Aboriginal communities to gather, and where possible, share Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK);
• identify potential effects of the Project on environmental resources;
• integrate the results from Aboriginal Field Study Program into the consideration and mitigation of environmental effects; and
• contribute to final Project design.
TERA, on behalf of NGTL, was commissioned to facilitate the participation of potentially affected Aboriginal communties during the environmental field studies conducted for the Project. Engagement for the Project was initiated in 2011 with respect to the McLeod River Section and 2014 for all other Project components. Opportunities for Project participation were made available to potentially affected Aboriginal communities. Language interpreters were made available in the field upon the request of a given community, if needed. Time was spent in the field with Aboriginal participants for pre-field work meetings and wrap-up meetings.
In order to determine how each Aboriginal community wanted to be involved in the field surveys, information regarding each field survey was shared with interested communities, usually with staff from the Lands Department. This included details regarding the type of work to be conducted, the timing and the proposed locations. Based on the information provided, each Aboriginal community chose representatives who would participate on each field study.
TERA understands that Doig River First Nation chose not to share TEK during their participation on field surveys for the purpose of the Project. However, all field participants contributed to the discussion of issues and concerns about potential Project-related effects on resources, and participated in the discussion of potential mitigation measures to reduce potential Project-related effects.
Engagement outcomes and TEK were also gathered and recorded during field studies in 2011 for the proposed McLeod River Section by Stantec Consulting Ltd (see Appendices 6B, 7B, 8B and 9B).
Page 3-11
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
The dates of Aboriginal participation in field studies provided in Table 3.3-2 and Table 3.3-3 reflect the length of field studies. Dates detailed in the tables below may not correspond to dates noted in the biophysical technical reports (see Appendices 6 to 9). The reason for this discrepancy is that additional time was spent in the field with Aboriginal participants for mobilization and demobilization to study areas, pre-field work meetings and wrap-up meetings.
TABLE 3.3-2
FIELD STUDY PROGRAM PARTICIPATION – PIPELINE SECTIONS
Biophysical Pipeline Section Study Date Aboriginal Community Boundary Lake Section Aquatics August 26, 2014 to Doig River First Nation September 4, 2014 Duncan’s First Nation Horse Lake First Nation Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society August 26, 2014 to Doig River First Nation September 6, 2014 Duncan’s First Nation Horse Lake First Nation Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Wildlife September 3, 2014 to Doig River First Nation September 6, 2014 and Duncan’s First Nation September 9 , 2014 to Horse Lake First Nation September 14, 2014 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Wetlands September 9, 2014 to Beaver First Nation September 11, 2014 Duncan’s First Nation Horse Lake First Nation Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Winter Wildlife February 9 to 15, 2015 Beaver First Nation Doig River First Nation Duncan's First Nation Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 February 12 to 16, 2015 Beaver First Nation Dene Tha' First Nation Doig River First Nation Duncan's First Nation Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Bear Canyon Section Aquatics September 5, 2014 to Doig River First Nation September 6, 2014 Duncan’s First Nation Horse Lake First Nation Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society
Page 3-12
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 3.3-2 Cont'd
Biophysical Pipeline Section Study Date Aboriginal Community Bear Canyon Section Wildlife September 7, 2014 Beaver First Nation (cont’d) September 8, 2014 and Doig River First Nation September 14, 2014 Duncan’s First Nation Horse Lake First Nation Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Wetlands September 9, 2014 to Beaver First Nation September 10, 2014 and Duncan’s First Nation September 12, 2014 Horse Lake First Nation Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Winter Wildlife February 9 to 11, 2015 Beaver First Nation Dene Tha' First Nation Doig River First Nation Duncan's First Nation Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 McLeod River Section Vegetation – June 21, 2011 to Alexander First Nation spring and rare June 26, 2011 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation plants (and Enoch Cree Nation weeds) Marlboro Community Association Vegetation – August 3, 2011 to Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada summer rare August 6, 2011 Paul First Nation plants Saddle Lake Cree Nation Vegetation – August 23, 2011 to wetlands August 25, 2011 Fisheries June 15, 2011 to June 23, 2011 Wildlife – breeding June 24, 2011 to bird survey June 27, 2011 Wildlife – habitat June 25, 2011 to assessment June 27, 2011 Historical August 2011 Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) Pelican Lake Section Aquatics September 10, 2014 to Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation September 16, 2014 Saddle Lake Cree Nation Wabasca Métis Local No. 90 September 16, 2014 to Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation September 18, 2014 Christina River Dene Nation Council Fort McMurray Métis Local No. 1935 Saddle Lake Cree Nation Wetlands September 14, 2014 Christina River Dene Nation Council Saddle Lake Cree Nation Wabasca Métis Local No. 90
Page 3-13
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 3.3-2 Cont'd
Biophysical Pipeline Section Study Date Aboriginal Community Pelican Lake Section Wildlife September 16, 2014 to Bigstone Cree Nation (cont’d) September 21, 2014 Christina River Dene Nation Council Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation Saddle Lake Cree Nation Wabasca Métis Local No.90 HRIA November 13, 2014 to Bigstone Cree Nation November 15, 2014 Christina River Dene Nation Council Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Lakeland Métis Local No. 1909 Winter Wildlife January 17, 2015 to Bigstone Cree Nation January 20, 2015 Fort McMurray Métis Local No. 1935 Lakeland Métis Local No. 1909 Wabasca Métis Local No. 90 Christina River Section Aquatics September 10, 2014 to Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation September 14, 2014 Christina River Dene Nation Council Fort McMurray Métis Local No. 1935 Saddle Lake Cree Nation Wetlands September 15, 2014 Christina River Dene Nation Council Saddle Lake Cree Nation Wildlife September 22, 2014 to Christina River Dene Nation Council September 24, 2014 Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation Winter Wildlife January 17, 2015 to Christina River Dene Nation Council January 20, 2015 Lakeland Métis Local No. 1909
TABLE 3.3-3
FIELD STUDY PROGRAM PARTICIPATION – COMPRESSOR STATIONS
Biophysical Compressor Station Study Date Aboriginal Community Alces River Unit Aquatics September 2, 2014 Duncan’s First Nation Addition Horse Lake First Nation Wetlands September 9, 2014 Beaver First Nation Duncan’s First Nation Horse Lake First Nation Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Wildlife September 13, 2014 Doig River First Nation Duncan’s First Nation Horse Lake First Nation Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society Otter Lake Unit Aquatics September 4, 2014 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 Addition Wetlands September 11, 2014 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6
Confidentiality and Vetting of Shared Aboriginal Field Study Program Information Information shared as a result of the Aboriginal Field Study Program has been incorporated throughout the ESA, where appropriate. This information has contributed to the ESA by supplementing the baseline data collected for fish and fish habitat, vegetation, heritage resources, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat and socio-economics and informing field methodologies where appropriate. Specific sites identified by participants during field surveys contributed to discipline field results, and issues and concerns identified
Page 3-14
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345 during field survey participation have been considered in the effects assessment of each element. Information shared during participation in the Aboriginal Field Study Program, including confidential and proprietary knowledge, is summarized and provided to the communities to confirm accuracy as well as seek approval for the inclusion and consideration of information in Project planning, where warranted. Specific issues and concerns considered in the assessment of effects for each element are provided in Section 7.0.
Review of collected information during the Aboriginal Field Study Program and discussions of potential Project-related effects as well as mitigation strategies described in the ESA for the Project were conducted directly with the participating community representatives during the field studies. Confidential and proprietary information was reviewed directly with the participating community representatives during the field studies to confirm accuracy as well as to seek approval for the inclusion and consideration of any confidential and proprietary information in Project planning, where warranted. This information was used to create Appendix 10.
The results of the Aboriginal Field Study Program, including the dates of studies and representatives present during the field surveys, were provided to participating Aboriginal communities prior to filing to ensure the accuracy of information, that the identified concerns are representative of the individual Aboriginal communities’ interests and proposed mitigation measures to address these concerns, and to seek approval for the inclusion and consideration of any confidential and proprietary information in Project planning, where warranted. TERA provided these results to each participating Aboriginal community on February 24 and 25, 2015, and requested that comments or corrections be returned to TERA by March 10, 2015.
Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation, Beaver First Nation, Christina River Dene Nation Council, Dene Tha’ First Nation, Doig River First Nation, Fort McMurray Métis Local No. 1935, and Horse Lake First Nation provided responses to the compiled results to TERA. All feedback that has been received from the communities to date has been incorporated into this report. Doig River First Nation and Horse Lake First Nation have requested follow-up meetings to discuss the results from the Field Study Program, and TERA will schedule meetings at the earliest mutual convenience to review the detailed results of participation on the field studies. The remaining participating Aboriginal communities have not provided comment or response to date.
3.3.2.3 Aboriginal Socio-Economics Aboriginal communities were invited to contribute socio-economic information as part of the Aboriginal Field Study Program. During the 2014 and 2015 field studies, TERA Facilitators accompanied participants in the field to record TEK, issues and concerns, as well as socio-economic data from communities that chose to share it, and ensure that proprietary information was kept in confidence. Socio-economic information shared by potentially affected Aboriginal communities during Project meetings and field study participation was incorporated into the socio-economic effects assessment (Section 7.0) and is discussed further in Appendix 11. Information made available from the non-confidential TLU study reports as it relates to the socio-economic elements has also been incorporated into the socio-economic assessment. All information collected during engagement was sent to Aboriginal communities for review prior to inclusion in the ESA as described above.
3.3.2.4 Traditional Land Use Studies The objectives of a TLU study are to:
• determine the extent and general nature of each Aboriginal community’s current use of lands and resources for traditional activities relative to the Project;
• identify issues and concerns about the potential effects of the Project on TLU for baseline scoping and selection of social or environmental indicators for the effects assessment;
• provide traditional knowledge information, where appropriate, for the assessment of potential Project-related effects on traditional land and resource use; and
Page 3-15
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• discuss appropriate site-specific mitigation measures to address concerns raised relative to the Project regarding traditional land and resource use.
Preliminary background data from several other baseline TLU studies conducted in the TLU RSA for the Project provide useful information on the biophysical and social environment potentially encountered within the Project Footprint. Prior to field data collection, preliminary background TLU data were compiled using publically available TLU reports, environmental assessments for projects with a similar socio-cultural context or regulatory context, published reports from government agencies involved in administering or regulating a specified area or resource (e.g., integrated resource plans, land and resource management plants) and Geographical Information System tools to determine spatial relationships of source data to the Project. The preliminary background data were verified and augmented as a result of the field data collection.
NGTL also provided funding to assist Aboriginal communities that elected to conduct their own community directed TLU studies for the Project (see Table 3.3-4). These communities engaged other consultants to provide technical support and assistance with their TLU studies for the Project. Table 3.3-4 provides a time table of TLU studies for the Project, as of March 4, 2015. Interest in TLU studies for the Project by the remaining potentially affected communities will be determined through ongoing engagement. Details of NGTL engagement with Aboriginal communities is provided in Section 13.0 of the Application. The issues that were raised and where they are considered in the traditional land and resource use assessment are also summarized in Appendix 13.
