S (NGTL) North Corridor Expansion Project Environmental and Socio- Economic Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Third-Party review of NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.’s (NGTL) North Corridor Expansion Project Environmental and Socio- Economic Assessment Prepared for Driftpile Cree Nation December 2019 Prepared by: 207 Edgebrook Close NW Calgary, Alberta T3A 4W5 Canada North Corridor Expansion ESA Review December 2019 List of Contributors Vegetation, Wetlands, & Reclamation Dr. Sheri Gutsell Aquatic Ecology Ms. Karilynn Simpson, M.Sc. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat Ms. Abbie Stewart, M.Sc., P. Biol. Traditional Land and Resource Use Dr. Ave Dersch Senior Review & Project Management Dr. Brian Kopach Document Integration & Editing Ms. Abbie Stewart, M.Sc., P. Biol. Driftpile Cree Nation Consultation Mr. Karl Giroux i North Corridor Expansion ESA Review December 2019 Executive Summary The Driftpile Cree Nation (DCN) collaborated with Management and Solutions in Environmental Science (MSES) to review NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.’s (NGTL) North Corridor Expansion Project (the Project) Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA). MSES focused our review of the ESA on the assessment of potential impacts of the Project on Vegetation & Reclamation, Aquatic Ecology, Wildlife Ecology, Traditional Land and Resource Use, which are key areas of concern for DCN members. The purpose of this report is to: • Assess the rigor of the impact assessment and follow-up programs for the disciplines listed above as presented by NGTL in the ESA; • Present recommendations that seek to fill the identified gaps in the impact assessment, and to ensure that the mitigation and monitoring of Project-related impacts will be effective. Key recommendations for each discipline are as follows: Vegetation, Wetlands & Reclamation a) The Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) should require NGTL to provide an estimate of the area needed for temporary workspace and infrastructure throughout the three proposed pipeline sections and compressor station. b) The CER should require NGTL to clarify how they will measure similarity in function between off-Project sites and post-construction wetlands in areas of temporary disturbance, particularly in terms of species richness and diversity. NGTL should also be required to clarify how they will define success in the re-establishment of wetland function, particularly in terms of plant species and plant communities. c) We recommend that the CER require NGTL to provide clear and direct evidence from the boreal forest to show that their planned mitigation measures in areas of “temporary disturbance” will result in reversible and non-significant impacts on wetland function. Specifically, NGTL should be required to show that post-construction wetland plant communities have a high similarity, in terms of species richness and diversity, to the wetland plant communities present prior to disturbance, or to those in adjacent wetland areas. Aquatic Ecology a) We recommend NGTL collect baseline water quality data from all planned watercourse crossing locations, from both upstream and downstream sites. Water quality data should ii North Corridor Expansion ESA Review December 2019 include analysis of parameters such as alkalinity, dissolved organic carbon, conductivity, metals (total and dissolved), hydrocarbons and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). b) The CER should require NGTL to collect baseline water quality data prior to construction, during winter. c) We recommend NGTL monitor beaver dam reconstruction and subsequent water quality parameters up and downstream of beaver dam removal sites. d) The CER should require NGTL to provide a water quality monitoring plan that details the locations of water quality monitoring sites, including up and downstream sampling locations at each watercourse crossing. Water quality data should include analysis of parameters such as alkalinity, dissolved organic carbon, conductivity, metals (total and dissolved), hydrocarbons and TSS. e) We recommend that water quality monitoring should occur at each watercourse for a minimum of 5 years following construction to determine if additional remediation of riparian habitat or watercourse crossings is required. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat a) We recommend that the CER direct NGTL to describe how their proposed Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan (CHROMP) differs from typical caribou protection plans and standard best management practices and to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measures have been effective at minimizing impacts to caribou. b) We recommend that the CER direct NGTL to provide proposed future caribou monitoring and management plans, including the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Implementation Report (CHROIR) and the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Plan (CHROMMP) and any other applicable plans, to DCN for review once they are available. c) As wood bison were not mentioned in the ESA, we recommend that the CER direct NGTL to discuss potential project impacts on wood bison and to develop species-specific mitigation measures that can be implemented or identify those mitigation measures that are already proposed that can minimize Project impacts on this Species at Risk. The Hidden Lake North Compressor Station Unit Addition falls within the Alberta Bison Protection Area. d) We recommend that CER encourage NGTL to make a commitment to provide DCN with sufficient time and capacity to review updated Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) before finalization and prior to construction activities commencing. e) We recommend that the CER require NGTL to include quantitative monitoring of wildlife habitat use of revegetated or reclaimed sites in their post construction monitoring program to ensure that mitigation measures are effective from a wildlife perspective. f) We recommend that the CER require NGTL to collect appropriate, quantitative wildlife baseline data, prior to construction activities, that could be used to support post construction monitoring of wildlife habitat use. iii North Corridor Expansion ESA Review December 2019 g) We recommend that the CER require NGTL to utilize systematic, quantitative methods to monitor mitigation measure effectiveness and evaluate wildlife impact prediction accuracy. h) We recommend that the CER require NGTL to provide DCN with clear, detailed information on whether and how their input has been “considered” and direct that there be regular engagement during the construction, operations and reclamation phases of the Project, so that the communities can ensure that their key concerns have been addressed in a meaningful way. Traditional Land & Resource Use a) We recommend that the CER require NGTL to include ‘operations’ to the list of project activities that have the potential to result in effects on all categories of Traditional Land and Resource Use (TLRU) and discuss impacts from operations in Table 5.14-1 Mitigation for Potential Effects on Traditional Land and Resource Use (pages 5-235 to 237). b) Given that all Traditional Land and Resource Use Study (TLRUS) may not have been completed at the time of writing and because time and budgetary constraints may not always allow for comprehensive TLRUS, a conservative approach should be taken that assumes that all categories of traditional land and resource use sites and activities may be present in the Local Study Area (LSA). NGTL states themselves that there is an “inherent uncertainty associated with patterns and exact locations of where TLRU is conducted by all Aboriginal groups in the TLRU LSA and RSA” (pg. 5-241). Such a conservative approach should adhere to the recommendation made above (a). c) We recommend that the CER require NGTL to create a detailed monitoring program that clearly outlines how the effectiveness of mitigation strategies (specific to TLRU) will be assessed throughout construction and operations (e.g., if their communication strategies with Aboriginal land users are effective or need to be revised). d) All personnel of the Company, their Contractor(s) and subcontractors involved in construction must be enrolled in mandatory Aboriginal-led training on how to identity (at a high level) potential TLRU sites, heritage sites, or human remains and to familiarize them with the Cultural Resource Discovery Contingency Plan (CRDCP). This training would be facilitated by Aboriginal subject matter experts or a third party of their choosing. e) A Heritage Resource Specialist must be notified during Step 1 of the CRDCP. f) A clear outline of how NGTL will determine which Aboriginal groups to inform in the event of a Chance Find (when an archaeological site is found during construction, after archaeological clearance has been granted). g) The Heritage Resource Specialist must develop an appropriate mitigation plan in collaboration with the potentially effected Aboriginal groups, including Driftpile, as opposed to developing it independently, along with a requirement that the Heritage Resource Specialist review the plan with affected Aboriginal groups, including Driftpile. iv North Corridor Expansion ESA Review December 2019 h) We recommend that the CER ask NGTL to consider a unique and appropriate Regional Study Area (RSA) for each Aboriginal community for their Assessment of Effects on Traditional Land and Resource Use. v North Corridor Expansion ESA Review December 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ...........................................................................................................................