TABLE 3.3-4
TIME TABLE OF TRADITIONAL LAND USE STUDIES FOR EACH PARTICPATING ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY
Project Components Community of Interest TLU Study Status Follow-Up Alexander First Nation McLeod River Section Independent, third-party TLU study. Completed in Final report received in 2011 2011 Alexis Nakota Sioux McLeod River Section Independent, third-party TLU study. Completed in Nation Final report received in 2011. Alexis 2011 Nakota Sioux Nation has expressed interest in updating this report. Beaver First Nation Boundary Lake and Currently coordinating a community TBD Bear Canyon Sections meeting and map review session Alces River Unit Addition Beaver Lake Cree Nation Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Christina River Sections community-led TLU study Bigstone Cree Nation Pelican Lake Section Preparing to submit a proposal for TBD capacity and TLUS Chipewyan Prairie Dene Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD First Nation Christina River Sections community-led TLU study Christina River Dene Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Nation Council Christina River Sections community-led TLU study Conklin Métis Nation Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Local No. 193 Christina River Sections community-led TLU study Dene Tha’ First Nation Boundary Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Bear Canyon Sections community-led TLU study Alces River Unit Addition Doig River First Nation Boundary Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Bear Canyon Sections community-led TLU study Alces River Unit Addition
Page 3-16
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 3.3-4 Cont'd
Project Components Community of Interest TLU Study Status Follow-Up Duncan’s First Nation Boundary Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Bear Canyon Sections community-led TLU study Alces River Unit Addition Enoch Cree Nation McLeod River Section Independent, third-party TLU study. Completed in Final report received in November, 2011 2011 Fairview Métis Local Boundary Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD No. 207 Bear Canyon Sections community-led TLU study Alces River Unit Addition Fort McMurray Métis Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Local No. 1935 Christina River Sections community-led TLU study Grande Prairie Métis Boundary Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Local No. 1990 Bear Canyon Sections community-led TLU study Alces River Unit Addition Heart Lake First Nation Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Christina River Sections community-led TLU study Horse Lake First Nation McLeod River, Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Boundary Lake and community-led TLU study Bear Canyon Sections Alces River Unit Addition Lakeland Métis Local No. Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD 1909 Christina River Sections community-led TLU study Marlboro Community McLeod River Section Independent, third party TLU study. Completed in Association Final report received in 2012. 2012 Mikisew Cree First Nation Pelican Lake and Funding for a TLRU study has been TBD Christina River Sections discussed but the parties have been unable to reach agreement. Nakcowinewak Nation of McLeod River Section Independent, third-party TLU study. Completed in Canada Final report received in 2011. In 2011 discussion to conduct in a helicopter overflight and ground reconnaissance Owl River Métis Local No. Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD 1949 Christina River Sections community-led TLU study Paul First Nation McLeod River Section Independent, third-party TLU study. Completed in Final report received in January, 2011 2012 Saddle Lake Cree Nation McLeod River, Independent, third-party TLU study. Completed in Pelican Lake and Final report received in 2011 2011 Christina River Sections Sturgeon Lake Cree McLeod River Section Expressed interest in conducting a TBD Nation community-led TLU study Wabasca Métis Local No. Pelican Lake Section Expressed interest in conducting a TBD 90 community-led TLU study Whitefish Lake No. 128 Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD First Nation Christina River Sections map review Willow Lake Métis Local Pelican Lake and Expressed interest in conducting a TBD No. 780 Christina River Sections community-led TLU study
Page 3-17
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
3.3.3 Aboriginal Engagement Program Outcomes Although a wide range of issues were raised by community members and representatives throughout the Aboriginal engagement process, recurring themes have emerged, including the following:
• potential long-term effects of accidents and malfunctions on fish;
• potential contamination of watercourses and related effects to wildlife;
• displacement of wildlife; and
• availability of Aboriginal contracting opportunities.
Key environmental and socio-economic issues raised during the engagement program are discussed in the relevant sections of this ESA. The engagement conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA was designed to complement the NGTL engagement program. Results of engagement have been considered and incorporated throughout the ESA and EPP (Appendices 1A to 1G) where relevant, including the effects assessment as well as mitigation and enhancement measures. A detailed summary of issues or concerns as well as where feedback is addressed in the ESA is outlined in Appendix 13. For a detailed record of engagement, refer to Section 13.0 of the Application.
3.4 Future Consultation and Engagement Activities Following submission of the Application to the NEB, NGTL will continue stakeholder consultation and engagement with potentially affected Aboriginal communities to provide updates on the status of the Project, and discuss proposed mitigation and enhancement measures. Information updates will also be sent to stakeholders and Aboriginal communities after submission of the Application. Information shared during stakeholder consultation and continued engagement with potentially affected Aboriginal communities may provide additional information and/or interests and concerns which NGTL is committed to address through the continuation of an effective engagement program.
Page 3-18
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
3.5 References 3.5.1 GIS Data and Mapping References Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. (ATPR). 2012. Protected Areas (pashape_ocsites_10tm) (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available: http://albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/library/downloadable-data- sets.aspx. Acquired: February 2013. Last Update Check: November 7, 2014.
AltaLIS. 2009. Alberta Provincial Boundary (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://www.altalis.com/products/base/alberta_boundary_data.html. Acquired: February 2011. Last Update Check: September 17, 2014.
AltaLIS. 2015. Alberta Municipal Boundaries (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://www.altalis.com. Acquired: February 2015. Last Update Check: February 9, 2015.
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (BC MFLNRO). 2007. Tantalis Regional Districts (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available:https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: March 2011. Last Update Check: November 20, 2014.
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (BC MFLNRO). 2008. Tantalis Parks, Ecological Reserves and Protected Areas (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available:https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: May 2014. Last Update Check: November 20, 2014.
ESRI. 2005a. Canada Major Roads (digital data). Redlands, CA. Received: via DVD with ArcGIS software, visit http://www.esri.com/data/data-maps for more info. Acquired: September 2006. Last update check: N/A.
ESRI. 2005b. Canada Provincial Boundaries (digital data). Redlands, CA. Received: via DVD with ArcGIS software, visit http://www.esri.com/data/data-maps for more info. Acquired: September 2006. Last update check: N/A.
Government of Canada. 2015. Aboriginal Lands, Canada (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available: http://www.geobase.ca. Acquired: March 2015. Last Update Check: March 11, 2015.
IHS Inc. 2004. IHS Hydro Line/Hydro Region Data (digital files). Calgary, AB. Received: via DVD, visit http://www.ihs.com for more info. Acquired: June 2011. Last Update Check: January 21, 2014.
IHS Inc. 2013b. IHS Miscellaneous Boundaries (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received: via DVD, visit http://www.ihs.comfor more info.Acquired: July 2013. Last Update Check: April 21, 2014.
IHS Inc. 2013c. IHS First Nations (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received: via DVD, visit http://www.ihs.comfor more info. Acquired: October 2013. Last Update Check: April 21, 2014.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). 2003. Canadian Geographical Names (digital file). Ottawa, ON. Available: http://geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cgn/index.html. Acquired: June 2014. Last Update Check: January 6, 2015.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). 2012. CanVec -Transportation - 1020009 Railway (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/download/topographic.html. Acquired: June 2012. Last Update Check: November 2012.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). 2015. Canada Lands Administrative Boundaries Level 1 (digital file). Ottawa, ON. Available: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/eb3757cc-d08b- 5e62-9a44-3a8534ff3249.html. Acquired: February, 2015. Last Update Check: February 23, 2015.
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2014a. Proposed Kilometre Post (KP) / Northwest Mainline Loop Boundary Lake Section / Northwest Mainline Loop No.2 Bear Canyon Section / Kettle River
Page 3-19
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
Lateral Loop Christina River Section (digital files). Calgary, AB. Acquired: October 2014. Last Update Check: October 24, 2014.
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2014b. Proposed Kilometre Post (KP) / Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No.2 McLeod River Section (digital files). Calgary, AB. Acquired: November 2014. Last Update Check: November 11, 2014.
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2014c. Proposed Kilometre Post (KP) / Liege Lateral Loop No.2 Pelican Lake Section / Footprint (digital files). Calgary, AB. Acquired: November 2014. Last Update Check: November 3, 2014.
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2014d. Proposed Alces River Compressor Station Unit Addition (digital file). Calgary, AB. Acquired: October 2014. Last Update Check: October 17, 2014.
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2014e. Proposed Otter Lake Compressor Station Unit Addition (digital file). Calgary, AB. Acquired: October 2014. Last Update Check: October 17, 2014.
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL). 2014f. Proposed Otter Lake Unit Addition Construction Camp (digital file). Calgary, AB. Acquired: October 2014. Last Update Check: October 28, 2014.
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008. Hillshade. Derived from Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Centre for Topographic Information. 2000-2008. Canadian Digital Elevation Data 250k (digital files). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cded/index.html. Acquired: 2008. Last Update Check: December 2010.
Page 3-20
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
4.0 ROUTE AND FACILITY SITE SELECTION The following sections outline the route and site selection process for the Project.
4.1 Pipeline Routing A thorough route and site identification, analysis and evaluation was conducted to identify potential options for carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible, and has considered stakeholder and Aboriginal community feedback, where possible. Potential pipeline route options were identified and evaluated using the following resources:
• area maps including topographic and existing infrastructure maps;
• information on planned future disturbances in the area;
• engineering, geotechnical and environmental field studies;
• aerial photographs, satellite imagery and LiDAR - Bare Earth imagery;
• aerial and ground reconnaissance of the various pipeline route options;
• feedback from consultation/participation with stakeholders, Aboriginal communities, and regulatory authorities, where applicable;
• local information gathering; and
• land and resource ownership and use data.
4.1.1 Routing and Siting Criteria – Pipeline and Permanent Facilities NGTL’s goal during the selection of a preferred route is to reduce the potential for adverse environmental effects while selecting a route that can be constructed and operated in a safe and cost-effective manner. Routing was influenced and guided by NGTL’s pipeline route selection criteria which includes:
• reducing the total pipeline route length and the amount of new land disturbance;
• installing the new pipelines parallel to existing NGTL facilities, including overlapping of existing rights-of-way for workspace, where feasible;
• avoiding, where possible, or reducing the length of pipeline crossing through environmentally sensitive features such as protected, endangered or sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitat;
• reducing the number and complexity of watercourse crossings;
• identifying watercourse crossing locations that are geotechnically stable and where construction will be feasible by more than one installation method (e.g., contingency HDD and/or trenched crossing) and avoiding non-peat wetlands, where feasible;
• avoiding identified socially and culturally important areas such as parks, natural areas, sensitive TLU sites (e.g., Indian Reserves [I.R.s], historic sites, heritage sites and cemeteries), trapper cabins and areas with existing infrastructure that could create land use conflicts;
• considering constructability and safety considerations for both construction and operation;
• avoiding or minimizing routing through areas of unstable terrain;
Page 4-1
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• considering new access requirements for both construction and operation, including potential adverse effects of creating new access to remote areas;
• optimally locating the pipeline corridor within producing areas to maximize potential for future connections; and
• consulting with regulatory agencies to understand issues that may need to be addressed in the routing process.
Feedback gained through stakeholder, regulatory and Aboriginal engagement was also solicited and considered as part of the route and site selection process for each pipeline section and permanent facility.
4.1.1.1 Control Points The endpoint boundaries of the proposed pipeline routes are defined by the planned tie-in locations that connect to the existing NGTL system. Tie-in locations are considered source and delivery control points which are discussed in Table 4.1-1.
TABLE 4.1-1
PRIMARY CONTROL POINTS FOR THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTES
Source and Pipeline Route Delivery Control Points UTM Legal Location Boundary Lake Section Alces River Compressor Station 11U 319365E, 6251112N 12-13-85-13 W6M Owl Lake South Meter Station 11U 325293E, 6340482N 15-20-94-12 W6M Bear Canyon Section Saddle Hills Compressor Station 11U 351975E, 6187931N 1-5-79-9 W6M Existing Mainline Valve Site 11U 336658E, 6206301N 4-35-80-11 W6M McLeod River Section New Mainline Valve Site 11U 505328E, 5958207N 13-21-55-20 W5M Existing Mainline Valve Site 11U 530418E, 5934331N 2-11-53-18 W5M Pelican Lake Section Buffalo Creek Compressor Station 12U 407406E, 6212797N 9-30-81-16 W4M Pelican Lake Compressor Station 12U 386250E, 6259340N 4-19-86-18 W4M Christina River Section Leismer-Kettle Crossover 12U 519897E, 6189128N 12-14-79-5 W4M Graham Lateral Loop 2 Junction 12U 510515E, 6202612N 14-26-80-6 W4M Note: - For Pelican Lake Section, a secondary control point was the mid-point block valve and crossover. Initially, these were proposed to be located at the Granor Meter Station, however, these have since been relocated to NE 10-84-18 W4M to minimize the length of crossover piping.
4.1.1.2 Paralleling Existing Linear Disturbances Potential adverse environmental effects are reduced when new pipelines follow existing linear disturbances. By following existing rights-of-way or other linear disturbances (e.g., roads and seismic lines), NGTL reduces the amount of new clearing and land disturbance. Aligning the proposed pipeline routes parallel to, or as close as possible to existing linear disturbances allows for lower overall Project effects for the following reasons:
• limits the amount of new clearing and disturbance necessary to install the proposed pipeline routes by selecting the routes to parallel existing linear disturbances;
• avoids fragmentation of habitat and the creation of new access into remote locations;
Page 4-2
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• enables NGTL to overlap construction rights-of-way with existing adjacent easements where agreements can be negotiated; and
• operations phase crews are able to monitor additional pipeline capacity with little increase in monitoring effort where the linear disturbance paralleled is a pipeline operated by an affiliated company.
4.1.1.3 Crossings The proposed pipeline routes cross both natural and man-made features such as:
• watercourses (e.g., rivers, creeks, drainages);
• roads and highways;
• power lines and cables; and
• other pipelines.
Whenever practical, new pipelines are aligned to reduce or avoid these crossings. When a crossing is necessary, the most suitable location is selected considering:
• terrain;
• subsurface material condition;
• land use;
• safety and environmental considerations;
• the appropriate crossing construction method(s);
• feedback from consultation/participation with stakeholders, Aboriginal communities, and environmental and government authorities;
• pipeline corridors at the same crossing; and
• regulatory requirements.
4.1.1.4 Block Valve Sites When siting block valves, NGTL considers:
• CSA Z662 requirements;
• internal NGTL engineering design standards and directives,
• engineering and operating constraints of the pipeline;
• operational safety through valve spacing;
• topography along the proposed route;
• access for valve operations and maintenance activities; and
• vegetation clearing necessities.
Valve site locations have also been guided considering operational and maintenance efficiency. There are a total of nine proposed block valve sites (i.e., three on Boundary Lake Section, two on Bear Canyon
Page 4-3
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
Section, two on McLeod River Section and two on Pelican Lake Section). See Section 7.0 of the Application for more information.
4.1.1.5 Future System Expansion NGTL has considered the possibility of future expansion of the System in the area of each of the proposed pipeline routes. If such a potential exists, consideration is given to any constraints that may affect future additional facilities.
4.2 Compressor Station Site Selection NGTL has studied and assessed the proposed compressor station sites, in part, by examining the selection criteria outlined in Section 4.1.1. Additional siting criteria examined for the proposed compressor station unit additions is described in Section 4.2.1.
4.2.1 Siting Criteria – Compressor Station Sites The primary consideration during NGTL’s facility site selection was placement of compressor station unit additions adjacent to existing compressor stations. The following additional criteria were considered when selecting the preferred compressor station locations, where feasible:
• preference for level and well-drained locations so that the need for grading is reduced;
• proximity to existing facilities;
• proximity to existing roads and highways to reduce cost and surface disturbance associated with new road construction;
• avoidance of areas of native vegetation and maximization of use of previously cleared areas of vegetation or land currently under industrial use;
• proximity to existing and proposed pipeline rights-of-way, or major access facilities, roads or other permanent facilities;
• setbacks from sensitive noise receptors (e.g., residents, cabins, outfitting camps); and
• consideration for environmentally sensitive, socially or culturally important areas.
See Section 8.0 of the Application for more information on the siting criteria considered for compressor stations.
4.3 Construction Camps, Temporary Infrastructure and Workspace Site Selection Construction camps and other temporary infrastructure and workspace will be necessary for the Project. A preliminary list of temporary infrastructure and workspace is identified in Section 2.0. Temporary infrastructure and workspace requirements will be developed and reviewed by the Prime Contractor as well as the Project team during the design and approval phase. These requirements will be refined during the construction phase and will be fully defined once a final construction plan is developed based on contractor feedback. The evaluation of potential temporary construction camp sites, infrastructure, work sites and workspace will be conducted as far in advance of their intended use as practical to allow for adequate time to choose and evaluate alternative sites.
4.3.1 Siting Criteria – Construction Camps, Temporary Infrastructure and Workspace Sites Construction camps and other temporary infrastructure and workspace locations will be selected based on a number of objectives such as:
• close proximity to the construction rights-of-way or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way or major access facilities, roads or highways;
Page 4-4
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• avoidance, to the extent practical, of lands supporting native vegetation by maximizing the use of previously cleared lands, or lands currently under industrial land use;
• avoidance, to the extent practical, of known locations that provide site-specific habitat for wildlife species of concern or apply special mitigation (see Section 7.0);
• avoidance, to the extent practical, of known sites that support vascular plant species of concern or apply special mitigation (see Section 7.0);
• avoidance, to the extent practical, of steep slopes, organic soils and poorly-drained areas;
• avoidance, to the extent practical, of known areas with sensitive heritage resources, archaeological resources or TLU sites, or apply special mitigation (see Section 7.0);
• use of existing clearings and areas previously subject to strippings removal or salvage;
• use of existing access, to the extent feasible, both to the temporary workspace and between the temporary workspace and the construction right-of-way (where the temporary workspace is not adjacent to the construction right-of-way); and
• locating workspace outside of environmentally sensitive or socially or culturally important areas.
General provisions will be included in the contract documents that commit contractors to site protection/restoration measures at sites identified, evaluated and used during the construction program. Mitigation measures to be used at temporary work areas will be the same as the pipeline mitigation measures (see Section 7.0). All applicable municipal, provincial and federal government approvals for the temporary facility sites or workspace will be acquired prior to use of the site or area. The level of mitigation applied will ensure that any potential residual environmental effects are reduced to a level that is not significant.
4.3.1.1 Access Temporary access will be needed during construction and operations, including vehicle crossings at watercourse and trenchless crossings as well as access to the various Project components.
Existing infrastructure will be used where practical. Where existing access is not sufficient or available, access may be improved along existing trails where necessary during construction by widening, regrading or other means. Due to the remote locations of the Project, helicopter access may also be necessary during non-frozen conditions. Where new temporary access is necessary, the access route selection criteria will be similar to those applied to pipeline route selection discussed previously in Section 4.1.1. Routing of the proposed temporary access roads will be determined during detailed engineering and design. All applicable authorizations and approvals will be sought on privately-owned and public lands.
4.4 Alternative Means Alternative means are the various ways that are technically and economically feasible to implement and carry out the Project and are discussed in compliance with Section 19(1) of the CEA Act, 2012. For the proposed pipeline routes, alternative means considered include routing, construction scheduling and watercourse crossing construction techniques, while for the compressor unit additions, NGTL considered the proximity to existing compressor stations in the siting criteria. See Section 4.2.1 of this ESA and Section 4.0 of the Application for further details on compressor station siting alternatives.
NGTL has studied and assessed a variety of routing alternatives by using the route selection criteria discussed in Section 4.1.1 of this ESA and Section 4.0 of the Application. However, route alternatives were predominately considered based on primary control points, paralleling existing and planned rights-of-way, constructability concerns such as avoiding side slopes or undercutting adjacent facilities, avoiding environmentally sensitive features, avoiding future planned dispositions and choosing suitable watercourse crossing locations.
Page 4-5
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
4.4.1.1 Routing Alternatives Boundary Lake Section The Boundary Lake Section will parallel the existing Northwest Mainline Boundary Lake pipeline and other existing dispositions, such as access roads and well sites, for approximately 85.7 km (93.7%). Approximately 5.8 km (6.3%) of the remaining pipeline route will be non-contiguous construction right-of-way where existing linear disturbances are either not present or could not be paralleled due to the presence of wetlands, other existing facilities or to accommodate constructability constraints and existing soil conditions. The proposed pipeline route has been aligned to adhere to the routing criteria noted in Section 4.1.1, to the extent feasible. NGTL maximized the use of existing and planned disturbance within the Grizzly Bear Zone, caribou range and Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (KWBZ) for the Boundary Lake Section as the most effective means of reducing effects and limiting new linear disturbances and access within these sensitive wildlife areas. These areas could not be feasibly avoided altogether given the control points and the spatial extensiveness of the area.
Overall, the proposed pipeline route is considered to be environmentally satisfactory, however, NGTL recognizes that additional mitigation will be necessary to address some effects related to caribou and grizzly bear that could not be avoided through the routing process (see Sections 7.10 and Appendices 1A and 9A).
See Section 7.1.4 of the Application for a description of the Boundary Lake Section route and alternatives considered.
Bear Canyon Section The Bear Canyon Section is located parallel to the existing Northwest Mainline and other pipelines for approximately 19.8 km (74.0%). Approximately 6.9 km (26.0%) of the remaining pipeline route will be non-contiguous construction right-of-way.
See Section 7.1.4 of the Application for a description of the Bear Canyon Section route and alternatives considered.
McLeod River Section Alignment of the McLeod River Section was chosen to parallel the existing Grande Prairie Mainline. Approximately 33.5km (92.3%) of the proposed route parallels existing linear disturbances, such as pipelines and roads. Approximately 2.8 km (7.7%) of the proposed pipeline route currently consists of new right-of-way.
See Section 7.1.4 of the Application for a description of the McLeod River Section route and alternatives considered.
Pelican Lake Section The Pelican Lake Section parallels existing linear features, such as the existing Liege Lateral and Liege Lateral Loop and other pipelines and access roads for approximately 53.5 km (95.3%). Approximately 2.6 km (4.7%) of the remaining pipeline route will be non-contiguous construction right-of-way.
The proposed Pelican Lake Section route has been aligned to adhere to the routing criteria noted in Section 4.1.1, to the extent feasible. NGTL maximized the use of existing and planned disturbance within the caribou range and KWBZ as the most effective means of reducing effects and limiting new linear disturbances and access within these sensitive wildlife areas. These areas could not be feasibly avoided altogether given the control points and the spatial extensiveness of the area.
Deviations from the alignment of the Liege Lateral and Liege Lateral Loop were also made where conflicts were created by other third-party dispositions and where other third-party dispositions provided opportunities to shorten the route or facilitate construction. This included creating space for assembly of HDD drag sections within the right-of-way and paralleling other projects that were recently constructed or will be constructed within the same construction period (e.g., Grand Rapids Pipeline).
Page 4-6
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
See Section 7.1.4 of the Application for a description of the Pelican Lake Section route and alternatives considered.
Christina River Section The proposed route for the Christina River Section has been aligned to adhere to the routing criteria noted in Section 4.1.1, to the extent feasible. NGTL maximized the use of existing and planned disturbance within the KWBZ as the most effective means of reducing effects and limiting new linear disturbances and access within the area. The KWBZ could not be feasibly avoided given the control points and the spatial extensiveness of the area.
Routing considerations for the proposed pipeline route included: reducing overall pipeline length between the defined Project control and end points; paralleling existing linear disturbances, particularly NGTL disturbances; consideration of routing effects on the Hamlet of Janvier; and suitable crossing locations of the Christina River. The Christina River Section is a loop of the existing Kettle River Lateral, the Bohn Lake Lateral, Chard Lateral, and each of their loops. The proposed pipeline route parallels these existing linear features as well as access roads for approximately 17.0 km (86.3%). Approximately 2.5 km (12.5%) of the remaining pipeline route will be non-contiguous construction right-of-way.
See Section 7.1.4 of the Application for a description of the Christina Lake Section route and alternatives considered.
4.4.1.2 Construction Scheduling The construction schedule has been defined to meet the planned in-service date of the Project, and it is also a key mitigation measure to reduce adverse Project effects. The Project team selected the current schedule based on the approximate timing of construction, in order to minimize negative effects on terrain, land use and environment, which includes vegetation and wildlife. Construction has also been planned and sequenced in the most cost-effective manner possible, while respecting environment timing windows of the area.
Although the construction schedule for each Project component is dependent upon a number of factors (e.g., weather conditions, contractor workforce, permitting and sensitive timing windows) and is subject to change, four environmental considerations are particularly important in finalizing the construction schedule (i.e., watercourse crossing timing constraints, migratory bird nesting periods, and sensitive timing windows for KWBZs and three caribou ranges). The three caribou ranges are:
• the caribou range for the Chinchaga herd, which overlaps with the Boundary Lake Section from NE 20-94-12 W6M to NE 19-90-12 W6M;
• the caribou range for the West Side of the Athabasca River (WSAR) herd, which overlaps with the Pelican Lake Section from SW 29-85-18 W4M to SE 10-84-18 W4M and from SE 2-84-18 W4M to NE 28-82-17 W4M; and
• the Agnes herd range in the East Side of the Athabasca River (ESAR) caribou range, which overlaps with the Pelican Lake Section from NW 14-82-17 W4M to NE 30-81-16 W4M.
AESRD recommends a timing restriction of February 15 to July 15, within caribou ranges, to reduce effects to pregnant cows and their calves. Furthermore, an “early in/early out” approach is recommended to reduce disturbance of caribou by initiating activities as early as possible in the winter and working expeditiously to limit late winter activities.
KWBZs, established to protect the integrity of ungulate wintering areas, river corridors and biodiversity areas where species tend to concentrate, have a timing restriction of January 15 to April 30. NGTL will consult with AESRD for any activities occurring within timing restrictions for caribou ranges and KWBZs.
Page 4-7
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
The migratory bird nesting period occurs between May 1 and August 10. The current construction schedule avoids activities within this period. In the event that there are schedule changes and construction activities are planned during the migratory bird nesting period, NGTL will consult with Environment Canada.
The watercourses crossed by the Boundary, Bear Canyon, Kettle River and Liege Lateral pipeline routes are unmapped or mapped Class C watercourses with a restricted activity period (RAP) of April 16 to July 15. Watercourses crossed by the McLeod River pipeline route have a RAP of either September 1 to June 30 or September 1 to July 15. For all watercourses crossed by the respective pipeline routes, no construction activity will occur within the RAPs for any watercourse crossing unless: the watercourse is dry or frozen to the bottom at the time of construction; trenchless techniques are employed; or approval from the appropriate regulatory agency is obtained.
The construction schedule will be finalized around these overlapping environmental factors. To the extent feasible, pipeline activities will be scheduled to avoid migratory bird nesting periods, watercourse crossing timing restrictions, and sensitive timing windows for KWBZs and caribou ranges. The Project EPP contains further mitigation measures to be used in the event that construction activities are delayed or where construction will occur during sensitive environment timing windows.
More detailed information regarding the proposed construction schedule is available in Section 9.0 of the Application.
4.4.1.3 Watercourse Crossings Where feasible, the pipeline routes were selected to avoid watercourse crossings. Criteria that NGTL uses in selecting a pipeline crossing method are the watercourse parameters, fisheries values, geotechnical information, including subsurface conditions, and integrated construction/mitigation strategies.
Watercourse parameter considerations in selecting a pipeline crossing method include:
• suitability of the crossing location;
• width and depth of the watercourse at the proposed crossing location;
• streamflow at the time of installation;
• topography and ease of access (e.g., bank geometry and presence of flood plains); and
• bed and bank material.
Fish value considerations in selecting a watercourse crossing method include:
• site-specific aquatics assessment findings (e.g., fish species present and habitat quality);
• presence of AESRD sensitive species and SARA fish species and/or habitat; and
• RAPs for fish species.
Geotechnical information (including subsurface information):
• presence and depth of gravel and sand;
• depth of bedrock;
• information on bedrock geology; and
• information on surficial geology.
Construction and mitigation strategy considerations in selecting a watercourse crossing method include:
• construction duration and season (e.g., winter versus summer conditions);
Page 4-8
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• constructability issues (e.g., pipe size, workspace availability, subsurface materials and costs);
• technical limitations (e.g., proximity of other pipelines, confined right-of-way, valve site locations);
• safety considerations;
• environmental considerations (e.g., extreme weather events); and
• integrated activity-related and physical works mitigation.
Both trenchless and trenched watercourse crossing techniques were considered for the Project. See Section 9.1.16 of the Application for details on NGTL’s process for selecting watercourse crossing locations.
The following briefly describes all of the alternative methods considered.
Trenchless Crossings Trenchless crossings are generally used for watercourses with sensitive and/or high value fisheries, and/or with flows, water depths and channel widths that cannot be effectively isolated. The factors to be considered for “high value” fisheries are commercial, recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fisheries, or watercourses that contain federally-listed (i.e., SARA) or provincially-listed species. Based on NGTL’s crossing selection process for this Project, the proposed crossings of six rivers are being considered for an HDD or trenchless crossing method.
HDD is the most common trenchless method for crossing a waterbody with a pipeline and is generally used for watercourses with high value fisheries and/or flows, water depths and channel widths that cannot be effectively isolated. This method involves setting up an HDD drill rig and drilling pilot hole with subsequent reaming passes to enlarge the borehole to the appropriate pipe size. As pipeline diameter increases, the minimum borehole length increases due to the greater required bending radius associated with large diameter pipeline. The pipe is welded above ground and pulled through the borehole, completing the construction of the crossing. HDDs can be installed in a number of different geotechnical conditions, and avoid instream works and ditching activities in the bed and banks of suitable watercourses.
HDDs require:
• greater depth of cover than trenched crossings to reduce the risk of inadvertent drilling fluid release and due to the minimum radius of curvature for pipe that will be pulled into drill section;
• reasonable access to large volumes of water to support drilling operations;
• larger cleared areas for construction of drill pads to stage drilling equipment, mud handling, pipe set-up, and line-of-sight directional tracking, and suitable disposal locations for drilling mud and cuttings; and
• access to the entry and exit sides of the crossing for the duration of drilling activity.
In addition to these considerations, temporary infrastructure and workspace needs are larger for an HDD than a trenched crossing. For the reasons noted above, HDDs generally need an increased footprint over what would be needed for an isolated crossing method. Other considerations for HDD include:
• availability of water needed during drilling, particularly in winter;
• duration of the HDD, which would typically be 3 to 6 months, depending upon length and geotechnical conditions, or longer should any technical difficulties be encountered based on NGTL’s past experience with large-diameter HDD crossings;
Page 4-9
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• scheduling and logistical challenges with multiple HDDs, where timing is an important consideration for longer borehole lengths;
• the availability of qualified construction crews with suitable expertise for large diameter pipeline installations; and
• the quantity and size of equipment suitable for large diameter pipeline installations, which may limit NGTL’s ability to complete multiple HDDs within the proposed schedule.
Trenched Crossings The following provides a high-level description of an isolated and a dry open cut (frozen and non-frozen) crossing technique. The descriptions include the watercourse parameters considered suitable for isolation. NGTL uses an integrated suite of construction activity-related and physical works mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects on fish and fish habitat. The activity-related measures cover each stage of construction, including some that will be applied at all watercourse crossings and others that will be used in specific situations.
Isolated Crossings An isolated crossing method will be used for watercourses with open water or under ice flow that can be handled by isolation equipment. This method was developed to help avoid any detrimental effects on water quality and quantity resulting from instream work by isolating the excavated area from flowing water using damming as well as pump and bypass techniques. Using dams and pumps or flumes, flow is diverted around or across the construction zone to allow trench excavation, pipeline installation and backfilling to occur away from flowing water. Silted water is typically left in the trench during these activities and then pumped onto a nearby vegetated or snow-filled area, rather than allowing it to go directly back into the watercourse.
Open Cut Crossings – Frozen Conditions For minor watercourses and drainages, open cut crossings will be used when seasonal conditions result in lack of flow or if the watercourse is frozen to the bottom. The open cut crossing method is preferred for minor watercourses and drainages where flow is absent and is expected to be absent for the duration of instream activities. Any water that is collected from the excavation will be discharged to an upland area or otherwise filtered to reduce the amount of sediment being discharged back into the watercourse.
Open Cut Crossings – Wet Conditions For large watercourses, open cut crossings may be used if the water flow is excessive or watercourse conditions at the time of construction do not enable the implementation of flow isolation. The open cut crossing method involves excavating a trench through the watercourse to the required depth and installing the pipe and backfilling to ensure adequate depth of cover. This method will need extra temporary workspace but typically has a smaller footprint compared to other crossing methods. It is not limited by water flow volumes or watercourse widths and can generally be completed more quickly than other methods. This method would not generally be used for small watercourse crossings where isolation is feasible.
Isolated, open cut and trenchless crossing techniques to be employed are all designed to install the crossing successfully and efficiently while reducing the potential adverse effects on fish and fish habitat. NGTL’s crossing methodology decision framework considers both desktop and field-based assessment of the potential contribution of fish and fish habitat to the ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries as well as to federally-listed aquatic species at risk and provincially-listed fish species.
NGTL’s selection process considers that each crossing technique has its own risks and, therefore, the intent is to select the most practical construction method resulting in the least adverse effect. See Section 9.1.16 of the Application for details on NGTL’s process for selecting watercourse crossing locations.
Page 4-10
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT METHOD The assessment evaluated the environmental and socio-economic effects of construction, operations, decommissioning and abandonment phases of the Project for all Project components (see Section 2.0) in an integrated manner. The assessment method applies the following process.
1. Identify the environmental and socio-economic elements (Section 5.1). 2. Determine the spatial and temporal boundaries for the assessment (Section 5.2). 3. Describe the environmental and socio-economic setting (Section 5.3). 4. Identify the potential environmental and socio-economic effects (Section 5.4). 5. Develop appropriate technically and economically feasible site-specific mitigation and, where warranted, enhancement measures (Section 5.4). 6. Identify anticipated residual effects (Section 5.4) and cumulative effects (Section 5.6). 7. Determine the significance of residual effects (Section 5.5) and the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects (Section 5.6).
This environmental and socio-economic effects assessment methodology has been developed based on:
• the CEA Act Responsible Authority's Guide Part II: The Practitioner’s Guide (CEA Agency 1994);
• A Reference Guide for the CEA Act: Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office [FEARO] 1994a);
• A Reference Guide for the CEA Act: Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Environmental Effects (FEARO 1994b);
• the CEA Agency Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999);
• Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the CEA Act, 2012 (CEA Agency 2013a) and also considers the revised Operational Policy Statement released in December 2014 (CEA Agency 2014a);
• the CEA Act, 2012; and
• the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014).
In addition, Incorporating Climate Change Consideration in Environmental Assessment (CEA Agency 2003), Considering Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Assessments conducted under the CEA Act, 2012 (CEA Agency 2013b) and Technical Guidance for Assessing Physical and Cultural Heritage or any Structure, Site or Thing that is of Historical, Archaeological, Paleontological or Architectural Significance under the CEA Act, 2012 (CEA Agency 2014b) were also considered and integrated into the effects assessment methodology.
The environmental and socio-economic effects assessment associated with all phases of the Project was a collaborative effort of several qualified professionals with element-specific expertise, under the guidance of representatives of TERA. Table 5.0-1 acknowledges the contribution of these experts and professionals by environmental and socio-economic element.
Page 5-1
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 5.0-1
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT TEAM
Environmental/Socio-Economic Element Assessor Physical and Meteorological Environment TERA Soils and Soil Productivity Paragon, TERA and Stantec Water Quality and Quantity TERA Air Emissions TERA GHG Emissions TERA Acoustic Environment TERA Fish and Fish Habitat TERA and Stantec Wetlands TERA and Stantec Vegetation TERA and Stantec Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat TERA and Stantec Species At Risk TERA Human Occupancy and Resource Use (HORU) TERA Heritage Resources TERA TLRU TERA Social and Cultural Well-Being TERA Human Health TERA Infrastructure and Services TERA Navigation and Navigation Safety TERA Employment and Economy TERA Accidents and Malfunctions TERA Changes to the Project Caused by the Environment TERA
5.1 Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements and Indicators Guide A.2.6.1 of the NEB Filing Manual assumes that the identification of potential environmental and socio-economic effects reflects a valued component-based approach where the valued components could be the broad elements, as described in Tables A-1 Circumstances and Interactions Requiring Detailed Biophysical and Socio-Economic Information, A-2 Filing Requirements for Biophysical Elements and A-3 Filing Requirements for Socio-Economic Elements or a representative subset of those elements. Given the scope of the Project, the identification of the potential environmental and socio-economic effects generally focuses on the broad environmental (i.e., biophysical) and socio-economic elements as the valued components. For the wildlife and wildlife habitat element, an indicator approach was taken to focus the assessment, whereby the indicators are considered representative of likely effect mechanisms and responses for the element. The method and rationale for wildlife indicator selection are provided in Section 5.1.2.
5.1.1 Identification of Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements The potential environmental (i.e., biophysical) and socio-economic elements interacting with the Project were identified through the Aboriginal engagement, the public, regulatory and government consultation process and experience gained during previous pipeline projects with similar conditions/potential issues, as well as the professional experience of the assessment team. Issues noted during engagement with Aboriginal communities and consultation with federal, provincial and municipal government authorities, local industry representatives and interested stakeholders were essential in determining element interactions with the Project (see Section 3.0).
Environmental and socio-economic elements potentially interacting with the Project are summarized in Table 5.1-1, and include:
Page 5-2
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• physical elements, such as the physical and meteorological environment, soils and soil productivity, water quality and quantity, air emissions, GHG emissions and the acoustic environment;
• biological elements such as fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk; and
• socio-economic elements such as HORU, heritage resources, TLRU, social and cultural well-being, human health, infrastructure and services, navigation and navigation safety, and employment and economy.
TABLE 5.1-1
ELEMENT INTERACTION WITH THE PROJECT
Interaction with Project Phase Decommissioning or Element Construction1,2,3 Operations4 Abandonment5 Physical and Meteorological Yes Yes Yes Environment Soil and Soil Productivity Yes Yes Yes Water Quality and Quantity Yes Yes Yes Air Emissions Yes Yes Yes GHG Emissions Yes Yes Yes Acoustic Environment Yes Yes Yes Fish and Fish Habitat Yes Yes Yes Wetlands Yes Yes Yes Vegetation Yes Yes Yes Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Yes Yes Yes Species At Risk Yes Yes Yes HORU Yes Yes Yes Heritage Resources Yes No No Navigation and Navigation Safety Yes Yes Yes TLRU Yes Yes Yes Social and Cultural Well-Being Yes Yes Yes Human Health Yes Yes Yes Infrastructure and Services Yes Yes Yes Employment and Economy Yes Yes Yes Notes: 1 Activities during pipeline construction include engineering, construction surveys, clearing, disposal, strippings handling (forested lands), topsoil salvage (agricultural lands), grading (where warranted), stringing and welding, trenching, lowering-in, backfilling, testing, clean-up and reclamation as well as watercourse crossings (see Section 2.4). 2 Activities during compressor station construction include engineering, construction surveying, clearing, site preparation (strippings salvage), grading, disposal, driving piles and placing gravel pads, installation of foundations and below ground piping, installation of compressor packages (buildings, generator, skids), and clean-up and reclamation (see Section 2.4). 3 Activities for construction camps and other temporary infrastructure construction include engineering, site preparation, facility construction, access, facility dismantle and reclamation (see Section 2.4). 4 Activities during operations include aerial pipeline patrols, vegetation management, pipeline in-service inspections, integrity digs and compressor station operation and maintenance. 5 Activities during decommissioning and abandonment may include dismantling Project infrastructure and restoration.
All environmental and socio-economic elements are considered to potentially interact with all of the Project phases, with the exception of heritage resources. No potential interaction between heritage resources and
Page 5-3
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345 the Project during operations, decommissioning and abandonment was identified since surface or buried heritage resource sites, if present, would be disturbed as a result of construction activities. In accordance with Guide A.2.6 of the NEB Filing Manual, no further analysis is necessary for those elements where interactions between the Project component and the element are not predicted.
5.1.2 Identification of Indicators As noted above, the identification of the potential environmental and socio-economic effects generally focuses on the broad environmental (i.e., biophysical) and socio-economic elements as the valued components. For the wildlife and wildlife habitat element, an indicator approach was taken to focus the assessment, whereby the indicators are considered representative of likely effect mechanisms and responses for the element.
Indicators were selected to focus the assessment of the wildlife and wildlife habitat element. Indicators are commonly used in conservation biology to illustrate a response to environmental changes that may apply to other species with similar ecological requirements (Niemi and McDonald 2004; Noss 1990). Narrowing the issues assessed and selecting indicators that reflect project issues, public and regulator interests is an accepted approach used to focus potential adverse effects assessments on issues that are important (Antoniuk 2000, 2002, Finley and Revel 2002, Hegmann et al. 1999, 2002). Beanlands and Duinker (1983) suggested that ecological scoping by way of studying indicators to allow useful predictions to be made for other valued ecosystem components is a useful tool in environmental effects assessments that considers practical constraints posed by time limitations, natural variability, the state of ecological knowledge and the scientific tools available.
The wildlife and wildlife habitat indicators were selected based on their potential interaction with and presumed adverse response to the Project, conservation or management status of concern, capacity to represent habitat requirements and use patterns of other species, listing as the Cumulative Effects Management Association (CEMA) priority indicators, and availability of meaningful measureable parameters that can be used to estimate potential adverse effects from the Project. This approach focuses the assessment on indicators that use a range of habitat types at different spatial and temporal scales. The indicator selection process also considered experience from past projects, guidance from regulatory agencies (see Appendix 9A), input from potentially affected Aboriginal communities, and the professional experience of the assessment team, which incorporates information from previous projects and available research literature regarding species biology and potential effects pathways.
The wildlife and wildlife habitat indicators selected for the assessment, and the rationale for their inclusion, are listed in Table 5.1-2. The wildlife and wildlife habitat indicators include species-specific indicators (black bear, boreal woodland caribou, moose, rusty blackbird, olive-sided flycatcher and Canada warbler) as well as one group indicator (furbearers) and two habitat-based community indicators (e.g., old-forest birds and pond-dwelling amphibians). Including species at risk as indicators facilitates a conservative assessment of potential Project effects, since species at risk are often sensitive, showing low resilience to environmental change. The group and community indicators were included in addition to species-specific indicators since they represent important habitat types that will be affected by the Project; address the broader suite of species in a given community or habitat type potentially affected by the Project; or the pathway and response to potential adverse effects of the Project is presumed to be similar between species comprising the group or community indicator. The indicators selected, therefore, represent a balance that ensures the broader wildlife community (e.g., common and more abundant species indicators), in addition to a selection of species at risk and individual species of concern, are evaluated. Furthermore, many of the indicators selected are identified by CEMA as priority indicators (Table 5.1-2) and, therefore, are consistent with the wildlife indicators often used in effects assessments for projects in northern Alberta. For an assessment of all federally-listed species at risk with potential to interact with the Project, refer to Sections 7.11 and 8.12.
Page 5-4
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
TABLE 5.1-2
INDICATORS AND RATIONALE FOR THE WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ELEMENT
Wildlife Indicator Rationale for Indicator Selection Black bear Potential for Project interaction; management and cultural importance; CEMA priority indicator; interactions with other wildlife resulting from responses to disturbance. Woodland Potential for Project interaction; conservation status; management and cultural caribou, boreal importance; CEMA priority indicator; environmental indicator (sensitive to disturbance). population Furbearers Potential for Project interaction; management and cultural importance; conservation status; fisher, marten, lynx and wolverine are environmental indicators (sensitive to environmental change), and were included specifically as focal species within the furbearers indicator. Fisher and lynx are CEMA priority indicators. Moose Potential for Project interaction; management and cultural importance; CEMA priority indicator; interactions with other wildlife resulting from responses to disturbance. Old-forest birds Potential for Project interaction; community indicator is a CEMA priority indicator and allows for assessment of a broader suite of bird species (at risk and common) that may be potentially affected in old forest habitats; represents an important habitat type potentially affected by the Project. The old-forest bird community indicator is defined to include the following species (based on range overlap and potential habitat within the Wildlife LSA): bay-breasted warbler; black-throated green warbler; brown creeper; Cape May warbler; golden-crowned kinglet; red-breasted nuthatch; western tanager; white-winged crossbill; winter wren; and barred owl. Rusty blackbird Potential for Project interaction; conservation status; environmental indicator (sensitive to disturbance); indicative of potential effects on species that rely on treed wetland and riparian habitats; narrower habitat requirements than those included in the old forest bird or pond-dwelling amphibian communities. Olive-sided Potential for Project interaction; conservation status; environmental indicator (sensitive to flycatcher disturbance); narrower habitat requirements than those included in the old-forest bird community (e.g., edge habitats). Canada warbler Potential for Project interaction; conservation status; environmental indicator (sensitive to disturbance); narrower habitat requirements than those included in the old-forest bird community (e.g., complex understory specialist). Pond-dwelling Potential for Project interaction; community indicator allows for assessment of a broad amphibians suite of pond-dwelling amphibian species (at risk and common) that may be potentially affected by the Project, including CEMA priority indicator species; represents an important habitat type affected by the Project; environmental indicator (sensitive to disturbance). The pond-dwelling amphibians indicator is defined to include the following species (based on range overlap and potential habitat within the Wildlife LSA): Canadian toad; western toad; long-toed salamander; boreal chorus frog; and wood frog. Western toad is identified as a focal species within this indicator, due to its conservation status and reliance on both aquatic and upland terrestrial habitats, which may be affected by the Project.
Provincial regulatory authorities were consulted for feedback regarding the selection of indicators for the assessment of potential Project effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat (refer to Appendix 9A for a summary of regulatory consultation). During these discussions, grizzly bear and bats were discussed as potential indicators, but were not selected for the following reasons. Grizzly bear was considered for inclusion as an indicator due to its sensitivity and cultural importance, and because the Boundary Lake Section crosses a provincially identified Secondary Zone for grizzly bear. However, consultation with provincial biologists confirmed that the potential for Project interaction is low and that black bear is a more relevant and suitable indicator of potential Project effects, given the geographic context of the Project (i.e., grizzly bear would only be relevant to the Boundary Lake Section and the Alces River Unit Addition whereas black bear is relevant for all Project components). In addition, many of the mitigation measures for black bear are also relevant to grizzly bear (e.g., access management). For these reasons, grizzly bear was not selected as an indicator, but it is assessed in Section 7.11 and 8.12 under Species at Risk.
Bats were also considered as an indicator due to their likely occurrence within the Wildlife LSA and the recent listing of little brown myotis and northern myotis as Endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA. There
Page 5-5
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345 are several bat species with the potential to occur in the Wildlife LSA, including eastern red bat, hoary bat, little brown myotis, long-legged bat, northern myotis, silver-haired bat and western small-footed bat. Several of these species are, or suspected to be, migratory, while little brown bat (facultative migrator), long-legged bat, northern myotis (facultative migrator) and western small-footed bat are resident species. The Endangered status of little brown and northern myotis is a result of white-nose syndrome, a fungal disease that affects hibernating bats, and causes serious population decline. White-nose syndrome is presently not reported west of Ontario in Canada. Considering the habitat characteristics and terrain features within the Wildlife LSA, there are no locations where the potential for suitable bat hibernacula have been identified. As a result, the potential for Project interaction with bats is mainly limited to tree-roosting habitat loss associated with clearing for construction. Loss of mature forest, where suitable roosting trees may occur, is evaluated as part of the assessment of the old-forest birds indicator, from which the potential effects on bats may be inferred. For these reasons, bats were not selected as an indicator, however, bat species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA are assessed in Sections 7.11 and 8.12.
Although trumpeter swan was discussed in consultation with regulators, neither trumpeter swan nor the bird community that inhabits riparian and aquatic habitats were suggested as indicators during consultation for the Project. However, riparian and wetland birds were considered by the assessment team as a community indicator. Preferred habitat for riparian and wetland birds is typified by aspects of preferred habitat of old- forest birds (older seral stage trees and stands), pond-dwelling amphibians (wetlands and riparian habitat) and rusty blackbirds (treed wetlands). Open water wetlands are avoided by the Project to the extent practical, and best practices for reducing disturbance in wetlands and riparian areas will be applied. Furthermore, wetland habitats have been demonstrated to be resilient to disturbance, provided the disturbance does not result in permanent loss or alteration of wetland function (see Section 7.8 for additional information on wetlands). Considering that riparian and wetland birds are likely to show similar responses to effects pathways as the other bird indicators, in addition to the above factors, riparian and wetland birds were not selected as a wildlife indicator. For individual riparian and wetland species that are also federally-listed species at risk, refer to their assessments in Sections 7.11 and 8.12.
5.2 Assessment Boundaries The ESA considered the potential effects of the Project on the environmental and socio-economic conditions within defined spatial and temporal boundaries. These boundaries will vary with the issues and biophysical or socio-economic elements or interactions to be considered, and will reflect:
• the biophysical and socio-economic baseline setting within the spatial boundaries of the Project;
• the construction, operations and decommissioning and abandonment phases of the proposed physical works and physical activities;
• the time required for an effect to become evident;
• the time required for an element to recover from an effect and return to a pre-effect condition;
• the area directly affected by proposed physical works and physical activities; and
• the area in which an element functions and within which a Project effect may be felt.
5.2.1 Spatial Boundaries Spatial boundaries were defined using the distribution, movement patterns or potential zones of interaction between the element and the Project. The spatial boundary used to assess the potential effects for any element may be limited to the Project Footprint or may extend beyond the physical boundaries of the Project Footprint, since the interaction of the Project with an element can be local, regional, provincial, national or international in extent.
The spatial boundaries used in the environmental and socio-economic effects assessment considered one or more of the following areas.
Page 5-6
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
• The Project Footprint is the area directly disturbed by the Project activities (e.g., pipeline construction rights-of-way, compressor stations, construction camps including associated access and other temporary infrastructure and workspace).
• The LSA varies with the environmental and socio-economic element being considered and is based on the area in which an element functions and within which the potential effects of the Project are most likely to occur.
• The RSA varies with the environmental and socio-economic element being considered and includes the Project Footprint and LSA, and the area extending beyond the LSA boundary where there is potential for the Project to have regional effects on the element or to interact with existing or reasonably foreseeable developments to have cumulative effects on the element.
• Provincial Area (i.e., the area extending beyond regional or administrative boundaries).
• National Area (i.e., the area extending beyond Alberta, but confined to Canada).
• International Area (i.e., the area extending beyond Canada).
The Project Footprint is consistent between all elements assessed. The Project Footprint assumes certain quantitative values for the area that will be directly disturbed by Project construction. These areas of the components of the Project Footprint are based on information known at the time of ESA preparation. The total Project Footprint necessary for construction is approximately 897.4 ha. Approximately 602 ha will be associated with the construction rights-of-way, approximately 260.3 ha will be extra temporary workspace, approximately 15.8 ha will consist of valve sites, log decks, laydown and staging areas, and approximately 19.3 ha will be associated with the proposed compressor stations. A breakdown of the area required for each Project Component is provided in Table 5.2-1.
TABLE 5.2-1
PROJECT FOOTPRINT AREA FOR THE PROJECT
Valve Construction Temporary Sites Staging Total Project Right-of-Way/ Workspace Log Decks Area Laydown Area Footprint Component Site Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) (ha) Area (ha) (ha) Area (ha) Boundary Lake 233.3 84.5 7.1 1.0 1.7 1.4 328.2(1) Section Bear Canyon 64.1 42.9 2.4 0.5 0 0 109.7(1) Section McLeod River 77.0 92.7 0 0 0 0 169.7 Section Pelican Lake 179.8 25.1 0 0 0 0 204.9 Section Christina River 47.8 14.8 2.5 0.8 0 0 65.6(1) Section Alces River 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 Unit Addition Otter Lake Unit 9.0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 Addition Construction 8.1 0 0 0 0 0 8.1 Camp Associated with the Otter Lake Unit Addition Note: The total Project Footprint area is not a sum of all footprint types for the specific component since there is overlap in area due to the location of valve sites within the right-of-way.
Page 5-7
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 2017 NGTL System Expansion March 2015/ 497874/650026/650027/650028/650029/652265/652345
The LSAs and RSAs for the Project were developed on an element-specific basis and, therefore, vary between elements. The LSA and RSA boundaries reflect a balance between choosing a large area that would mask or dilute the potential effects of the Project, versus choosing a smaller area where the effect under consideration may no longer be meaningful. The definitions and rationale for establishment of spatial boundaries are provided by element in Table 5.2-2 and are illustrated on Figures 5.2-1 to 5.2-13.
Page 5-8
TABLE 5.2-2
SPATIAL BOUNDARIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS FOR THE PROJECT
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Physical and LSA: A 1 km wide band extending LSA: A Physical Environment and Soils LSA was established to 5.2-1 Meteorological approximately 500 m from both sides of the incorporate the area in which the physical environment is most likely to Environment proposed pipeline routes and a 500 m be affected by all phases of the Project. The Physical Environment radius extending outwards from the and Soils LSA is defined as the zone of influence (ZOI) likely to be proposed compressor station boundaries, affected by all phases of the Project, and incorporates the potential including known associated temporary effects that may extend off the Project Footprint (e.g., water erosion on infrastructure, workspace and construction slopes and slumping). Where LSAs overlap (e.g., the Boundary Lake camp. Section and the Alces River Unit Addition), the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects may interact. Therefore, the relevant, independent RSA: None established. LSAs were integrated into one, contiguous LSA for the purpose of the cumulative effects assessment.
RSA: Potential effects are not anticipated to extend beyond the Physical Environment and Soils LSA, therefore, a Physical Environment and Soils RSA has not been established. Soil and Soil Productivity See Physical and Meteorological See Physical and Meteorological Environment. 5.2-1 Page Page Environment. Water Quality and Pipeline LSA: A 1 km wide band extending Pipeline LSA: The Water Quality and Quantity Pipeline LSA on land 5.2-2 5
- Quantity approximately 500 m from both sides of the (i.e., not at watercourses or drainages) is defined as the area likely to 9
proposed pipeline routes, on land. At be affected by direct disturbance during all phases of the Project to watercourses, the LSA consists of the area incorporate the potential effects that may extend off the Project extending 100 m upstream at each crossing Footprint (e.g., water erosion). location to a minimum of 300 m At watercourses and drainages, the upstream limit was determined downstream. At drainages, the LSA consists because Project-related activities are unlikely to affect water quality of the area extending 100 m upstream at and quantity upstream of the crossing location. The downstream limit each crossing location to a minimum of is based on the ZOI likely to be affected by direct disturbance and 100 m downstream (i.e., the Fish and Fish sediment deposition during all phases of the Project at each Habitat LSA at a given watercourse or watercourse or drainage. drainage) for all pipeline routes. The length of the LSA may be modified at the discretion Pipeline RSA: Since the spatial extent to which the Project may affect of the Qualified Aquatic Environmental water quality and quantity is similar to that determined for fish and fish Specialist (QAES), where warranted, based habitat, the Water Quality and Quantity RSA was selected based on on site-specific information such as channel Project-related effects on fish and fish habitat at pipeline routes. width, discharge, gradient and ZOI.
Pipeline RSA: A 30 km wide band extending approximately 15 km from both sides of the proposed pipeline routes.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Water Quality and Compressor Station LSA: A 30 m radius Compressor Station LSA: The development of compressor stations See above Quantity (cont’d) extending outwards from the proposed will affect surface flow patterns, therefore, the Water Quality and compressor station boundaries including Quantity LSA consists of a 30 m band around the station sites. known associated temporary infrastructure, workspace and construction camp. Compressor Station RSA: The introduction of a compressor station on the landscape would be expected to have local effects, but would Compressor Station RSA: A 10 km radius be unlikely to affect surface and groundwater quality and quantity extending outwards from the proposed beyond a distance of 10 km. A 10 km radius is consistent with facility compressor station boundaries including spatial boundaries submitted for recent NEB-regulated projects. known associated temporary infrastructure, workspace and construction camp. Air Quality Pipeline LSA: N/A LSA: No Air Quality LSA was established for the Project since the 5.2-3 effects from air emissions are regional in nature due to the transport Pipeline RSA: A 6 km wide band extending and dispersion of pollutants away from the source. approximately 3 km from both sides of the proposed pipeline routes. RSA: An Air Quality RSA was established to consider the area in which activities associated with all phases of the Project would most Page Page Compressor Station LSA: N/A likely have an effect on air emissions. The spatial boundary also encompasses the areas where there is a potential for cumulative
5 environmental effects from other reasonably foreseeable
- Compressor Station RSA: A 10 km by 10 10 km square centered on the compressor developments and activities. The Air Quality RSA boundary was
station sites. defined based on expert knowledge and previous experience. It was defined such that it provides a representative analysis of the effects of the Project on the atmospheric environment and on any sensitive receptors. Other factors considered in determining the size of study area include the nature and magnitude of the Project-related emissions and existing environment. GHG Emissions International: global GHG emissions cause increases in mean global temperature by n/a absorbing additional long-wave radiation in the atmosphere and re-emitting part of the radiation to the ground. Therefore, the spatial boundary for GHG emissions is international and encompasses all sources of GHG emissions from the Project. Since current international negotiations focus on the reduction of direct emissions within national jurisdictions, this assessment follows common practice to compare Project-related GHG emissions to total provincial and national GHG emissions.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Acoustic Environment Pipeline LSA: A 6 km wide band extending LSA: The Acoustic Environment LSA was established based on 5.2-4 approximately 3 km from both sides of the consideration of the area in which humans and wildlife are most likely proposed pipeline routes. to be affected by Project-related noise during all phases of the Project. Consequently, the spatial boundaries of the Acoustic Environment Compressor Station LSA: A 3 km radius LSA have been defined based on guidance from Alberta’s Directive 38 extending outwards from the proposed (Bulletin 2008-04) (Energy Resources Conservation Board compressor station boundaries including [ERCB] 2007) as the distance from the Project fence line (or Project known associated temporary infrastructure, Footprint) where the relevant permissible sound level (PSL) must be workspace and construction camp. met in the absence of noise receptors.
RSA: N/A RSA: Effects of noise attributed to the Project are unlikely to extend beyond the Acoustic Environment LSA. Fish and Fish Habitat Pipeline LSA: At watercourses, the LSA Pipeline LSA: The upstream limit was determined because 5.2-5 consists of the area extending 100 m Project-related activities are unlikely to affect fish and fish habitat upstream at each crossing location to a upstream of the crossing location. The downstream limit is based on minimum of 300 m downstream. At the ZOI likely to be affected by direct disturbance and sediment drainages, the LSA consists of the area deposition during all phases of the Project at each watercourse or
Page Page extending 100 m upstream at each crossing drainage. The riparian component is based on the area of riparian location, to a minimum of 100 m habitat likely to be affected by Project activities.
5 downstream. The length of the LSA may be - 11 modified at the discretion of the QAES, Pipeline RSA: The Fish and Fish Habitat RSA is the area where the where warranted, based on site-specific direct and indirect influence of other activities could interact with the information such as channel width, Project and may cause cumulative effects. The Fish and Fish Habitat discharge, gradient and ZOI. The Fish and RSA was selected based on the recognized presence of several Fish Habitat LSA also includes a 30 m area migratory fish species (e.g., northern pike and white sucker) in the from the edge of each bank, extending to vicinity of the Project and the potential for the Project to have the width of the construction rights-of-way to population level effects that extend beyond the boundaries of the Fish encompass riparian habitat. and Fish Habitat LSA.
Pipeline RSA: A 30 km wide band Compressor Station LSA and RSA: No work will be conducted extending approximately 15 km from both within 30 m of fish-bearing waters, therefore, detailed information on sides of the proposed pipeline routes. fish and fish habitat and effects assessment for fish and fish habitat is not warranted, as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual, and a Fish Compressor Stations LSA: N/A and Fish Habitat LSA is not applicable.
Compressor Stations RSA: N/A
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Wetlands Pipeline LSA: A 2 km wide band extending Pipeline LSA: The Wetland Pipeline LSA incorporates the area in 5.2-6 approximately 1 km from both sides of the which wetlands are most likely to be affected by potential temporary proposed pipeline routes. disturbance due to all phases of the proposed pipelines. The spatial boundaries of the Wetland Pipeline LSA are defined as a 2 km wide Pipeline RSA: A 30 km band extending band extending from the centre of the proposed construction approximately 15 km from both sides of the right-of-way (i.e., 1 km both sides). Key considerations used to proposed pipeline routes. establish the spatial boundaries of the Wetland Pipeline LSA for the proposed pipeline routes were to encompass those wetlands directly Compressor Station LSA: A 1 km radius affected by construction, operations and decommissioning and extending outwards from the proposed abandonment activities. The 2 km wide Wetland Pipeline LSA compressor station boundaries including encompasses the Water Quality and Quantity Pipeline LSA and is the known associated temporary infrastructure, maximum distance at which vegetation is predicted to be directly workspace and construction camp. affected by all phases of the proposed pipelines and includes wetlands adjacent to the Project Footprint which may be susceptible to
hydrologic, habitat and biogeochemical alteration. This spatial Compressor Station RSA: A 10 km wide boundary not only encompasses the ZOI in which vegetation element radius extending outwards from the edge of occurrences could be affected by all phases of the proposed pipeline, the proposed compressor station both directly and indirectly, but it also extends to encompass local Page Page boundaries including known associated surface water connectivity adjacent to the proposed pipeline routes. temporary infrastructure, workspace and Element occurrences are defined as the area in which an element,
5 construction camp.
- such as vegetation species or community, are present or were 12 previously documented, and often refer to a local population of a
species or stand of a particular community (NatureServe 2002). The methodology outlined by NatureServe identifies the minimum distance for assessing element occurrences as 1 km (NatureServe 2002). This methodology is implemented by provincial conservation data centres such as Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) to define elements of concern, including listed wetland communities, and rank their rarity across the landscape. The ZOI is unlikely to extend greater than the Wetland LSA boundary due to the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The Wetland Pipeline LSA aligns with the Vegetation Pipeline RSA, as changes in vegetation (i.e., species or communities) are expected to be a gauge of the effects on wetland function.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Wetlands (cont’d) See above. Pipeline RSA: The Wetland Pipeline RSA incorporates the area in See above which other land uses could interact with wetlands in the Wetland Pipeline LSA and have the potential to be directly, indirectly or cumulatively affected by the potential temporary disturbance due to all phases of the proposed pipelines. The Wetland Pipeline RSA aligns with the Water Quality and Quantity Pipeline RSA, since hydrology is the overall driver for both wetlands and aquatic ecosystems. Where RSAs overlap (e.g., the Boundary Lake Section and the Alces River Unit Addition), the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects may interact. Therefore, the relevant, independent RSAs were integrated into one, contiguous RSA for the purpose of the cumulative effects assessment.
Compressor Station LSA: The Wetland Compressor Station LSA incorporates the area in which wetlands are most likely to be affected by all phases of the permanent facilities. The 1 km wide Wetland Compressor Station LSA encompasses the Water Quality and
Page Page Quantity Compressor Station LSA and is the maximum distance at which vegetation is predicted to be directly affected by all phases of the Project and includes wetlands adjacent to the Project Footprint 5 -
13 which may be susceptible to hydrologic, habitat and biogeochemical
alteration. The Wetland Compressor Station LSA aligns with the Vegetation Compressor Station RSA, since changes in vegetation (i.e., species or communities) are expected to be a gauge of the effects on wetland function.
Compressor Station RSA: The Wetland Compressor Station RSA incorporates the area in which other land uses could interact with wetlands in the Wetland Compressor Station LSA and have the potential to be directly, indirectly or cumulatively affected by all phases of the permanent facilities. The Wetland Compressor Station RSA aligns with the Water Quality and Quantity Compressor Station RSA, since hydrology is the overall driver for both wetlands and aquatic ecosystems.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Vegetation Pipeline LSA: A 400 m wide band Vegetation Pipeline LSA: The Vegetation Pipeline LSA was 5.2-7 extending approximately 200 m from both established to incorporate the area in which vegetation resources are sides of the proposed pipeline routes. most likely to be affected by all phases of the proposed pipelines. Key considerations used to establish the spatial boundaries of the Pipeline RSA: A 2 km wide band extending Vegetation Pipeline LSA were the expected distance that changes in approximately 1 km from both sides of the light regimen, microclimate, dust effects and other edge effects which proposed pipeline routes. are expected to extend from a disturbed area. Although existing vegetation composition will only be altered in the Project Footprint, Compressor Station LSA: A 200 m radius vegetation composition in areas adjacent to the Project Footprint will extending outwards from the proposed be affected by indirect effects resulting from clearing. The Vegetation compressor station boundaries including Pipeline LSA spatial boundary was established to ensure a known associated temporary infrastructure, conservative consideration of the distances that these effects are workspace and construction camp. expected to extend. The spatial extent of changes in vegetation composition may be affected by a number of factors. In one study,
increased light was shown to allow the invasion of shade-intolerant Compressor Station RSA: A 1 km radius vegetation up to 30 m from the edge of the disturbance (Ranney et extending outwards from the proposed al. 1981). Some tree species exhibit increased growth and compressor station boundaries including regeneration within 30-60 m of clear-cut edges, however, tree Page Page known associated temporary infrastructure, mortality can also increase (Bannerman 1998). Within an old growth workspace and construction camp. Douglas-fir forest, air temperature and humidity were generally found 5
- to be influenced to a depth of 120-180 m in areas adjacent to a clear- 14 cut edge, while soil temperature and moisture were influenced from
60-120 m from the edge (Chen et al. 1990). While some roadway effects are not applicable to pipeline construction, equipment traffic along the construction right-of-way, the use of temporary access and the removal of vegetation may result in some comparable effects. Forman et al. (2003) found that the greatest changes to microclimate and dust levels occurred within the first 30-50 m from road edges, while the greatest changes in hydrological function, salinity and nitrogen levels could extend 100-200 m from the disturbed area.
Vegetation Pipeline RSA: The Vegetation Pipeline RSA was established to incorporate the area where the direct and indirect influence of other land uses and activities could interact with Project-specific effects and may cause cumulative effects on vegetation. Key considerations used to establish the spatial boundaries of the Vegetation Pipeline RSA included the separation distance typically used to distinguish one rare plant population from another; the area of influence for biotic edge effects; the dispersal of non-native, invasive species to or from the proposed pipeline routes; baseline data and mapping sufficient to support accurate assessment of wildlife habitat and wetland resources within the respective LSAs of those biophysical components; and the physical footprint of the proposed pipeline routes within a regional landscape context.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Vegetation (cont’d) See above. An element occurrence is the area of land or water in which a rare See above species or rare ecological community of conservation interest is or was present (NatureServe 2002). Element occurrences generally refer to a local population or metapopulation (NatureServe 2002). Although there are many factors that may be taken into account in determining individual element occurrences, the default minimum separation distance for plant species element occurrences is 1 km (NatureServe 2002, 2004). The NatureServe methodology is used by ACIMS to define records of rare species and rank species rarity (AESRD 2014).
Changes in wind patterns as a result of vegetation removal and vehicle movement, soil disturbance and increased vehicle traffic can affect the dispersal of non-native, invasive species (Forman et al. 2003). Although dispersal distances depend upon a number of factors, many weed species produce large numbers of seeds that are wind dispersed. For example, over one third of the species listed in the Alberta Weed
Page Page Control Regulation belong to the sunflower family (Asteraceae), which is adapted for wind dispersal. Forman et al. (2003) estimated that invasion into the surrounding landscape by non-native, invasive 5 -
15 species could extend upwards of 1 km from the disturbed area.
Wildlife habitat resources are important vegetation-related components of ecosystems encountered by the Project. A 2 km wide Vegetation RSA (i.e., 1 km on both sides of the centre lines for the proposed pipeline routes) corresponds with the Wildlife LSA for the Project, which will facilitate accurate mapping, modelling and assessment of wildlife habitat at a scale where it is most likely to be affected by Project construction and operations.
In addition, within the 2 km wide band of the Vegetation RSA, the physical Footprint of the Project represents a non-trivial proportion of the land base within the Vegetation RSA (i.e., approximately 897.5 ha or approximately 1.9% of the total 48,082.2 ha assessment area contained within the 2 km wide Vegetation RSA), allowing for meaningful assessment of the potential effects on native vegetation within a greater ecological context.
Where RSAs overlap (e.g., the Boundary Lake Section and the Alces River Unit Addition), the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects may interact. Therefore, the relevant, independent RSAs were integrated into one, contiguous RSA for the purpose of the cumulative effects assessment.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Vegetation (cont’d) See above. Vegetation Compressor Station LSA: The Vegetation Compressor See above Station LSA was established to incorporate the area in which vegetation resources are most likely to be affected by all phases of the permanent facilities. Key considerations used to establish the spatial boundaries of the Vegetation Compressor Station LSA were the expected distance that changes in light regimen, microclimate, dust effects and other edge effects which are expected to extend from a disturbed area. See the explanations for these key considerations in the Vegetation Pipeline LSA description above.
Vegetation Compressor RSA: Key considerations in defining the Vegetation Compressor Station RSA were: the separation distance typically used to distinguish one rare plant population from another; the area of influence for biotic edge effects; the dispersal of non-native, invasive species to or from the proposed compressor station sites; baseline data and mapping sufficient to support accurate assessment of wildlife habitat and wetland resources within the
Page Page respective LSAs of those biophysical components; and the physical footprint of the proposed compressor station sites within a regional landscape context. See the explanations for these key considerations 5 -
16 in the Vegetation Pipeline RSA description above.
Wildlife and Wildlife LSA: A 2 km wide corridor extending Wildlife LSA: Each Project component has its own Wildlife LSA. Each 5.2-8 and 5.2.9 Habitat approximately 1 km from both sides of the Wildlife LSA encompasses the Project Footprint and extends beyond it proposed pipeline routes, and a 1 km radius to include the surrounding area where there is a reasonable potential extending outwards from the proposed for Project-specific effects to occur. The Wildlife LSA considers the compressor station boundaries including wildlife species expected to interact with the Project, the effect known associated temporary infrastructure, pathways and available information on wildlife sensitivity to workspace and construction camp. disturbance (e.g., ZOIs and setback distances). The Wildlife LSA represents the stand-level spatial scale for the evaluation of effects on RSA: A 30 km wide corridor extending wildlife key indicators. The scope and spatial extent of the Wildlife LSA approximately 15 km from both sides of the were reviewed in consultation with provincial biologists and no proposed pipeline routes and a 15 km concerns were identified (see Appendix 9A). radius extending outwards from the proposed compressor station boundaries, including known associated temporary infrastructure, workspace and construction camp.
Caribou RSA: The area defined by the boundaries of the Chinchaga caribou range, the WSAR caribou range and the ESAR caribou range.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Wildlife and Wildlife See above. Wildlife RSA: The Wildlife RSA encompasses the Project Footprint, See above Habitat (cont’d) the Wildlife LSA and the surrounding area where there is the potential for the Project to interact with other activities to have cumulative effects. The spatial extent of the Wildlife RSA represents a compromise between choosing a large area that would mask or dilute the potential adverse effects of the Project, versus choosing a smaller area where the potential adverse effects on the wildlife indicator under consideration may no longer be meaningful. The Wildlife RSA is spatially discrete for most of the Project components since the Project components are more than 30 km apart and, therefore, the RSA does not overlap. Where the Wildlife RSA overlaps (e.g., the Boundary Lake Section and the Alces River Unit Addition), the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects may interact and, therefore the Wildlife RSA for both Project components is represented by one contiguous area. The scope and spatial extent of the Wildlife RSA was reviewed in consultation with provincial biologists and no concerns were identified (see Appendix 9A).
Page Page Caribou RSA: The Caribou RSA encompasses the entirety of the boreal woodland caribou ranges that overlap with the Project Footprint, 5 -
17 which includes the Chinchaga caribou range, the WSAR caribou range
and the ESAR caribou range, which is the scale at which caribou management and recovery planning in Alberta is focused. However, within the ESAR caribou range, subpopulations (typically referred to as herds) are identified that are largely independent from each other (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development [ASRD] and Alberta Conservation Association [ACA] 2010). The available literature suggests that there is little movement of collared caribou between subpopulations within the ESAR caribou range. Therefore, cumulative analyses for caribou in the ESAR caribou range are completed for both the entire ESAR range and the Agnes herd range. Further explanation of the cumulative effects analysis method for boreal woodland caribou is provided in Section 8.11. Species at Risk Spatial boundaries used to assess the See Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation and Wildlife and Wildlife 5.2-5, 5.2-7, potential effects on fish, plant and wildlife Habitat. 5.2-8 and 5.2-9 species at risk are provided under the fish and fish habitat, vegetation, and wildlife and wildlife habitat rows above.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. HORU LSA: A 2 km wide band extending LSA: The HORU LSA was established to provide adequate 5.2-10 approximately 1 km from both sides of the consideration of existing land and resource uses, including farming, proposed pipeline routes and a 1 km radius grazing, hunting, fishing and trapping, and encompasses the LSAs of extending outwards from the proposed other relevant elements that were used to establish the HORU LSA compressor station boundaries, including (e.g., wildlife and wildlife habitat, and fish and fish habitat). known associated temporary infrastructure, workspace and construction camp. RSA: The HORU RSA reflects the general Project setting and describes resource use-related elements that could be indirectly RSA: A 30 km wide band extending affected by the Project. Where RSAs overlap (e.g., the Boundary Lake approximately 15 km from both sides of the Section and the Alces River Unit Addition), the Project’s contribution to proposed pipeline routes and a 15 km cumulative effects may interact. Therefore, the relevant, independent radius extending outwards from the RSAs were integrated into one, contiguous RSA for the purpose of the proposed compressor station boundaries, cumulative effects assessment. The HORU RSA encompasses the including known associated temporary RSAs of other relevant elements that were used to establish the infrastructure, workspace and construction HORU RSA (e.g., wildlife and wildlife habitat). camp. Heritage Resources LSA: Is the same as the Project Footprint. LSA: The potential for impacting archaeological, historic or 5.2-11
Page Page paleontological resources is limited to areas of potential clearing or RSA: Comprises an area extending beyond ground disturbance (i.e., the Project Footprint). Consequently, a
5 the Project Footprint and is defined as an separate Heritage Resources LSA has not been defined for the - 18 area of adjoining Borden Blocks intersected Project.
by the pipeline routes. The Borden Blocks intersected by the pipeline routes measure RSA: A Borden Block measures 10 minutes of latitude by 10 minutes approximately 12 km east-west by 18 km of longitude which is the accepted standard division of land used by north-south. archaeologists across Canada (Borden and Duff 1952). TLRU LSA: Includes the combined extent of water LSA: The TLRU LSA includes the LSA boundaries of water quality 5.2-123 quality and quantity, air quality, acoustic and quantity, air quality, acoustic environment, fish and fish habitat, environment, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat and heritage vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat and resources since TLRU is dependent upon these resources. heritage resources LSAs. RSA: The TLRU RSA is the area where the direct and indirect RSA: Includes the combined extent of water influences of other land uses and activities could overlap with quality and quantity, air quality, acoustic Project-related effects and cause cumulative effects on TLRU. In environment, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, some cases, the focus of TLRU may be on lands within a few hundred vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat and metres of the Project Footprint and, in other cases, broader territory heritage resources RSAs. may be identified extending several kilometres from the Project Footprint. As a result, the potential effects of the Project on TLRU are also assessed within the TLRU RSA. Where RSAs overlap (e.g., the Boundary Lake Section and the Alces River Unit Addition), the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects may interact. Therefore, the relevant, independent RSAs were integrated into one, contiguous RSA for the purpose of the cumulative effects assessment.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Social and Cultural LSA: Municipalities (e.g., hamlets, LSA: For communities in the Community LSA, the primary criterion 5.2-13 Well-Being villages, towns and cities) and Aboriginal was whether direct effects, such as a physical, social or economic communities, where it can be reasonably change, could result from an interaction between components of the expected that direct effects from the Project Project (i.e., pipelines, compressor stations, construction camp, would occur. For the purpose of the access and other temporary infrastructure and workspace) and assessment, this will be referred to as a community residents, and economic, social or cultural resources of Community LSA. interest. The secondary criterion for the inclusion of population centres was whether the community was a service centre that could offer RSA: Regions (e.g., municipal districts, goods or services to the Project. Regarding the Aboriginal counties and regional municipalities) where communities, the secondary criterion for the inclusion of I.R.s was it can be reasonably expected that direct whether the community was in close proximity to, and reliant on, a effects from the Project would occur. For the service centre that could offer goods and services to the Project. purpose of the assessment, this will be referred to as a Community RSA. RSA: The Community RSA includes the regional boundaries in which Project components are located and communities and resources that are not included in the Community LSA, but may be directly and indirectly affected by the Project. Where RSAs overlap or are adjacent
Page Page (e.g., the Boundary Lake Section, the Bear Canyon Section and the Alces River Unit Addition), the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects may interact. Therefore, the relevant, independent RSAs were 5 -
19 integrated into one, contiguous RSA for the purpose of the cumulative
effects assessment. Human Health HORU LSA and RSA. The HORU spatial boundaries were used to reflect the interactions of 5.2-10 the Project with environmental and socio-economic elements, which were considered in the assessment of human health. Environmental and socio-economic elements associated with the Project that may be related to human health include the physical and meteorological environment, soil and soil productivity, water quality and quantity, air emissions, acoustic environment, fish and fish habitat, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, HORU, navigation and navigation safety, TLRU, social and cultural well-being, and infrastructure and services. Infrastructure and Community LSA and RSA. See Social and Cultural Well-Being. 5.2-13 Services Navigation and Navigation HORU LSA and RSA. The HORU spatial boundaries were used to reflect the interactions of 5.2-10 Safety the Project with environmental and socio-economic elements, which were considered in the assessment of navigation and navigation safety. Environmental and socio-economic elements associated with the Project that may be related to navigation and navigation safety include water quality and quantity, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, HORU, TLRU and social and cultural well-being. Employment and Community LSA and RSA. See Social and Cultural Well-Being. 5.2-13 Economy Accidents and The applicable biological or socio-economic N/A Malfunctions element LSA or Socio-Economic RSA.
TABLE 5.2-2 Cont'd
Element Spatial Boundaries1 Rationale Figure No. Changes to the Project The applicable biological or socio-economic N/A Caused by the element LSA or Socio-Economic RSA. Environment Note: 1 The Project Footprint is not listed in this table since it does not vary between elements. The Project Footprint is defined in Section 5.2.1.
Page Page 5 - 20